Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Mod objective

2008-08-27T16:28:09Z

Mod objective: /* Yahweh lead */

== [[Yahweh]] ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing]] a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]{{#if:|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} is not consistent with our policy of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], please take this opportunity to add references to the article. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid using misleading edit summaries as you did here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233515080&oldid=233514916]. That wasn't sourced by the Bible--you just don't care for it. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello moving. I've left you some questions on the talk page on the Yahweh article. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Collaborative conduct ==

Hi there. It's std practice in Wikipedia to try to be as civil with each other as possible. See [[WP:CIVIL]] and related links. Lack of civility can be grounds for a block or other sanctions. Toward this end, we need to make a strong effort to [[WP:AGF|assume the good faith]] of other editors in upholding WP policies.

For this reason, I'd ask you to reconsider wording such as your recent comment: "...arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name" This wording suggests that are not assuming the other editor's good intentions. Please <s>strikeout</s> or revise your comment. Thanks very much. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Um, I don't know what you are referring to. What information have I insisted be deleted? Thanks for your patience as you get adjusted to collaborating here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a been a long day...:)
Thanks and sorry, wrong user...

== [[Yahweh]] lead ==

Per [[WP:LEAD]],

:''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.''

The two-line version you keep reducing the lead to does not achieve this.

Please discuss on the talk page, rather than simply reverting the article to a form which does not comply with [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 10:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Yahweh| according to the reverts you have made on [[:Yahweh]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}} [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:In fact, you're already at four reverts on this section since 09:49 UTC this morning, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234534490&oldid=234531525], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234542249&oldid=234541718], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234544645&oldid=234544312], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234545483&oldid=234544879]. So no more, please. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Sorry, you're the ones that are in the wrong I am afraid since youre ignoring a important rule: [[WP:IAR]], [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:It doesn't matter if you think you're right--[[WP:3RR]] is as much a policy as [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that...but I don't understand you. The only way of trying to get one up on me is to try and ban me for reverting the lead to the concis version, in what was for the best interests of the article? You were biased to the rules and tries to persuade others that what you were saying was correct. I've read the rules, I knew what I was doing was for the interest of the article. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 12:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I'm not trying to "ban" you. I'm trying to stop the edit warring. You can't use multiple reversions as a tool to force your version of the article though. At least three editors have seen the shorter version of the lead and changed it back to the longer one. You can't ignore consensus. [[WP:IAR]] doesn't mean "ignore other editors." [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused me of multiple users? Is it because of the network???
What in the world is going on? Here I am trying to IMPROVE an article on Wikipedia from being completely swamped by people who don't think Yahweh is a Name that ought to be presented concisly and properley, and I'm the one getting the punishment.

Would the mods kindly take note, that I have been discussing, but noone seems to want to care to listen...What is this anyway? The first one who calls the mods wins? An edit war is a war which conssts of two groups of people; a for and against. So whose interest is it in for the mods to decide who is in the right and who in the wrong? I wanted to keep the page tidy, and as a result I've been punished. So much for wikipedia. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a saying which comes from the Bible which says, what we do to YHWHs Name, He will do to us. I wasn't trying to make the article worse, I was serving in the best interests of trying to ensure it is presentable. I wasn't deleting information that didn't already appear in the main body of the article. But, hopefully others will see this and take my side on it. What Jheald and moving boxes have done has not been in the best interest of the article. The article is supposed to present the facts of a subject in the best possible way we can. [[WP:IAR]] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can you beleive this? A Jew has deleted the blaspheming section (all of it), yet no one cares? I deleted a small section which said that Yahweh was referred to as "Yahoo Wahoo" in a cartoon (off topic) and I get the punishment?

Okay. I understand most people are agaisnt the Name, but this isn't right at all.
If a plate of food is prepared, you make it presentable. Those who are trying to make it presentable get punished. Those who try to make the food in to a mess, get praised but, put people off the article. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]])

I've also noticed that there are some Jews who are seem to be deleting and changing the information...which i don't understand at all. The article is about Yahweh. People already know about the Name, so why would it be in the best interests of the article to be so disresptful to the Name, by ruining the article? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mod objective

2008-08-27T16:08:30Z

Mod objective: /* Yahweh lead */

== [[Yahweh]] ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing]] a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]{{#if:|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} is not consistent with our policy of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]]. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], please take this opportunity to add references to the article. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid using misleading edit summaries as you did here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233515080&oldid=233514916]. That wasn't sourced by the Bible--you just don't care for it. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello moving. I've left you some questions on the talk page on the Yahweh article. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Collaborative conduct ==

Hi there. It's std practice in Wikipedia to try to be as civil with each other as possible. See [[WP:CIVIL]] and related links. Lack of civility can be grounds for a block or other sanctions. Toward this end, we need to make a strong effort to [[WP:AGF|assume the good faith]] of other editors in upholding WP policies.

For this reason, I'd ask you to reconsider wording such as your recent comment: "...arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name" This wording suggests that are not assuming the other editor's good intentions. Please <s>strikeout</s> or revise your comment. Thanks very much. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Um, I don't know what you are referring to. What information have I insisted be deleted? Thanks for your patience as you get adjusted to collaborating here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a been a long day...:)
Thanks and sorry, wrong user...

== [[Yahweh]] lead ==

Per [[WP:LEAD]],

:''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.''

The two-line version you keep reducing the lead to does not achieve this.

Please discuss on the talk page, rather than simply reverting the article to a form which does not comply with [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 10:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Yahweh| according to the reverts you have made on [[:Yahweh]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}} [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:In fact, you're already at four reverts on this section since 09:49 UTC this morning, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234534490&oldid=234531525], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234542249&oldid=234541718], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234544645&oldid=234544312], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=234545483&oldid=234544879]. So no more, please. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Sorry, you're the ones that are in the wrong I am afraid since youre ignoring a important rule: [[WP:IAR]], [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:It doesn't matter if you think you're right--[[WP:3RR]] is as much a policy as [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that...but I don't understand you. The only way of trying to get one up on me is to try and ban me for reverting the lead to the concis version, in what was for the best interests of the article? You were biased to the rules and tries to persuade others that what you were saying was correct. I've read the rules, I knew what I was doing was for the interest of the article. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 12:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I'm not trying to "ban" you. I'm trying to stop the edit warring. You can't use multiple reversions as a tool to force your version of the article though. At least three editors have seen the shorter version of the lead and changed it back to the longer one. You can't ignore consensus. [[WP:IAR]] doesn't mean "ignore other editors." [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused me of multiple users? Is it because of the network???
What in the world is going on? Here I am trying to IMPROVE an article on Wikipedia from being completely swamped by people who don't think Yahweh is a Name that ought to be presented concisly and properley, and I'm the one getting the punishment.

Would the mods kindly take note, that I have been discussing, but noone seems to want to care to listen...What is this anyway? The first one who calls the mods wins? An edit war is a war which conssts of two groups of people; a for and against. So whose interest is it in for the mods to decide who is in the right and who in the wrong? I wanted to keep the page tidy, and as a result I've been punished. So much for wikipedia. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a saying which comes from the Bible which says, what we do to YHWHs Name, He will do to us. I wasn't trying to make the article worse, I was serving in the best interests of trying to ensure it is presentable. I wasn't deleting information that didn't already appear in the main body of the article. But, hopefully others will see this and take my side on it. What Jheald and moving boxes have done has not been in the best interest of the article. The article is supposed to present the facts of a subject in the best possible way we can. {{quote|''By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist.''|[[Robert Bringhurst]]<ref> {{ Cite book | last=Bringhurst| first=Robert| title=[[The Elements of Typographic Style]]| edition=3.1 |year=2005 |publisher=Hartley & Marks| isbn=0-88179-206-3| pages=10}}</ref>}} [[WP:IAR]] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective#top|talk]]) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mod objective

2008-08-27T12:02:45Z

Mod objective: /* Yahweh lead */

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:59:02Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

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

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

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

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

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

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

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

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

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

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

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

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

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

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

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

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

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

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

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

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

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

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

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

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

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

Let's go to the verses:-

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

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

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

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

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

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

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

'''[The First Point]'''

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

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

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

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

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

''' [The second Point] '''

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

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

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

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

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

'''[The Third point]'''

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

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

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

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

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

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

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

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

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

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

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

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

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

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

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

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

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

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

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

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

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

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

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

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

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

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

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

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

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

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

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

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

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

== question ==

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

==Yahweh = I AM????==

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

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

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

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

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

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

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

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

::User:213.84.53.62.

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

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

==Pronunciation==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

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

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

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

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

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

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

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

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

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

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

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

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

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

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

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

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

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

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

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

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

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

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

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

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

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

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

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

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

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

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

== Is this true? ==

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

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

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

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

----
== Neutrality problems ==

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

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

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

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

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

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

• Messiness of the article

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

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

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

== here is The/An advance warning ==

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

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

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

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

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

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

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

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Lead ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving boxes. You can try to ban me for a edit war (?) but you might find that what I was doing what was best interest for the article - keeping it presentable. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

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

:and please note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== clintonfultz.net ==

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

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

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:56:57Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

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

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

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

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

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

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

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

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

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

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

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

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

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

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

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

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

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

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

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

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

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

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

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

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

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

Let's go to the verses:-

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

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

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

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

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

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

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

'''[The First Point]'''

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

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

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

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

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

''' [The second Point] '''

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

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

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

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

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

'''[The Third point]'''

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

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

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

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

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

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

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

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

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

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

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

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

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

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

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

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

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

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

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

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

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

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

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

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

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

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

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

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

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

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

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

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

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

== question ==

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

==Yahweh = I AM????==

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

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

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

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

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

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

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

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

::User:213.84.53.62.

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

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

==Pronunciation==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

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

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

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

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

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

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

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

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

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

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

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

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

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

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

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

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

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

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

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

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

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

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

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

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

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

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

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

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

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

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

== Is this true? ==

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

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

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

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

----
== Neutrality problems ==

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

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

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

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

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

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

• Messiness of the article

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

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

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

== here is The/An advance warning ==

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

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

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

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

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

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

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

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Lead ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

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

:and please note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== clintonfultz.net ==

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

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

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:55:31Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

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

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

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

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

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

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

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

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

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

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

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

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

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

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

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

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

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

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

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

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

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

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

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

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

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

Let's go to the verses:-

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

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

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

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

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

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

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

'''[The First Point]'''

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

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

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

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

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

''' [The second Point] '''

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

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

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

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

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

'''[The Third point]'''

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

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

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

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

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

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

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

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

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

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

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

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

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

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

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

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

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

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

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

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

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

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

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

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

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
:::::People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information". It's following what [[WP:LEAD]] requires. For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is. I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Breaching [[WP:LEAD]] does nothing to "clean the article up". It simply makes the article even less conformant with Wikipedia's guidelines, so just adds one more thing to fix. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], you're currently in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. Please stop edit warring over the lead. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules read]. It will tell you that if the lead doesn't help to clean up the article then the rule doesn't have to apply...this is ridiculous...all it shows is who wants a clean article and who wasnts a messy one...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would agree with you if your edits were not making the article less useful to readers rather than more useful. If I have to choose between one editor's subjective standard of "messier" and the vastly more important task of informing readers (and, incidentially sticking with [[WP:LEAD]]), the usefulness to the readers is going to win out. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:IAR]] read please. Moving Boxes and Jheald are in the wrong [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Certain members have been trying hard to make this article good. And tyhough I appreciate your efforts - if it is to improve the article - I ahve to be critical and say that it doesn't. Whether the information you provide is useful or not, it should be presented in the best way possible. The information provided in the lead by you two members, was not presantable and thus, not very useful.

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

User talk:Mod objective

2008-08-27T11:52:47Z

Mod objective: /* Yahweh lead */

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:50:35Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
:::::People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information". It's following what [[WP:LEAD]] requires. For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is. I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Breaching [[WP:LEAD]] does nothing to "clean the article up". It simply makes the article even less conformant with Wikipedia's guidelines, so just adds one more thing to fix. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], you're currently in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. Please stop edit warring over the lead. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules read]. It will tell you that if the lead doesn't help to clean up the article then the rule doesn't have to apply...this is ridiculous...all it shows is who wants a clean article and who wasnts a messy one...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would agree with you if your edits were not making the article less useful to readers rather than more useful. If I have to choose between one editor's subjective standard of "messier" and the vastly more important task of informing readers (and, incidentially sticking with [[WP:LEAD]]), the usefulness to the readers is going to win out. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:IAR]] read please. Moving Boxes and Jheald are in the wrong [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:50:03Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
:::::People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information". It's following what [[WP:LEAD]] requires. For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is. I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Breaching [[WP:LEAD]] does nothing to "clean the article up". It simply makes the article even less conformant with Wikipedia's guidelines, so just adds one more thing to fix. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], you're currently in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. Please stop edit warring over the lead. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules read]. It will tell you that if the lead doesn't help to clean up the article then the rule doesn't have to apply...this is ridiculous...all it shows is who wants a clean article and who wasnts a messy one...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would agree with you if your edits were not making the article less useful to readers rather than more useful. If I have to choose between one editor's subjective standard of "messier" and the vastly more important task of informing readers (and, incidentially sticking with [[WP:LEAD]]), the usefulness to the readers is going to win out. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:IAR] read please. Moving Boxes and Jheald are in the wrong [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:48:36Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
:::::People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information". It's following what [[WP:LEAD]] requires. For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is. I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Breaching [[WP:LEAD]] does nothing to "clean the article up". It simply makes the article even less conformant with Wikipedia's guidelines, so just adds one more thing to fix. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], you're currently in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. Please stop edit warring over the lead. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules read]. It will tell you that if the lead doesn't help to clean up the article then the rule doesn't have to apply...this is ridiculous...all it shows is who wants a clean article and who wasnts a messy one...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:I would agree with you if your edits were not making the article less useful to readers rather than more useful. If I have to choose between one editor's subjective standard of "messier" and the vastly more important task of informing readers (and, incidentially sticking with [[WP:LEAD]]), the usefulness to the readers is going to win out. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

User talk:Mod objective

2008-08-27T11:45:05Z

Mod objective: /* Yahweh lead */

Yahweh

2008-08-27T11:42:51Z

Mod objective: moving. I don't know what oyu're talking about [[WP:IAR] ] It clearly states that if ithe rule makes the article messier, then leave it.

{{POV|date=August 2008}}
{{Otheruses}}
[[Image:Tetragrammaton scripts.svg|frame|right|The Tetragrammaton in [[Paleo-Hebrew alphabet|Paleo-Hebrew]] (10th c. BC– c. AD 135), [[Aramaic]] (10th c. BC– AD 4th c.) and modern Hebrew.]]

'''Yahweh''' is an English rendition of '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''', of the name of God found in the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible. These four [[Hebrew alphabet|Hebrew letters]] ({{lang|he|יהוה}}), known as the [[Tetragrammaton]], are transliterated '''JHWH''' in German, and '''YHWH''', '''YHVH''', '''JHWH''' and '''JHVH''' in English.<ref>To avoid spelling the divine name, observant Jews may alter the letters in Hebrew as well as English, e.g., YKVK. For example, see ''Insights of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik'' by Saul Weiss and Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, [http://books.google.com/books?id=rmmRRNYXb7kC&pg=PA9&dq=YKVK&ei=tS6uSNeTK9C4iQHG_sWSDA&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U2tTJjODLVpW8qp2hRYTxxsSmJzIA p.9.] and ''Jewish Identity and Society in the Seventeenth Century'' by Minna Rozen, p.67.[http://books.google.com/books?id=Pt50fMlgKuMC&pg=PA67&dq=YKVK&ei=tS6uSNeTK9C4iQHG_sWSDA&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U3l_Jb3bWBjCWm8QY487Qi65V3VFA]
</ref>

----
===“Jehovah” or “Yahweh”?===

The main religious groups holding to the principle of using the Name of the Almighty are the [[Jehovah Witnesses]] ''' (Jehovah) ''' and the [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] ''' (Yahweh) '''. Besides these two main groups, there also exists the [[Sacred Name Movement]] in which most other groups fall. The Sacred Name movement consists of small and diverse religious groups, not united other than using the Name in worship and somewhat different from the two former groups mentioned.

Although the term “Jehovah” was widely known for approximately four centuries, the term originated from a corruption of foreign vowels points which were attached to the Tetragrammaton by scribes. The vowel points were selected from the word “Adonai”.
Doctor J.B.Rotherham in the Emphasized Bible said: “ For this we may gather that the Jewish scribes are not responsible for this “hybrid” combination. They intentionally wrote alien vowels – not for the combination with the sacred consonants, but for the purpose of the Jewish reader to enunciate a totally different word, viz., some other familiar name of the Most High”

Peter Galatin – who in 1520 published the form Jehovah – did not understand that the Scribes had replaced the word Yahweh with Adonai, as an attempt to prevent the true Name being pronounced. Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration of the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH.

----{{cquote| To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord (Heb. Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah, is about a hybrid combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal –viz., “Gormuna”. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D.|20px|20px|( Doctor J.B.Rotherham </blockquote>
) |''}}

===Sacred to Jews===

Traditionally, observant [[Jews]] no longer voice this name aloud. It is believed to be too sacred to be uttered and is often referred to as the 'Ineffable Name', the 'Unutterable Name' or the 'Distinctive Name'.<ref>Judaism 101 on the Name of G-d http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm</ref> They often use [[circumlocution]]s when referring to the name of the Deity, e.g., {{lang|he-Latn|''HaShem''}} ("The Name") or {{lang|he-Latn|''Shem HaMeforash''}} (“the [[wikt:ineffable|ineffable]] Name”) when reading the [[Tanakh]] aloud because the Name of God must not be spoken. Reverence is shown because it is holy God's Name and it is believed that this pre-empts ever misusing the name.<ref> Shemot/Exodus 20:7</ref> "[[Names of God in Judaism#Adonai|Adonai]]" is spoken only in prayer, and YHVH is only written on paper that will not be thrown away or discarded. Adding vowels to the Name of the Lord is an insult to some Jews because the point is that it cannot be spoken because it is God's Name (to be).<ref>Judaism 101 http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm</ref> Even in English the vowel in God (G-d) is taken out in some cases to show extreme reverence. Even some [[Christians]] follow this tradition.<ref>One ministry of many who take pride in the reverence of God http://www.igniteyouthministry.com</ref>.

Various proposals exist for the vocalization of {{lang|he|יהוה}}. Current opinion is {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} (that is, Yahweh). The ''Yah'' part seems fairly certain, as attested by Hebrew [[theophoric name]]s ending in ''-ia(h)'' or ''-yahu''. Early Christian literature written in Greek used spellings like {{polytonic|Ιαβε}} that can be transcribed by 'Yahweh'. Although contention still exists today many scholars accept this proposal.<ref>Encycl. Britannica, 15th edition, 1994, passim.</ref>

The editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon state that "{{lang|he|יהוה}} i.e. {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} '''n.pr.dei''' Yahweh," '''is''' "the proper name of the God of Israel."<ref>Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg ]</ref> "{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}"

==Historical overview==
[[Image:Zeus Yahweh.jpg|thumb|220px|right|[[Phoenicia]]n silver [[Dram (unit)|drachm]] from ca. 350 BC possibly depicting Yahweh.[http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/godyz.html] ]]

During the [[Babylonian captivity]] the [[Hebrew language]] spoken by the [[Jews]] was replaced by the [[Aramaic language]] of their [[Babylonian]] captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in [[Leviticus]] 24:16, “Anyone who '''blasphemes''' the name of YHWH must be put to death” was mistakenly thought to have carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was (mis)understood to mean, “Anyone who '''pronounces''' the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use ''{{lang|he-Latn|Adonai}}'' (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead. During the first few centuries AD this may have resulted in loss of traditional memory of how to pronounce the Name (except among [[Samaritan]]s).
The [[Septuagint]] (Greek translation) and [[Vulgata]] (Latin translation) use the word "Lord" ({{lang|el|κύριος}} (kurios) and {{lang|la|dominus}}, respectively). 
[[Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png|thumb|left|220px|The spelling of the Tetragrammaton and connected forms in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Bible, with [[Niqqud|vowel points]] shown in red. (Click on image to enlarge.)]]

The [[Masoretes]] added vowel points ([[niqqud]]) and [[cantillation]] marks to the manuscripts to indicate vowel usage and for use in the ritual chanting of readings from the [[Bible]] in [[synagogue]] [[Jewish services|services]]. To {{lang|he|יהוה}} they added the vowels for "{{lang|he-Latn|[[Adonai]]}}" ("My Lord"), the word to use when the text was read.

Many Jews will not even use "{{lang|he-Latn|Adonai}}" except when praying, and substitute other terms, ''e.g.'' {{lang|he-Latn|HaShem }}("The Name") or the nonsense word Ado-Shem, out of fear of the potential misuse of the divine name. In written [[English language|English]], "[[Names of God in Judaism#In English|G-d]]" is a common substitute.

Parts of the [[Talmud]], particularly those dealing with [[Yom Kippur]], seem to imply that the Tetragrammaton should be pronounced in several ways, with only one (not explained in the text, and apparently kept by [[oral tradition]] by the [[Kohen Gadol]]) being the personal name of God.

In late Kabbalistic works the term HWYH - {{lang|he|הוי'ה}} (pronounced Havayeh) is used.

Translators often render YHWH as a word meaning "Lord", e.g. Greek {{polytonic|Κυριος}}, Latin ''{{lang|la|Dominus}}'', and following that, English "the Lord", Polish ''{{lang|pol|Pan}}'', Welsh ''{{lang|cy|Arglwydd}}'', etc. However, all of the above are inaccurate translations of the Tetragrammaton.

Because the name was no longer pronounced and its own vowels were not written, its own pronunciation was forgotten. When Christians, unaware of the Jewish tradition, started to read the Hebrew Bible, they read {{lang|he|יְהֹוָה}} as written with YHWH's consonants with {{lang|he-Latn|Adonai}}'s vowels, and thus said or transcribed '''Iehovah'''. Today this transcription is generally recognized as mistaken; however many religious groups continue to use the form Jehovah because it is familiar.

===Using the Name in the Bible===
Exodus 3:15 is used to support the use of the Name YHWH: “This is my Name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”. The word “forever” is “olahm” which means “time out of mind, to eternity” <ref> Assemblies of Yahweh ©, Correspondence Course, Lesson 4, The Sacred Name, pg. 3, subheading “What is His Name”? [http://assembliesofyahweh.com</ref>
Many Scriptures do favour the use of the Name. The biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible - including the patriarchs - used the Name of YHWH. A wealth of scriptures support this notion: <ref> [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.%2012:8;%2013:18;%2021:33;%2022:14;%2026:%2026,%2028:21;%20Exodus%2020:7%20and%20Deuteronomy%205:11;&version=31;]. </ref>
The [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] continue to use the sacred Name for some of these reasons.

==Pronunciation of the Name==
Various proposals exist for what the vowels of {{lang|he|יהוה}} were. Current convention is {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, that is, "Yahweh" ({{IPA-all|jahˈweh}}). Evidence is:
* Some Biblical [[theophoric name]]s end in ''-ia(h)'' or ''-yahu'' as shortened forms of YHWH: that points to the first vowel being "a".
* Various Early Christian [[Greek transcriptions of the Hebrew Divine Name]] seem to point to "Yahweh" or similar.
* [[Samaritan]] priests have preserved a liturgical pronunciation "Yahwe" or "Yahwa" to the present day.<ref>Footnote #11 from page 312 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica reads: "See Montgomery, ''Journal of Biblical Literature'', xxv. (1906), 49-51."</ref>

Today many scholars accept this proposal,<ref>Encycl. Britannica, 15th edition, 1994, passim.</ref> based on the pronunciation conserved both by the Church Fathers (as noted above) and by the Samaritans.<ref>Dio Uno E Trino, Piero Coda, Edizioni San Paolo s.r.l., 1993, pg 34.</ref>
::(Here 'accept' does not necessarily mean that they actually believe that it describes the truth, but rather that among the many vocalizations that have been proposed, “Yahweh” is the most accurate transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. That is, 'Yahweh' is the scholarly convention, rather than the scholarly consensus.) In some editions of the sidur, Jewish prayer book, there are no vowels under God's name, to signify that we do not know God's name and that there is absolutely no pronunciation.
Even so, Jews have been able to read the Bible without vowels points for centuries. Assuming vowel points takes away the pronunciation of the Name is ludricous.

==Evidence from theophoric names==
Yahū" or "Yehū" is a common short form for "[[Yahweh]]" in Hebrew [[theophoric name]]s; as a prefix it sometimes appears as "Yehō-". This has caused two opinions:
#In former times (at least from c.1650 AD), that it was abbreviated from the supposed pronunciation "Yehowah", rather than "Yahweh" which contains no 'o'- or 'u'-type vowel sound in the middle.
#[http://members.fortunecity.com/yahuwthah/Resource-577/AnsonLetter.htm] Recently, that, as "Yahweh" is likely an [[imperfective]] verb form, "Yahu" is its corresponding [[preterite]] or [[jussive]] short form: compare ''yiŝtahaweh'' (imperfective), ''yiŝtáhû'' (preterit or jussive short form) = "do obeisance".
----

Those who argue for (1) are the: [[George Wesley Buchanan]] in ''[[Biblical Archaeology Review]]''; [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/Smithspage953Reland190pixels.JPG Smith’s 1863 ''A Dictionary of the Bible'']; Section # 2.1 ''The Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon'' (1848)<ref>;The Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon'' by [[Benjamin Davidson]] ISBN 0913573035</ref> in its article '''{{lang|he|הוה}}'''

Smith’s 1863 ''A Dictionary of the Bible'' says that "Yahweh" is possible because shortening to "Yahw" would end up as "Yahu" or similar.[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=Theophoric%20Names The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 in the Article:Names Of God] has a very similar discussion, and also gives the form Jo or Yo ({{lang|he|יוֹ}}) contracted from Jeho or Yeho ({{lang|he|יְהוֹ}}). The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-11, vol. 15, pp. 312, in its article "JEHOVAH", also says that "Jeho-" or "Jo" can be explained from "Yahweh", and that the suffix "-jah" can be explained from "Yahweh" better than from "Yehowah".

Chapter 1 of [http://www.tetragrammaton.org/tetra1.htm#chapter1 The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures], under the heading: The Pronunciation Of Gods Name quotes from [[Insight on the Scriptures]], Volume 2, page 7: Hebrew Scholars generally favor '''"Yahweh"''' as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah ([[Jah]] in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Hallelu-Yah (meaning "Praise Yah, you people!") (Ps 104:35; 150:1,6). Also, the forms Yehoh', Yoh, Yah, and Ya'hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names of Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. ... Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as "Yahuwa", "Yahuah", or "Yehuah".

===Using consonants as semi-vowels (v/w)===
In [[Biblical Hebrew language|ancient Hebrew]], the [[Hebrew alphabet#Numerical value and pronunciation|letter {{lang|he|ו}}]], known to modern Hebrew speakers as ''vav'', [[Hebrew alphabet#Pronunciation_of_Ancient_Hebrew|was]] a semivowel /w/ (as in English, not as in German) rather than a letter v.<ref>(see any Hebrew grammar)</ref> The letter is referred to as ''[[Waw (letter)|waw]]'' in the academic world. Because the ancient pronunciation differs from the modern pronunciation, it is common today to represent {{lang|he|יהוה}} as YHWH rather than YHVH.

In Biblical Hebrew, most vowels are not written and the rest are written only ambiguously, as the vowel letters double as consonants (similar to the [[Latin]] use of V to indicate both U and V). See [[Matres lectionis]] for details. For similar reasons, an appearance of the Tetragrammaton in ancient [[Egyptian language|Egyptian]] records of the [[13th century BC]] sheds no light on the original pronunciation.<ref>See pages 128 and 236 of the book "Who Were the Early Israelites?" by archeologist William G. Dever, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2003.</ref> Therefore it is, in general, difficult to deduce how a word is pronounced from its spelling only, and the Tetragrammaton is a particular example: two of its letters can serve as vowels, and two are vocalic place-holders, which are not pronounced.

This difficulty occurs somewhat also in Greek when transcribing Hebrew words, because of Greek's lack of a letter for consonant 'y' and (since loss of the [[digamma]]) of a letter for "w", forcing the Hebrew consonants yod and waw to be transcribed into Greek as vowels. Also, non-initial 'h' caused difficulty for Greeks and was liable to be omitted; х ([[chi (letter)|chi]]) was pronounced as 'k' + 'h' (as in modern [[Hindi]] "[[lakh]]") and could not be used to spell 'h' as in e.g. [[Modern Greek]] {{lang|el|Χάρρι}} = "Harry".

===Y or J?===
The English practice of transcribing Biblical Hebrew [[Yodh]] as "j" and pronouncing it "dzh" ({{IPA|/dʒ/}}) started when, in late Latin, the pronunciation of consonantal "i" changed from "y" to "dzh" but continued to be spelled "i", bringing along with it Latin transcriptions and spoken renderings of biblical and other foreign words and names.

AA direct rendering of the Hebrew yod would be "y" in English. However, most transliterations of the biblical Hebrew texts represent the Hebrew 'yod' by using the English letter 'J'. This letter, and the accompanying 'J' sound/pronunciation is clearly evident in anglicized versions of Hebrew proper nouns, i.e. names such as [[Jesus]]*, [[Jeremiah]], [[Joshua]]**, [[Judah]], [[Job (Bible)|Job]], [[Jerusalem]], [[Jehoshaphat]], and [[Jehovah]]. Although it can be argued that the 'Y' form is more correct i.e. more like the Jewish/Hebrew pronunciations, in the English-speaking world, this 'J' form for such Bible names is now the norm and has been so for centuries.

The letters "J""V" and “I” “U” relates back to 1565 wherein a Parisien printer ([[Gille Beyes]]) changed 'J' and ‘V’ from indistinct vowels into consonants. In the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, we find that the J sound as we now know it has only been in the English language since the 1700s, prior to this, the '''J''' was a capital '''I'''. Some centre column references in the Bible affirm this.

'''[* **]''' - In Hebrew, both these names can be pronounced as “Yahshua” according to Solomon Zeitlin<ref>”Judaism as a Religion”. Jewish Quarterly Review. Vo. 34 (1943 – Oct) No. 2)</ref> The Assemblies of Yahweh use the Hebrew name Yahshua, instead of the Greek, latinized "Jesus".

===Kethib and Qere and Qere perpetuum===
The original consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible was provided with vowel marks by the [[Masoretes]] to assist reading. In places where the consonants of the text to be read (the [[Qere]]) differed from the consonants of the written text (the [[Kethib]]), they wrote the Qere in the margin as a note showing what was to be read. In such a case the vowels of the Qere were written on the Kethib. For a few very frequent words the marginal note was omitted: this is called [[Q're perpetuum]].

One of these frequent cases was God's name, that should not be pronounced, but read as "{{lang|he-Latn|Adonai}}" ("My Lord [plural of majesty]"), or, if the previous or next word already was "{{lang|he-Latn|Adonai}}", or "{{lang|he-Latn|Adoni}}" ("My Lord"), as "{{lang|he-Latn|Elohim}}" ("God"). This combination produces {{lang|he|יְהֹוָה}} and {{lang|he|יֱהֹוִה}} respectively, [[ghost word|non-words]] that would spell "yehovah" and "yehovih" respectively.

The oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, such as the [[Aleppo Codex]] and the [[Codex Leningradensis]] mostly write {{lang|he|יְהוָה}} (yehvah), with no pointing on the first H; this points to its Qere being 'Shema', which is [[Aramaic]] for "the Name".

[[Gerard Gertoux]] wrote that in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010, the [[Masoretes]] used 7 different vowel pointings [i.e. 7 different [[Q're]]'s] for YHWH.<ref>refer to the table on page 144 of Gerard Gertoux's book: The Name of God Y.EH.OW.Ah which is pronounced as it is written I_EH_OU_AH.</ref>

===Jehovah===
Later, Christian Europeans who did not know about the [[Q're perpetuum]] custom took these spellings at face value, producing the form "[[Jehovah]]" and spelling variants of it. The [[Catholic Encyclopedia]] [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah (Yahweh), the proper name of God in the Old Testament." Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being<ref>”Job – Introduction, [[Anchor Bible]], volume 15, page XIV and “Jehovah” Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, volume 15</ref>.
For more information, see the page [[Jehovah]]. Alternatively, most scholars recognise Jehovah to be “grammatically impossible” [[Jewish Encyclopedia]], [Vol VII, p. 8].

===Frequency of use in scripture===
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, {{lang|he|יְהֹוָה}} (Qr {{lang|he|אֲדֹנָי}}) occurs 6518 times, and {{lang|he|יֱהֹוִה}} (Qr {{lang|he|אֱלֹהִים}}) occurs 305 times in the Masoretic Text. Since the scribes admit removing it at least 134 different times and inserting Adonai, we may conclude that the four letter Name {{lang|he|יהוה}} appeared about 7,000 times.

It appears 6,823 times in the Jewish Bible, according to the [[Jewish Encyclopedia]], and 6,828 times each in the ''[[Biblia Hebraica]]'' and ''[[Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia]]'' texts of the Hebrew Scriptures.

===The vocalizations of {{lang|he|יְהֹוָה}} and {{lang|he|אֲדֹנָי}} are not identical===
The "simple shewa" ([[schwa]] vowel, usually written as 'e') in Yehovah and the "hatef patah" (short a) in Adonay are not identical. Two reasons have been suggested for this:
* A spelling "Yahovah" causes a risk that a reader might start reading "Yah", which is a form of the Name, and the first half of the full Name.
* The two are not really different: both short vowels, ''shva'' and ''hatef-patah'', were [[allophone]]s of the same [[phoneme]] used in different situations. [[Adonai]] uses the "hatef patah" because of the glottal nature of its first consonant [[aleph]] (the [[glottal stop]]), but the first consonant of YHWH is [[yodh]], which is not glottal, and so uses the vowel [[shva]].

===Evidence from very old scrolls===
The discovery of the [[Qumran]] scrolls has added support to some parts of this position.
These scrolls are unvocalized, showing that the position of those who claim that the vowel marks were already written by the original authors of the text is untenable. Many of these scrolls write (only) the tetragrammaton in [[Paleo-Hebrew alphabet|paleo-Hebrew script]], showing that the Name was treated specially. See [http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/05_2/troyer_names_of_god.htm this link].

As said above, the Aleppo and Leningrad codices do not use the holem (o) in their vocalization, or only in very few instances, so that the (systematic) spelling "Yehovah" is more recent than about 1000 A.D. or from a different tradition.
 From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as '''Yahweh'''."

===Original pronunciation===
The main approaches in modern attempts to determine a pronunciation of יהוה have been study of the Hebrew Bible text, study of theophoric names and study of early Christian Greek texts that contain reports about the pronunciation. Evidence from [[Semitic]] [[philology]] and [[archeology]] has been tried, resulting in a "scholarly convention to pronounce יהוה as Yahweh".

The text in the Codex Leningrad B 19A, 1008 A.D, shows יהוה with various different vowel points, indicating that the name was to be read as ''Yehwah''', ''Yehwih'', and a number of times as ''Yehowah'', as in Genesis 3:15

Delitzsch prefers "{{lang|he|יַהֲוָה}}" (yahavah) since he considered the [[shwa quiescens]] below {{lang|he|ה}} ungrammatical.

In his 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible", William Smith prefers the form "{{lang|he|יַהֲוֶה}}" (yahaveh). Many other variations have been proposed.

However, Gesenius' proposal gradually became accepted as the best scholarly reconstructed vocalized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton.

===Early Greek and Latin forms===
The writings of the [[Church Fathers]] contain several references to God's name in Greek or Latin.
According to the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]] (1907)] and B.D. Eerdmans: <ref>B.D. Eerdmans, The Name Jahu, O.T.S. V (1948) 1-29</ref>

* [[Diodorus Siculus]]<ref>Diodorus Siculus, Histor. I, 94</ref> writes {{polytonic|Ἰαῶ}} (Iao);
* [[Irenaeus]] reports<ref>Irenaeus, "[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Against Heresies]]", II, xxxv, 3, in P. G., VII, col. 840</ref> that the Gnostics formed a compound {{polytonic|Ἰαωθ}} (Iaoth) with the last syllable of [[Sabaoth]]. He also reports<ref>Irenaeus, "[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Against Heresies]]", I, iv, 1, in P.G., VII, col. 481</ref> that the [[Gnosticism|Valentinian heretics]] use {{polytonic|Ἰαῶ}} (Iao);
* [[Clement of Alexandria]]<ref>Clement, "Stromata", V, 6, in P.G., IX, col. 60</ref> writes {{polytonic|Ἰαοὺ}} (Iaou) - see also below;
* [[Origen]],<ref>Origen, "In Joh.", II, 1, in P.G., XIV, col. 105</ref> Iao;
* [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]],<ref>according to Eusebius, "Praep. Evang", I, ix, in P.G., XXI, col. 72</ref> {{polytonic|Ἰευώ}} (Ieuo);
* [[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] (d. 404), who was born in Palestine and spent a considerable part of his life there, gives<ref>Epiphanius, "Panarion"/"Adv. Haer.", I, iii, 40, in P.G., XLI, col. 685</ref> Ia and Iabe (one codex Iaue);
* [[Pseudo-Jerome]],<ref>"Breviarium in Psalmos", in P.L., XXVI, 828</ref> ''tetragrammaton legi potest Iaho'';
* [[Theodoret]] (d. c. 457) writes {{polytonic|Ἰάω}} (Iao); he also reports<ref>Theodoret, "Ex. quaest.", xv, in P. G., LXXX, col. 244 and "Haeret. Fab.", V, iii, in P. G., LXXXIII, col. 460.</ref> that the [[Samaritans]] say {{polytonic|Ἰαβέ}} (Iabe), {{polytonic|Ἰαβαι}} (Iabai), while the Jews say {{polytonic|Ἀϊά}} (Aia).<ref>Footnote #8 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''{{polytonic|Aïα}}'' occurs also in the great magical papyrus of Paris, 1. 3020 (Wessely, Denkschrift. Wien. Akad., Phil. Hist. Kl., XXXVI. p. 120) and in the Leiden Papyrus, Xvii. 31."</ref> (The latter is probably not {{lang|he|יהוה}} but {{lang|he|אהיה}} Ehyeh = "I am" (Exod. iii. 14), which the Jews counted among the names of God.)
* [[James of Edessa]] (cf.<ref>Lamy, "La science catholique", 1891, p. 196</ref>), Jehjeh;
* [[Jerome]]<ref>Jerome, "Ep. xxv ad Marcell.", in P. L., XXII, col. 429</ref> speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name {{lang|he|יהוה}} as {{Polytonic|ΠΙΠΙ}}.

In [http://www.villagephotos.com/members/viewimage.asp?id_=14021882 Smith’s 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"],
the author displays some of the above forms and concludes:

:But even if these writers were entitled to speak with authority, their evidence only tends to show in how many different ways the four letters of the word {{lang|he|יהוה}} could be represented in Greek characters, and throws no light either upon its real pronunciation or its punctuation.
On the other hand however, is the common belief that the true name was never lost, the [[Encyclopedia Judaica]] concludes: "The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian church testify that the name was pronounced '''Yahweh'''."

====Josephus====
[[Josephus]] in ''[[Jewish Wars]]'', chapter V, verse 235, wrote "{{polytonic|τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα· ταῦτα δ' ἐστὶ φωνήεντα τέσσαρα}}" ("''...[engraved with] the holy letters; and they are four [[vowel]]s''"), presumably because Hebrew [[yod (letter)|yod]] and [[waw (letter)|waw]], even if consonantal, would have to be transcribed into the Greek of the time as vowels.

====Clement of Alexandria====
[[Clement of Alexandria]] writes in ''Stromata'' V,6:34-35
:{{polytonic|"Πάλιν τὸ παραπέτασμα τῆς εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων παρόδου, κίονες τέτταρες αὐτόθι, ἁγίας μήνυμα τετράδος διαθηκῶν παλαιῶν, ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ '''Ἰαουε''', ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. Καὶ μὴν καὶ καθʼ Ἕλληνας θεὸς τὸ ὄνομα τετράδα περιέχει γραμμάτων."}}
The translation[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.vi.html] of Clement's ''Stromata'' in Volume II of the classic Ante-Nicene Fathers series renders this as:
:"... Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the [[adytum]] was accessible, is called ''Jave'', which is interpreted, 'Who is and shall be.' The name of God, too [i.e. θεὸς], among the Greeks contains four letters."<ref>{{cite book |editor= The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D, and James Donaldson, LL.D. |title= The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II: Fathers of the Second Century |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.i.html |accessdate= 2006-12-19 |edition=American reprint of the Edinburgh edition |pages=452 |chapter=VI. — The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle and Its Furniture |chapterurl=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.vi.html}}</ref>

Of Clement's ''Stromata'' there is only one surviving manuscript, the Codex L (Codex Laurentianus V 3), from the 11th century. Other sources are later copies of that ms. and a few dozen quotations from this work by other authors. For ''Stromata'' V,6:34, Codex L has {{polytonic|ἰαοὺ}}. The critical edition by Otto Stählin (1905) gives the forms
: "ἰαουέ Didymus Taurinensis de pronunc. divini nominis quatuor literarum (Parmae 1799) p. 32ff, {{polytonic|ἰαοὺ}} L, {{polytonic|ἰὰ οὐαὶ}} Nic., {{polytonic|ἰὰ οὐὲ}} Mon. 9.82 Reg. 1888 Taurin. III 50 (bei Did.), {{polytonic|ἰαοῦε}} Coisl. Seg. 308 Reg. 1825."
and has {{polytonic|Ἰαουε}} in the running text. The Additions and Corrections page gives a reference to an author who rejects the change of {{polytonic|ἰαοὺ}} into {{polytonic|Ἰαουε}}.<ref>Zu der in L übergelieferten Form {{polytonic|ἰαου}}, vgl. Ganschinietz RE IX Sp. 700, 28ff, der die Änderung in {{polytonic|ἰαουε}} ablehnt.</ref>

Other editors give similar data. A ''{{lang|la|catena}}'' (Latin: chain) referred to by A. le Boulluec <ref>Clément d'Alexandrie. Stromate V. Tome I: Introduction, texte critique et index, par A. Le Boulluec, Traduction de † P. Voulet, s. j.; Tome II : Commentaire, bibliographie et index, par A. Le Boulluec, [[Sources Chrétiennes]] n° 278 et 279, Editions du Cerf, Paris 1981. (Tome I, pp. 80,81) </ref> ("Coisl. 113 fol. 368v") and by [http://www.villagephotos.com/members/viewimage.asp?id_=14021882 Smith’s 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] ("a catena to the [[Pentateuch]] in a MS. at [[Turin]]") is reported to have "{{polytonic|ια ουε}}".



The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form {{polytonic|Ἰαουαι}} as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh".

====Magic papyri====
Spellings of the Tetragrammaton occur among the many combinations and permutations of names of powerful agents that occur in Egyptian magical writings.<ref>B. Alfrink, La prononciation 'Jehova' du tétragramme, O.T.S. V (1948) 43-62.</ref> One of these forms is the heptagram {{polytonic|ιαωουηε}}<ref>K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, Leipzig-Berlin, I, 1928 and II, 1931</ref>

In the magical texts, Iave (Jahveh Sebaoth), and {{polytonic|Iαβα}}, occurs frequently.<ref>Footnote #9 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "See Deissmann, ''Bibelstudien'', 13 sqq."</ref> In an Ethiopic list of magical names of Jesus, purporting to have been taught by him to his disciples, ''Yawe''<ref>Footnote #10 from Page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "See Driver, ''Studia Biblica, I. 20."</ref> <ref>Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-11), vol. 15, pp. 312, in the Article “JEHOVAH”</ref>
is found.

===Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = Yahweh===
In the early 19th century Hebrew scholars were still critiquing "Jehovah" [a.k.a. Iehovah and Iehouah] because they believed that the vowel points of {{lang|he|יְהֹוָה}} were not the actual vowel points of God's name. The Hebrew scholar [[Wilhelm Gesenius]] [1786-1842] had suggested that the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, which is transliterated into English as "Yahweh", might more accurately represent the actual pronunciation of God's name than the Biblical Hebrew punctuation "{{lang|he|יְהֹוָה}}", from which the English name Jehovah has been derived.
[[Image:YHWH.png|frame|right|150px|right|William Gesenius's Hebrew punctuation (i.e. Yahweh)]]
[[Wilhelm Gesenius]] is noted for being one of the greatest Hebrew and biblical scholars [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/Gesenius.html]. His proposal to read YHWH as "{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}" (see image to the right) was based in large part on [[Yahweh#Early Greek and Latin forms|various Greek transcriptions]], such as [[iabe|{{polytonic|ιαβε}}]], dating from the first centuries AD, but also on the forms of theophoric names.

:In his Hebrew Dictionary [[Gesenius]] ([[:Image:Gesenius-on-jhwh-german.jpg|see image of German text]]) supports the pronunciation "Yahweh" because of the Samaritan pronunciation {{polytonic|Ιαβε}} reported by [[Theodoret]], and that the [[theophoric name]] prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form "Yahweh".

::Today many scholars accept Gesenius's proposal to read YHWH as {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.
::(Here 'accept' does not necessarily mean that they actually believe that it describes the truth, but rather that among the many vocalizations that have been proposed, none is clearly superior. That is, 'Yahweh' is the scholarly convention, rather than the scholarly consensus.)

===Inferences===
Various people draw various conclusions from this Greek material.

William Smith writes in his 1863 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG "A Dictionary of the Bible"] about the different Hebrew forms supported by these Greek forms:
:... The votes of others are divided between {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} (yahveh) or {{lang|he|יַהֲוֶה}} (yahaveh), supposed to be represented by the {{polytonic|Ιαβέ}} of Epiphanius mentioned above, and {{lang|he|יַהְוָה}} (yahvah) or {{lang|he|יַהֲוָה}} (yahavah), which Fürst holds to be the Ιευώ of Porphyry, or the {{polytonic|Ιαού}} of Clemens Alexandrinus.

The editors of New Bible Dictionary (1962 write:
:The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by [[transliteration]]s of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form '''{{polytonic|Ιαουε}}''' ([[Clement of Alexandria]]) or '''{{polytonic|Ιαβε}}''' (Theodoret; by this time {{polytonic|β}} had the pronunciation of v).

As already mentioned, Gesenius arrived at his form using the evidence of proper names, and following the Samaritan pronunciation {{polytonic|Ιαβε}} reported by Theodoret.

==Catholic Encyclopedia teaching about the name Yahweh==
[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm In the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910],in the article Jehovah (Yahweh), under the sub-title:"To take up the ancient writers", the editors wrote:
* Diodorus Siculus writes Jao (I, 94);
* Irenaeus ("Adv. Haer.", II, xxxv, 3, in P. G., VII, col. 840), Jaoth;
* the Valentinian heretics (Irenaeus, "Adv. Haer.", I, iv, 1, in P.G., VII, col. 481), Jao;
* Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.", V, 6, in P.G., IX, col. 60), Jaou;
* Origen ("in Joh.", II, 1, in P.G., XIV, col. 105), Jao;
* Porphyry (Eusebius, "Praep. evang", I, ix, in P.G., XXI, col. 72), Jeuo;
* Epiphanius ("Adv. Haer.", I, iii, 40, in P.G., XLI, col. 685), Ja or Jabe;
* Pseudo-Jerome ("Breviarium in Pss.", in P.L., XXVI, 828 ), Jaho;
*the Samaritans (Theodoret, in "Ex. quaest.", xv, in P.G., LXXX, col. 44),Jabe;
* James of Edessa (cf. Lamy, "La science catholique", 1891, p. 196), Jehjeh;
* Jerome ("Ep. xxv ad Marcell.", in P. L., XXII, col. 429) speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name II I II I.

The editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia continue:

{{quote|The judicious reader will perceive that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name. Inserting the vowels of Jabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name. It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue by means of the Samaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.}}

==Usage of YHWH==
[[Image:Shefa Tal.png|280px|left|thumb|A variant of a [[hamsa]] with Adonai inscribed]]
===In ancient Judaism===
Several centuries before the Christian era the name of their god YHWH had ceased to be commonly used by the Jews. Some of the later writers in the Old Testament employ the appellative [[Elohim]], God, prevailingly or exclusively.

The oldest complete [[Septuagint]] ([[Greek language|Greek]] Old Testament) versions, from around the second century A.D., consistently use {{polytonic|Κυριος}} (= "[[Lord]]"), where the Hebrew has YHWH, corresponding to substituting Adonay for YHWH in reading the original; in books written in Greek in this period (e.g. Wisdom, 2 and 3 Maccabees), as in the [[New Testament]], {{polytonic|Κυριος}} takes the place of the name of God. However, older fragments contain the name YHWH.<ref>The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Volume 2, page 512 </ref> In the P. Ryl. 458 (perhaps the oldest extant [[Septuagint]] manuscript) there are blank spaces, leading some scholars to believe that the Tetragrammaton must have been written where these breaks or blank spaces are.<ref> Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1959) p. 222 </ref>

[[Josephus]], who as a priest knew the pronunciation of the name, declares that religion forbids him to divulge it.

[[Philo]] calls it [[ineffable]], and says that it is lawful for those only whose ears and tongues are purified by wisdom to hear and utter it in a holy place (that is, for priests in the Temple). In another passage, commenting on Lev. xxiv. 15 seq.: "If any one, I do not say should [[blaspheme]] against the Lord of men and gods, but should even dare to utter his name unseasonably, let him expect the penalty of death." <ref>Footnote #3 from page 311 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "See Josephus, ''Ant''. ii. 12, 4; Philo, ''Vita Mosis,'' iii. II (ii. 114, ed. Cohn and Wendland); ib. iii. 27 (ii. 206). The [[Palestinian]] authorities more correctly interpreted Lev. xxiv. 15 seq., not of the mere utterance of the name, but of the use of the name of God in blaspheming God." </ref>

Various motives may have concurred to bring about the suppression of the name:
# An instinctive feeling that a proper name for God implicitly recognizes the existence of other gods may have had some influence; reverence and the fear lest the holy name should be profaned among the heathen.
# Desire to prevent abuse of the name in [[Magic (paranormal)|magic]]. If so, the secrecy had the opposite effect; the name of the God of the Jews was one of the great names, in magic, heathen as well as Jewish, and miraculous efficacy was attributed to the mere utterance of it.
# Avoiding risk of the Name being used as an angry [[expletive]], as reported in [[Leviticus]] 24:11 in the [[Bible]].

In the [[liturgy]] of the [[Temple]] the name was pronounced in the [[priest]]ly [[benediction]] (Num. vi. 27) after the regular daily sacrifice (in the [[synagogue]]s a substitute— probably Adonai— was employed);<ref>Footnote #4 from page 311 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''Siphre'', Num. f 39, 43; ''M. Sotak'', iii. 7; ''Sotah'', 38a. The tradition that the utterance of the name in the daily benedictions ceased with the death of Simeon the Just, two centuries or more before the Christian era, perhaps arose from a misunderstanding of Menahoth, 109b; in any case it cannot stand against the testimony of older and more authoritative texts.</ref> on the [[Yom Kippur|Day of Atonement]] the High Priest uttered the name ten times in his [[prayer]]s and benediction.

In the last generations before the fall of [[Jerusalem]], however, it was pronounced in a low tone so that the sounds were lost in the chant of the priests.<ref>Footnote #5 from page 311 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''Yoma'', 39b; ''Jer. Yoma'', iii. 7; ''Kiddushin'', 71a."</ref>

===In later Judaism===
After the destruction of the Temple (A.D. [[70]]) the liturgical use of the name ceased, but the tradition was perpetuated in the schools of the [[rabbi]]s.<ref>Footnote #1 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads:"R. Johannan (second half of the 3rd century), ''Kiddushin'', 71a."</ref> It was certainly known in [[Babylonia]] in the latter part of the 4th century,<ref>Footnote #2 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads:"Kiddushin, ''l.c. = Pesahim'', 50a"</ref> and not improbably much later. Nor was the knowledge confined to these pious circles; the name continued to be employed by healers, [[exorcist]]s and magicians, and has been preserved in many places in magical papyri.

The vehemence with which the utterance of the name is denounced in the [[Mishna]]—''He who pronounces the Name with its own letters has no part in the world to come!''<ref>Footnote #3 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''M. Sanhedrin'', x.I; Abba Saul, end of 2nd century."</ref> —suggests that this misuse of the name was not uncommon among Jews.

===In Modern Judaism===
The new [[Jewish Publication Society]] [[Tanakh]] 1985 follows the traditional convention of translating the Divine Name as "the LORD" (in all caps). The [[Artscroll]] [[Tanakh]] translates the Divine Name as "HaShem" (literally, "The Name").

When the Divine Name is read during prayer, "Adonai" ("My Lord") is substituted. However, when practicing a prayer or referring to one, Orthodox Jews will say "AdoShem" instead of "Adonai". When speaking to another person "HaShem" is used.

===Among the Samaritans===
The [[Samaritan]]s, who otherwise shared the scruples of the Jews about the utterance of the name, seem to have used it in judicial oaths to the scandal of the rabbis.<ref>Footnote #4 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads:''Jer. Sanhedrin'', x.I; R. Mana, 4th century.</ref> (Their priests have preserved a liturgical pronunciation "Yahwe" or "Yahwa" to the present day.) <ref>Footnote #11 from page 312 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica reads: "See Montgomery, ''Journal of Biblical Literature'', xxv. (1906), 49-51."</ref>

===Modern===
[[Image:Tetragrammaton at 5th Chapel of the Palace of Versailles France.jpg|thumb|180px|Tetragrammaton at the 5th Chapel of the [[Palace of Versailles]], [[France]]. This example has the vowel points of "[[Elohim]]".]]

The [[Jerusalem Bible|New Jerusalem Bible]] (1966) uses "Yahweh" exclusively.

The [[Bible In Basic English]] (1949/1964) uses "Yahweh" eight times, including Exodus 6.2.

The [[Amplified Bible]] (1954/1987) uses "Yahweh" in Exodus 6.3

The [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] (1999/2002) uses "Yahweh" over 50 times,including Exodus 6.2.

The [[World English Bible]] (WEB) [a Public Domain work with no copyright] uses "Yahweh" some 6837 times.

In [[Larry Gonick]]'s [[The Cartoon History of the Universe]], the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning.

Some modern writers{{Specify|date=February 2008}}, particularly in mythology and anthropology, use 'Yahweh' specifically, rather than 'God', to describe the Biblical God as a way of trying to display Christian and Jewish concepts as being on an even plane with concepts and deities from other religions. This does not necessarily represent a majority view, but the practice has grown in recent years.

Randy Weaver, of the Aryan Nations church, used the word Yahweh to describe God.

==Short forms==
"Yahū" or "Yehū" is a common short form for "Yahweh" in Hebrew [[theophoric name]]s; as a prefix it sometimes appears as "Yehō-". In former times that was thought to be abbreviated from the supposed pronunciation "Yehowah". There is nowadays an opinion [http://members.fortunecity.com/yahuwthah/Resource-577/AnsonLetter.htm] that, as "Yahweh" is likely an [[imperfective]] verb form, "Yahu" is its corresponding [[preterite]] or [[jussive]] short form: compare ''yiŝtahaweh'' (imperfective), ''yiŝtáhû'' (preterit or jussive short form) = "do obeisance".

In some places, such Exodus 15:2, the name YHWH is shortened to {{lang|he|יָהּ}} (Yah).
This same syllable is found in Hallelu-yah. Here the ה has [[mappiq]], i.e., is consonantal, not a [[mater lectionis]].

It is often assumed that this is also the second element -ya of the Aramaic "{{lang|syc|Marya}}": the [[Peshitta]] Old Testament translates Adonai with "{{lang|syc|Mar}}" (Lord), and YHWH with "{{lang|syc|Marya}}".

==Derivation==
===Putative etymology===
[[Image:Tetragrammaton Paris StMichele.JPG|150px|left|thumb|The Tetragrammaton at the church of St. Marri at [[Paris]], near the [[Centre Pompidou]].]]
Jahveh or Yahweh is apparently an example of a common type of Hebrew proper names which have the form of the 3rd pers. sing. of the verb. e.g. Jabneh (name of a city), Jabin, Jamlek, Jiptah (Jephthah), &c. Most of these really are verbs, the suppressed or implicit subject being '''el'', "numen, god", or the name of a god; cf. Jabneh and Jabne-el, Jiptah and Jiptah-el.

The ancient explanations of the name proceed from Exod. iii. 14, 15, where "''Yahweh<ref>Footnote #13 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''This transcription will be used henceforth.''"</ref> hath sent me''" in v 15 corresponds to "[[I am that I am|Ehyeh]] hath sent me" in v. 14, thus seeming to connect the name Yahweh with the Hebrew verb hayah, "to become, to be". The Jewish interpreters found in this the promise that God would be with his people (cf. v. 12) in future oppressions as he was in the present distress, or the assertion of his eternity, or eternal constancy; the [[Alexandria]]n translation '{{polytonic|Eγω ειμι ο ων'''. . .''' ' O ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας}} understands it in the more metaphysical sense of God's absolute being. Both interpretations, "He (who) is (always the same);" and , "He (who) is (absolutely the truly existent);" import into the name all that they profess to find in it; the one, the religious faith in God's unchanging fidelity to his people, the other, a philosophical conception of absolute being which is foreign both to the meaning of the Hebrew verb and to the force of the tense employed.

Modern scholars have sometimes found in the name the expression of the [[aseity]]<ref>Footnote #14 from Page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''A-se-itas'', a scholastic Latin expression for the quality of existing by oneself.</ref> of God; sometimes of his reality in contrast to the imaginary gods of the heathen.

Another explanation, which appears first in Jewish authors of the Middle Ages and has found wide acceptance in recent times, derives the name from the causative of the verb: "He (who) causes things to be, gives them being; or calls events into existence, brings them to pass", with many individual modifications of interpretation "creator", "life giver", "fulfiller of promises". A serious objection to this theory in every form is that the verb ''hayah'', "to be" has no causative stem in Hebrew; to express the ideas which these scholars find in the name Yahweh the language employs altogether different verbs.

Another tradition regards the name as coming from three verb forms sharing the same [[root (linguistics)|root]] YWH, the words HYH ''haya'' {{lang|he|היה}}: "He was"; HWH ''howê'' {{lang|he|הוה}}: "He is"; and YHYH ''yihiyê'' {{lang|he|יהיה}}: "He will be". This is supposed to show that God is [[eternity|timeless]], as some have translated the name as "The Eternal One". Other interpretations include the name as meaning "I am the One Who Is." This can be seen in the traditional Jewish account of the "burning bush" commanding [[Moses]] to tell the sons of Israel that "I AM ({{lang|he|אהיה}}) has sent you." ([[Exodus]] 3:13-14) Some suggest: "I AM the One I AM" {{lang|he|אהיה אשר אהיה}}, or "I AM whatever I need to become". This may also fit the interpretation as "He Causes to Become." Many scholars believe that the most proper meaning may be "He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists" or "He who causes to exist". Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, which is based on the [[King James Version]], says that the term "Jehovah" means "The Existing One."

[[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza]], in his Theologico-Political Treatise (Chap.2) asserts the derivation of "Jahweh" from "Being". He writes that "Moses conceived the Deity as a Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of existence." Following Spinoza, [[Constantin Brunner]] translates the [[Shema]] (Deut. 2-4) as, "Hear, O Israel, Being is our God, Being is One."

This assumption that Yahweh is derived from the verb "to be", as seems to be implied in Exod. iii. 14 seq., is not, however, free from difficulty. "To be" in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is not ''hawah'', as the derivation would require, but ''hayah''; and we are thus driven to the further assumption that ''hawah'' belongs to an earlier stage of the language, or to some older speech of the forefathers of the Israelites.

This hypothesis is not intrinsically improbable (and in Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, "to be" is ''hawa''); in adopting it we admit that, using the name Hebrew in the historical sense, Yahweh is not a Hebrew name. And, inasmuch as nowhere in the Old Testament, outside of Exod. iii., is there the slightest indication that the Israelites connected the name of their God with the idea of "being" in any sense, it may fairly be questioned whether, if the author of Exod. 14 seq., intended to give an etymological interpretation of the name Yahweh,<ref>Footnote #15 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "The critical difficulties of these verses need not be discussed here. See W.R. Arnold, "The Divine Name in Exodus iii. 14," ''Journal of Biblical Literature'', XXIV. (1905), 107-165."</ref> his etymology is any better than many other paronomastic explanations of proper names in the Old Testament, or than, say, the connection of the name {{polytonic|Aπολλων}} ([[Apollo]]) with {{polytonic|απολουων, απολυων}} in [[Plato]]'s ''[[Cratylus]]'', or popular derivations from {{polytonic|απολλυμι}} = "I lose (transitive)" or "I destroy".

===="I am"====
Mishearings and misunderstandings of this explanation has led to a popular idea that "Yahweh" means "I am", resulting in God, and by colloquial extension sometimes anything which is very dominant in its area [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,936506,00.html], being called "the great I AM".

Another possibility according to the Complete Jewish Bible by author David H. Stern, proposes that the Tetragrammaton be pronounced letter for letter in Hebrew and that the name of God should be rendered by spelling out the four letters, "Yud He Vav He", the meaning assumed to be "I am that I am" or "I am Who I am", as revealed to Moses in the Torah (Exodus 3:14).

===From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar?===
A root ''hawah'' is represented in Hebrew by the nouns ''howah'' (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. II){{Fact|date=August 2008}} and ''hawwah'' (Ps., Prov., Job) "disaster, calamity, ruin."<ref>Footnote #16 from page 312 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''Cf. also ''hawwah'', "desire", Mic. vii. 3; Prov. x. 3.''"</ref> The primary meaning is probably "sink down, fall", in which sense (common in [[Arabic]]) the verb appears in [[Job (Bible)|Job]] xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).{{Fact|date=August 2008}}

A Catholic commentator of the 16th century, [[Hieronymus|Hieronymus ab Oleastro]], seems to have been the first to connect the name "Jehova" with "howah" interpreting it as "''{{lang|la|contritio sive pernicies}}''" (destruction of the Egyptians and Canaanites). Daumer, adopting the same etymology, took it in a more general sense: Yahweh, as well as [[Shaddai]], meant "Destroyer", and fitly expressed the nature of the terrible god who he identified with [[Moloch]].

The derivation of Yahweh from ''hawah'' is formally unimpeachable, and is adopted by many recent<ref>recent in 1911 - this is what the 1911 E.B. wrote</ref> scholars, who proceed, however, from the primary sense of the root rather than from the specific meaning of the nouns. The name is accordingly interpreted, He (who) falls (''[[Baetylus|baetyl]]'', {{polytonic|βαιτυλος}}, meteorite); or causes (rain or lightning) to fall (storm god); or casts down (his foes, by his thunderbolts). It is obvious that if the derivation be correct, the significance of the name, which in itself denotes only "He falls" or "He fells", must be learned, if at all, from early Semitic conceptions of the nature of Yahweh rather than from etymology.

===Cultus===
A more fundamental question is whether the name Yahweh originated among the Israelites or was adopted by them from some other people and speech.<ref>Footnote #1 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "See HEBREW RELIGION"</ref>

The biblical author of the history of the sacred institutions (P) expressly declares that the name Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs (Exod. vi. 3), and the much older Israelite historian (E) records the first revelation of the name to [[Moses]] (Exod. iii. 13-15), apparently following a tradition according to which the Israelites had not been worshippers of Yahweh before the time of Moses, or, as he conceived it, had not worshipped the god of their fathers under that name.

The revelation of the name to Moses was made at a mountain sacred to Yahweh, (the mountain of God) far to the south of Canaan, in a region where the forefathers of the Israelites had never roamed, and in the territory of other tribes. Long after the settlement in [[Canaan]] this region continued to be regarded as the abode of Yahweh (Judg. v. 4; Deut. xxxiii. 2 sqq.; I Kings xix. 8 sqq. &c).

Moses is closely connected with the tribes in the vicinity of the holy mountain. According to one account, he married a daughter of the priest of [[Midian]] (Exod. ii. 16 sqq.; iii. 1). It is to this mountain he led the Israelites after their deliverance from [[Egypt]]. There his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered sacrifices, at which the chief men of the Israelites were his guests. In the holy mountain the religion of Yahweh was revealed through Moses, and the Israelites pledged themselves to serve God according to its prescriptions.

It appears, therefore, that in the tradition followed by the [[Israelite]] [[historian]]s, the tribes within whose pasture lands the mountain of God stood were worshipers of Yahweh before the time of Moses. The surmise that the name Yahweh belongs to their speech, rather than to that of Israel, is a significant possibility.

One of these tribes was Midian, in whose land the mountain of God lay. The Kenites also, with whom another tradition connects Moses, seem to have been worshipers of Yahweh.

It is probable that Yahweh was at one time worshiped by various tribes south of Palestine, and that several places in that wide territory ([[Horeb]], [[Sinai]], [[Kadesh]], &c.) were sacred to him. The oldest and most famous of these, the mountain of God, seems to have lain in [[Arabia]], east of the [[Red Sea]]. From some of these peoples and at one of these holy places, a group of Israelite tribes adopted the religion of Yahweh, the God who, by the hand of Moses, had delivered them from Egypt.<ref>Footnote #2 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "The divergent Judaean tradition, according to which the forefathers had worshipped Yahweh from time immemorial, may indicate that Judah and the kindred clans had in fact been worshippers of Yahweh before the time of Moses."</ref>

The tribes of this region probably belonged to some branch of the Arabian desert Semitic stock, and accordingly, the name Yahweh has been connected with the Arabic ''hawa'', the void (between heaven and earth), "the atmosphere, or with the verb ''hawa'', cognate with Heb; ''Hawah'', "sink, glide down (through space)"; and ''hawwa'' "blow (wind)". "He rides through the air, He blows" (Wellhausen), would be a fit name for a god of wind and storm. There is, however, no certain evidence that the Israelites in historical times had any consciousness of the primitive significance of the name.

However, the 'h' in the root h-w-h, h-y-h = "be, become" and in "Yahweh" is the ordinary glottal 'h' (spelled with a [[He (letter)|He]]), and the 'h' in the roots ħ-y-w = "live" and ħ-w-[[glottalstop|{{unicode|ʔ}}]] = "air, blow (of wind)" is a pharyngeal 'h' (spelled with a [[Heth (letter)|Heth]]) which is usually transcribed as 'h' with a dot under.

===Yahu===
According to one theory, Yahweh, or [[Yahu]], Yaho,<ref>Footnote #3 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "The form ''Yahu'', or ''Yaho'', occurs not only in composition, but by itself; see ''[[Aramaic]] [[Papyri]] discovered at Assaan,'' B 4,6,II; E 14; J 6. This doubtless is the original of 'Iαω, frequently found in Greek authors and in magical texts as the name of the God of the Jews."</ref> is the name of a god worshipped throughout the whole, or a great part, of the area occupied by the Western Semites.

In its earlier form this opinion rested chiefly on certain misinterpreted testimonies in [[Greek language|Greek]] authors about a god {{polytonic|'Iαω}} and was conclusively refuted by Baudissin; recent adherents of the theory build more largely on the occurrence in various parts of this territory of proper names of persons and places which they explain as compounds of Yahu or Yah.<ref>Footnote #4 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "See a collection and critical estimate of this evidence by Zimmern, ''Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,'' 465 sqq."</ref>

The explanation is in most cases simply an assumption of the point at issue; some of the names have been misread; others are undoubtedly the names of Jews.

There remain, however, some cases in which it is highly probable that names of non-Israelites are really compounded with Yahweh. The most conspicuous of these is the king of Hamath who in the inscriptions of Sargon (722-705 B.C.) is called Yaubi'di and Ilubi'di (compare Jehoiakim-Eliakim). Azriyau of Jaudi, also, in inscriptions of [[Tiglath-Pileser III]] (745-728 B.C.), who was formerly supposed to be [[Uzziah of Judah]], is probably a king of the country in northern [[Syria]] known to us from the Zenjirli inscriptions as Ja'di.

===Mesopotamian influence===
Friedrich Delitzsch brought into notice three tablets, of the age of the first dynasty of Babylon, in which he read the names of ''Ya- a'-ve-ilu, Ya-ve-ilu, and Ya-u-um-ilu'' ("Yahweh is God"), and which he regarded as conclusive proof that Yahweh was known in Babylonia before 2000 B.C.; he was a god of the [[Semitic]] invaders in the second wave of migration, who were, according to Winckler and Delitzsch, of North Semitic stock ([[Canaanite languages|Canaanite]]s, in the linguistic sense).<ref>Footnote #5 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''Babel und Bibel,'' 1902. The enormous, and for the most part ephemeral, literature provoked by Delitzsch's lecture cannot be cited here.</ref>

We should thus have in the tablets evidence of the worship of Yahweh among the Western Semites at a time long before the rise of Israel. The reading of the names is, however, extremely uncertain, not to say improbable, and the far-reaching inferences drawn from them carry no conviction.<ref>Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-11), vol. 15, pp. 312, in the Article “JEHOVAH”.</ref>

In a tablet attributed to the 14th century B.C. which Sellin found in the course of his excavations at Tell Ta'annuk (the city Taanach of the O.T.) a name occurs which may be read Ahi-Yawi (equivalent to Hebrew Ahijah);<ref>Footnote #6 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''Denkschriften d. Wien. Akad''., L. iv. p. 115 seq. (1904)."
</ref> if the reading be correct, this would show that Yahweh was worshipped in Central Palestine before the Israelite conquest. Genesis 14:17 describes a meeting between Melchizedek the king/priest of Salem and Abaraham. Both these pre-conquest figures are described as worshipping the same Most High God later identified as Yahweh.

The reading is, however, only one of several possibilities. The fact that the full form Yahweh appears, whereas in Hebrew proper names only the shorter ''Yahu'' and ''Yah'' occur, weighs somewhat against the interpretation, as it does against Delitzsch's reading of his tablets.

It would not be at all surprising if, in the great movements of populations and shifting of ascendancy which lie beyond our historical horizon, the worship of Yahweh should have been established in regions remote from those which it occupied in historical times; but nothing which we now know warrants the opinion that his worship was ever general among the Western Semites.

Many attempts have been made to trace the [[West Semitic]] Yahu back to Babylonia. Thus Delitzsch formerly derived the name from an [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] god, I or [[Enki|Ia]]; or from the Semitic nominative ending, [[Yaw (god)|Yau]];<ref>Footnote #7 from Page 313 of the 1911 E.B. reads: "''Wo lag das Paradies?'' (1881), pp. 158-166."</ref> but this deity has since disappeared from the pantheon of [[Assyriologist]]s. Bottero speculates that the West Semitic Yah/Ia, in fact is a version of the Babylonian God [[Ea (Babylonian god)|Ea]] (Enki), a view given support by the earliest finding of this name at [[Ebla]] during the reign of [[Ebrum]], at which time the city was under [[Mesopotamia]]n hegemony of [[Sargon of Akkad]].

===Social theory===
Vadim Cherny notes several ancient transcriptions of Tetragrammaton as Iao, among other arguments, to suggest that Tetragrammaton could not possibly be a meaningful Hebrew word. Cherny treats Tetragrammaton as initialism from Hebrew agglutinative suffixes for "I, you, he" and suggests that YHWH means "Hebrew community." <ref>Vadim Cherny [http://vadimcherny.org/judaism/meaning_pronunciation_tetragrammaton.htm]</ref>

Scholars in the 19th century discussed over what sphere of nature Yahweh originally presided. Some recognized in him a storm god, a theory with which the derivation of the name from Hebrew ''hawah'' or [[Arabic]] ''hawa'' well accords (see also the [[Book of Job]] chapters 37-38). The association of Yahweh with storm and fire is frequent in the Old Testament. The thunder is the voice of Yahweh, the lightning his arrows, and the rainbow his bow. The revelation at [[Sinai]] is amid the awe-inspiring phenomena of [[Storm|tempest]]. Yahweh leads Israel through the desert in a pillar of cloud and fire. He kindles [[Elijah]]'s altar by lightning, and translates the [[prophet]] in a chariot of fire. See also Judg. v. 4 seq.. In this way, he seems to have usurped the attributes of the Canaanite god [[Baal]] [[Hadad]]. In [[Ugarit]], the struggle between Baal and [[Yam (god)|Yam]], suggests that Baal's brother Ya'a was a water divinity - the god of Rivers (Nahar) and of the Sea (Yam).

In Old Testament portrayals of Yahweh during the time of ancient Israel, he often acts as the ‘Divine Warrior’. He has supreme power over the world and has named the Israelites as his people, so protects them from their enemies. In the Song of Deborah, an old poem found in Judges 5, there is a story of Yahweh’s power triumphing over the formidable armies of the kings of Canaan. A similar theme is seen in 1 Sam. 2:4-8, where professional forces are destroyed by Yahweh. Because of this, Israel’s political identity centers on Yahweh; they are free from the rule of their enemies because of him. In return, their duty is to love him and serve him and him alone. Furthermore, they were also supposed to rely only on him. Yahweh’s power was their sole defense against the outside world. If they attempted to take up arms and fight for themselves, or express power in traditional ways by building walls or starting wars, they were in effect being unfaithful to Yahweh. As the Divine Warrior, Yahweh would ward them during times of hardship and they would be safe so long as they remained under his protection and stayed faithful. <ref>Walsh J.P.M. The Mighty From Their Thrones. Fortress Press. Philadelphia. 1987.</ref>
----
Many religions today do not use the name Yahweh as much as they did in the past. The original Hebrew name {{lang|he|יהוה}} YHWH appeared almost 7,000 times in the Old Testament, but is often replaced in popular Bibles (such as the [[King James Bible]] or [[New American Standard Bible]]) with [[all caps]] or [[small caps]] "{{LORD}} God" (for YHWH Elohim, Jehovah God), "Lord {{GOD}}" (for Adonai YHWH, Lord Jehovah), "{{LORD}} of hosts" (for YHWH Sabaoth, Jehovah of hosts), or just "{{LORD}}" (for single instances of YHWH, Jehovah). The Christian denomination that most commonly uses the name "Jehovah" is that of the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] while The [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] are the only group which exclusively and consistently use the sacred names (Yahweh and Yahshua). Both believe that God's personal name should not be over-shadowed by the above titles. Jehovah Witnesses often refer to {{bibleverse||Psalms|83:18|KJV}} as a common place in most translations to find the name Jehovah still used in place of "{{LORD}}" , whilst the Assemblies of Yahweh often refer to {{bibleverse||Psalms|68:4|KJV}} where the word YAH is retained, the first syllable of the Name of [[Yah]]weh. Both groups find justification for its use in {{bibleverse||Joel|2:32|KJV}}.

==Witnesses to the Name==

Though the [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] are the only religious, unified group that consistently uses the Name Yahweh, they are also many other witnesses which approve of the correct Name being Yahweh; both Jewish and Christian authorities, such as the [[Jewish Encyclopedia]]. Bible translators [[James Mofatt]] and [[Dr J. M. Power Smith]] as well as Bible Encyclopedias, lexicons and grammars, declare the Tetragrammaton should have been transliterated “Yahweh”. Other sources include the Seventh Day Adventist Commentary Vol. 1, p511, under Exodus 3:15; [[Herbert Armstrong]], the New Morality, pp. 128 – 129; [[David Neufeld]], Review and Herald, December 15, 1971, page11; A New Translation of the Bible, pp 20 – 21 (Harper and Row © 1954) and J.D Douglas; New Bible Dictionary, (Wm B Eerdman’s Pub Co. © (1962), p9 as concluded: “Strictly speaking Yahweh is the only ‘Name’ of God”.

=== The Name in the Septuagint ===
[[Septuagint]] study does give some credence to the possibility that the Divine Name appeared in its texts. Dr [[Sidney Jellicoe]] in the “Septuagint and Modern Study” wrote: “The Divine Name was within the ancient (palao Hebrew) scripts…[YHW]…LXX texts held [the] Divine Name”. Jellicoe also agrees that absence of “Adonai” from the text suggests it was a later practice. In the Septuagint [Kurious], or in English “Lord”, is used to substitute the Name. Jellicoe also suggests that the name Yahweh appeared in the text, but Christians removed it.

Meyer suggests that “...as modern Hebrew letters were introduced, the next step was to follow modern Jews and insert [Kurious], Lord. This would prove this innovation was of a late date.” .<ref>See pages 12 and 13 of the magazine “The Sacred Name Broadcaster”, Septuagint Study proves Sacred Name, [10’1982]"by Elder Jacob O Meyer, a publication of the Assemblies of Yahweh ©.</ref>

Bible scholars and translators as [[Eusebius]] and [[Jerome]] (translator of the Latin Vulgate) used the [[Hexpla]]. Both attest to the importance of the sacred Name and that the most reliable manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters.

Dr F. F. Bruce in the “The Books and the Parchments” (p. 159) shows that the religious language of the Greeks is effectively pagan. Bruce demonstrates, that the words commonly used today in Christianity are pagan Greek words and substitutes; this includes words such as “[[Christ]]””[[Lord]]” and “[[God]]”. For this reason, some groups such as the [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] have maintained that they are restoring the purity of worship - by using the sacred Names and Hebrew titles. 
On the other hand, Christianity still generally regards the sacred Name as a minor issue.

===Relevance in the New Testament===
Bible translations such as the [[Rotherham Emphasized Bible]], the [[Anchor Bible]], and the [[Jerusalem Bible]] have retained the Name Yahweh in the Old Testament. Distinguished from these is the [[Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition]], which uses the Name Yahweh both in the Old and New Testament. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] is it's editor: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_yahweh.]

Scholars recognize that the original copies have perished, and the Greek manuscripts available to us are far from the originals <ref>McClintock and Strong “Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature” New York: Harper and Brothers, 1867. Rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968. ©.</ref>. This has led many scholars to explore the likelihood that the original copies were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. <ref>Bullinger, E.W. Companion Bible. (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, rpt 1972.)</ref>. Although the Divine Name is not found in any Greek manuscript of the New Testament text, scholars have spoken on the original texts being written in Hebrew or Aramaic and containing the sacred Name. <ref>”The Original Book of Mark” Journal of Semitic Studies. Vol. XVI (1971- Autumn. Author: Isaac Rabinowitz)</ref> see ''“The Name in the Septuagint” section.''

==Blasphemy==
If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus (Heb. Yahshua) and his disciples, they would have most probably been accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. .<ref>See page 3 of the magazine “The Sacred Name Broadcaster”, Calling Upon His Name, [10’1982]"by Elder Jacob O Meyer, a publication of the Assemblies of Yahweh ©.</ref> The term “Power” used in {{bibleverse||Matthew|26:63-66|ASV}}was a substitute for the Divine Name used by devout Jews. Therefore, it is possible that Jesus (Heb. Yahshua) was executed for using this term. Pronouncing the Name was considered [[taboo]] by Jews, ''see “Sacred to Jews” section''. The [[Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition]] Bible - a [[Assemblies of Yahweh]] publication - “restores” the Hebrew sacred Names to the text.

==Other Uses==

"[[Yahweh (song)|Yahweh]]" is the name of a song on [[U2]]'s eleventh studio album.

==See also==

{{commonscat|Tetragrammaton}}
{{wikisource1911EB|Jehovah}}

*[[Adon]]
*[[Enki|Ea]]
*[[El (god)]]
*[[Enlil|Ellil]]
*[[Elohim]]
*[[Jehovah]]
*[[I am that I am]]
*[[-ihah]]
*[[INRI]]
*[[Jah]]
*[[JHWH]]
*[[List of Septuagint versions that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Names of God in Judaism]]
*[[Tetragrammaton in the New Testament]]
*[[Theophoric names]]
*[[Yam (god)]] (Ya'a, Yaw)
*[[YHWH]]
*{{1911EB|Tetragrammaton}}
*{{1911EB|Jehovah_(Yahweh)}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{JewishEncyclopedia}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* [http://www.assembliesofyahweh.com official site of the Assemblies of Yahweh],
* [http://www.princeton.edu/~aamihay/Divine_Names.html Bibliography on the Tetragrammaton in the Dead Sea Scrolls]
* [http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html ''Encyclopedia Mythica''. 2004.] Arbel, Ilil. "Yahweh."
* [http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton]
* [http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002000.html#T0002017 ''Easton's Bible Dictionary'' (3rd ed.) 1887.] "Jehovah."
* [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N Jewish Encyclopedia count of number of times the Tetragrammaton is used]
* [http://www.psyche.com/psyche/lex/sy/yhwh.html YHWH/YHVH -- Tetragrammaton]
* [http://www.yahweh.org/PDF_index1.html The Sacred Name Yahweh], a publication by Qadesh La Yahweh Press

[[Category:Ancient Semitic religions]]
[[Category:Biblical criticism]]
[[Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics]]
[[Category:Creator gods]]
[[Category:Deities in the Hebrew Bible]]
[[Category:Names of God in Judaism]]
[[Category:Names of God]]
[[Category:Yahweh|*]]
[[Category:Yahwism]]

[[als:JHWH]]
[[ast:Xehová]]
[[ar:يهوه]]
[[bs:Jehova]]
[[bg:Яхве]]
[[ca:Jehovà]]
[[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
[[cs:JHVH]]
[[da:Tetragrammaton]]
[[de:JHWH]]
[[et:Jahve]]
[[el:Τετραγράμματο]]
[[es:Yahveh]]
[[eo:Jehovo]]
[[fr:YHWH]]
[[fur:Jeova]]
[[ko:야훼]]
[[id:Tetragrammaton]]
[[ia:Tetragrammaton]]
[[it:Tetragramma biblico]]
[[he:השם המפורש]]
[[kw:Yehovah]]
[[la:Iehovah]]
[[lt:Tetragramatonas]]
[[hu:Jahve]]
[[nl:JHWH]]
[[ja:ヤハウェ]]
[[no:JHVH]]
[[nn:JHVH]]
[[hz:Jehova]]
[[pl:Jahwe]]
[[pt:Tetragrama YHVH]]
[[ro:YHWH]]
[[ru:Тетраграмматон]]
[[sq:JHVH]]
[[sh:Jahve]]
[[fi:Jahve]]
[[sv:JHVH]]
[[tl:Jehova]]
[[ta:யாவே]]
[[vi:Giêhôva]]
[[tr:Yehova]]
[[zh-yue:耶和華]]
[[zh:耶和華]]

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:36:21Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
:::::People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information". It's following what [[WP:LEAD]] requires. For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is. I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Breaching [[WP:LEAD]] does nothing to "clean the article up". It simply makes the article even less conformant with Wikipedia's guidelines, so just adds one more thing to fix. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], you're currently in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. Please stop edit warring over the lead. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules read]. It will tell you that if the lead doesn't help to clean up the article then the rule doesn't have to apply...this is ridiculous...all it shows is who wants a clean article and who wasnts a messy one...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

Yahweh

2008-08-27T11:29:10Z

Mod objective: read section 27 in talk, noone is discussing it except me...btw- why the name change?

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:27:13Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
:::::People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information". It's following what [[WP:LEAD]] requires. For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is. I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by [[WP:LEAD]]. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]], the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:24:54Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please...

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

::* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
::* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
::* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
::* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in

::''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''.
:-- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />

Yahweh

2008-08-27T11:21:28Z

Mod objective: Jheald - re talk, you havnt replied. The rule shouldn't be used to make the article messier. The whole article looks messy, when you try to present so much info on

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

2008-08-27T11:17:16Z

Mod objective: /* Lead */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=B|importance=high|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{JWProject|class=B|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]].}}

==Name vs. Person==
no no no no no no'''no'''
This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there?
(Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.135.169.184|80.135.169.184]] ([[User talk:80.135.169.184|talk]]) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 

:You mean such as [[God in Judaism]] and [[God in Christianity]]? - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

:::I don't think it would be ''possible'' to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Steve kap|Steve kap]] ([[User talk:Steve kap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Steve kap|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

==Septuagint (LXX) translators?==

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

==Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"==
{|
|[[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]] ||'''Jehóva'''
|-
|[[Arabic language|Arabic]] ||<big>يهوه</big> |-
| [[Awabakal language|Awabakal]] || '''Yehóa'''
|-
| [[Bosnian language|Bosnian]] || '''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Bugotu]] ||'''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]] || '''Йехова'''
|-
| [[Croatian language|Croatian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Czech language|Czech]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Danish language|Danish]] ||'''Jahve (/ Jehova)'''
|-
| [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ||'''Jahwe(h) / Jehovah '''
|-
| [[Efik language|Efik]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Ewe language|Ewe (Ʋegbe)]] ||'''Yehowah'''
|-
| [[English language|English]] ||'''Jehovah / Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Fijian language|Fijian]] ||'''Jiova'''
|-
| [[Finnish language|Finnish]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[French language|French]] ||'''Yahvé / Jéhovah'''
|-
| [[Fakafutuna|Futuna]] || '''Ihovah'''
|-
| [[Galician Language|Galician]] || '''Xeova'''
|-
| [[German language|German]] || '''Jahwe / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Greek language|Greek]] || '''Iehova / Yiahve''' Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
|-
| [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] ||'''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Igbo language|Igbo]] || '''Jehova '''
|-
| [[Indonesian language|Indonesian]] ||'''Yehuwa'''
|-
| [[Eskimo language|Inuktitut]] ||'''Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH'''
|-
| [[Isoko language|Isoko]] || '''eJehova '''
|-
| [[Italian language|Italian]] || '''Geova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Japanese language|Japanese]] || '''EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ'''
|-
| [[Korean language|Korean]] || '''Yeohowa 여호와''' / '''Yahwe 야훼'''
|-
| [[Latin language|Latin]] || '''Iahveh'''
|-
| [[Latvian language|Latvian]] || '''Jahve'''
|-
| [[Lithuanian language|Lithuanian]] ||'''Jahveh''','''Jahvė'''
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Traditional Chinese character|Traditional Chinese]] || Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]]|| Yewowha 耶和華
|-
| [[Min Dong]]|| Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
|-
| [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin]] in [[Simplified Chinese character|Simplified Chinese]] ||Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
|-
| [[Māori language|Maori]] || '''Ihowa'''
|-
| [[Motu language|Motu]] || '''Iehova'''
|-
| [[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] || '''Јахве'''
|-
| [[Narrinyeri]] || '''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Nembe]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] || '''Jahve / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Petats]] ||'''Jihouva'''
|-
| [[Polish language|Polish]] ||'''Jehowa / Jahwe'''
|-
| [[Persian language|Persian]] ||<big>يهوه</big>
|-
| [[Punjabi language|Punjabi]] ||''' yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ'''
|-
| [[Romanian language|Romanian]]||'''Iahve / Iehova'''
|-
| [[Russian language|Russian]] ||'''Иегова / Яхве'''
|-
| [[Samoan language|Samoan]] ||'''Ieova'''
|-
| [[Serbian language|Serbian]] || '''Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova'''
|-
| [[Sotho languages|Sotho]] ||'''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Spanish language|Spanish]] || '''Yavé Yahveh /Jehová'''
|-
| [[Swahili language|Swahili]] ||'''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Slovak language|Slovak]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]] || '''Jahve''','''Jehova'''
|-
| [[Swedish language|Swedish]] ||'''Jehova / Jahve'''
|-
| [[Tagalog language|Tagalog]] ||'''Jehova'''/'''Yahweh'''
|-
| [[Tahitian language|Tahitian]] ||'''Jehovah'''
|-
| [[Tongan language|Tongan]] || '''Jihova'''
|-
| [[Turkish language|Turkish]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Venda language|Venda]] || '''Yehova'''
|-
| [[Xhosa language|Xhosa]]||'''u Yehova'''
|-
| [[Yoruba language|Yoruba]] || '''Jehofah'''
|-
| [[Zulu language|Zulu]] ||'''u Jehova'''
|}

== Coin ==
See [http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehWheelCoin.html]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be [[waw (letter)|waw]], but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a [[dalet]] to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ? ==

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.130.150|82.69.130.150]] ([[User talk:82.69.130.150|talk]]) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

Problem with YHWH being the '''personal name''' of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this '''Point of View'''..YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .{{hebrew|יהוה}}…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name
..[I am (who) what I am…. {{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}]…NOT… [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ {{hebrew|דּר לדר}} ]..and forever [ {{hebrew|לְעלָם}} ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}] is just a '''generic name''' for lord…just like '''EL , Elshadi, Elohim''' , ..not '''personal''' ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁר אהיה}}… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …{{hebrew|יהוה}}]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not '''LORD Jealous''' see...Exodus 34:14 ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…{{hebrew|אהיה אשׁיר אהיה}} is the personal name of god.

We read in '''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty''' {{hebrew|בְּאֵל שַׁדָי}}, ''' but by my name''' [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] '''was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

'''1)''' Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place {{hebrew|המקוֹם}}“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” {{hebrew|יְהוה ירָאֶה}} see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..'''YHWH provide''' after a Ram been given to him instead.

'''2 )''' All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}} in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone built an [Alter {{hebrew|מִזְבּח}}] and in the [name {{hebrew|בְּשׁם}}] of [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] as Gen26:15 say.

'''3)''' Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH {{hebrew|יהוה}}] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God'''……?

This Problems have to be solved .[[User:217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] ([[User talk:217.44.222.210|talk]]) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

''''''
I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)''''''

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see ''Parmenides''), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—''The Jewish Encyclopedia''.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—''BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE''.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—''Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary''.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—''The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament''.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—''King James Version Study Bible''.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—''Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.''

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—''The New Bible Commentary.''

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—''New Nave’s Topical Bible.''

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— ''Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.''

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.''

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.''

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time''', [...] and tell them, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me''' [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, '''"Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": '''Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain'''; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

</blockquote> If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'''The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?'''

'''when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

== YHWH personal name discussion cont. ==

''' Hi vassilis'''

By saying....'''"As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"'''...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a '''Direct response from God himself''' to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'''

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

The Ansewer is.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14

This '''Name''' ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''",in which God answerd him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that '''YHWH .יהוה‎''' , not ''' I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎'''..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..'''Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.'''

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..'''are insertions''' .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ''' ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said '''.....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—''The Anchor Bible Dictionary.'''''... ..'''The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel'''..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord''' [ Jealous ]''' ?.......'''Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…'''....it is in the bible Too..'''and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!'''...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about '''Plato''', '''the zealous''', '''Protestants''', '''''The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia''' ....'''''The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..'''etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx
[[User:86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

----

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea.
The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”.
Please read the comments below:

<blockquote>
“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). '''The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.'''”—'''''New Bible Dictionary'''''.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''13''' '''Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?"''' Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" '''The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name.''' Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
'''14-15''' '''God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses.''' The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—'''''Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary'''''.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hi Vassilis'''

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid '''" biblical text "''' evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by '''"exhausting us "''' with documents '''"Duck and dive tricks"''' that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

'''[The First Point]'''

You have said and I quote '''{Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}'''

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 '''Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, '''[What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]'''?' Then what shall I tell them?"'''

God's answer was.....'''God said to Moses, "'''I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎….''' Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'''' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..[['''Further/also]] '''... Exodus 3:15 '''God ''[["further"'']] said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "''''''Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc''''''.

This word '''[ Further עוד ]'''means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary '''additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer''' to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, '''"that is the Personal name of the lord'''" ,in which God answered him by saying '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

''' [The second Point] '''

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary '''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }'''..Answer is..that is absolutely '''WRONG'''.

The word ''' Mi מי ''' in Hebrew means “''' who'''”…e.g '''Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?")''' e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word '''“[What.. מַה ]'''...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be '''gobbledygooks'''...Therefore'''..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ...''' ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word '''[What. mah. מַה ]''' not '''[who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..'''or the meaning of his name , ..but his '''Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. '''[What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13''''.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..'''this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name'''" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

'''[The Third point]'''

You said and I quote '''{you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.'''....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

''' Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote '''“On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.'''''' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

'''[scientific community]''' totally disagree with the '''"alleged''' "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these '''"alleged religious'''" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these '''"alleged scholars"''' only function as '''[Building up Confidence ],''' '''[only]''' when they are supported by '''Literal biblical texts''' ,and '''[comply]''' not clash with the '''already testable proved Scientific''' evidences available with us.

''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

'''[Fourth point]'''

You have said and I qoute '''{you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}'''

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot '''about Free THINKING and VALIDITY'''"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to '''Challenge this point of view''' by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

'''[Final point is the Summary ]'''

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks[[User:86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''' Dear Vassilis'''

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my '''RIGHT''' as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by '''" strong Literal biblical texts itself"''' not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word ''mah'':

<blockquote>
1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—'''''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'''''.
</blockquote>

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

<blockquote>
Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) '''For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.''' They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
'''Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today.''' Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. '''Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel.''' Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, '''it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.”''' Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the ''New World Translation'' properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.
'''That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words:''' “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ '''This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.”''' (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—'''''Insight on the Scriptures.'''''
</blockquote>

I hope this information be helpful.

--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 '''..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14'''"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question.
'''We have been in to this discussion before'''

You said in regard to proverb 30 '''"The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning".''' ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for '''"who Mi מי''' "is behind all these creation , '''and''' '''What.. מַה " is his name''' , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. '''"Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah).
[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood[[User:217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]] 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; 
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:* Mr/Mrs [[Special:Contributions/217.44.222.210|217.44.222.210]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.252.237|86.147.252.237]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.149.105.178|86.149.105.178]] / [[Special:Contributions/217.44.81.160|217.44.81.160]], if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr '''"lord jealous is a free thinker"'''
This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]],
* Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
* You must keep in mind that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Keep_in_mind%29#Citing_sources according to Wikipedia's rules], "''Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"''". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "''to destroy your answers''" and "''make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood''"! --[[User:pvasiliadis| pvasiliadis ]] 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this '''point of view''' to be in '''Wikipedia article page''', but '''just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged''',and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards
[[User:Lord Jealous is a free thinker|Lord Jealous is a free thinker]] 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the '''bold text''' and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--[[User:128.221.197.21|128.221.197.21]] 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?.
[[User:Ferju|Ferju]] 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging ==

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

:There is a discussion going on over at [[Talk:Jehovah]] which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include [[Jehovah]], [[Yahweh]] and [[Tetragrammaton]]. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Article missing information on historical origin==

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

== Redirecting [[Tetragrammaton]] to [[Yahweh]] ==

[[User:Anthony Appleyard]] redirected [[Tetragrammaton]] here because he has merged all of the content in [[Tetragrammaton]] here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having [[Tetragrammaton]] redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] merged into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Among other issues, if there is no [[Tetragrammaton]] article, how do we link to [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]?

I don't object to there being separate articles on [[Jehovah]] and [[Yahweh]] but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the [[Tetragrammaton]], I think we should keep the [[Tetragrammaton]] article even if it doesn't discuss [[Jehovah]] or [[Yahweh]] in much detail.

--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Tetragrammaton]] is the neutral term, [[Yahweh]] and [[Jehovah]] are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a [[Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton]]; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain ([[Yahweh]]) but to the first redirect target which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH this]. This is broken. Either [[YHWH]] should redirect to [[Yahweh]] or it should redirect to [[Tetragrammaton]] and there should be a real article at [[Tetragrammaton]]. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

:--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:: The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::: For the discussion, see [[Talk:Jehovah]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --[[user:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User_talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file [[Yahweh]], which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name [[Jehovah]] out onto another file. Before we split off a page [[Tetragrammaton]], we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file [[Yahweh]] should be split off into file [[Tetragrammaton]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:*I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of [[Yahweh]] to [[Tetragrammaton]] and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under [[Yahweh]]. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. [[Yahweh]] should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. [[Tetragrammaton]] should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under [[Yahweh]] belongs under [[Tetragrammaton]], and almost all that should be [[Yahweh]] has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for [[User:Anthony Appleyard]] who did most of the recent work on the [[Yahweh]] article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off [[Yahweh]] and put into [[Tetragrammaton]]. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into [[content forking]] again. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.202|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

===Nominations for the move to [[Tetragrammaton]]===
* A considerable portion of the intro.
* ==Pronunciation of the Name==
* ==Usage of YHWH==
* Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in [[Yahweh]], I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to [[Amputechture]] for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 [[User:130.13.32.200]]
** I have put a hatline on page [[Yahweh]] about this other meaning. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

----

* (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the ''discussion page'' on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

* (1)''' Tetragrammaton''', as an article in its own right, '''should be restored'''. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.
There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons:
(i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'.
(ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals.
With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--[[User:87.114.151.202|87.114.151.202]] 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

*I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at [[Tetragrammaton]]. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under [[Yahweh]], [[Jehovah]], or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

==How do you pronounce Yahweh?==
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --[[User:Vuo|Vuo]] 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which [[Great Vowel Shift|used to be the long i]]. The other vowels we call long vowels are really [[diphthong]]s. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite [[vowel length|long]] enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=f'''a'''ther ā=p'''a'''t ě=p'''e'''t. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
* USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "[[narcotic]]" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that [[Word Perfect]]'s spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing.
One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables.
Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it '''Your-way'''! [[User:68.36.214.143|68.36.214.143]] 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
:Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
:Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.21.14.154|83.21.14.154]] ([[User talk:83.21.14.154|talk]]) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

== Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European ==
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language] [http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Joseph_E._Yahuda]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally ''Being'', synonymous to less literal ''I Am'' and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing [http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html Proto-Semitic] with [http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html Proto-Indo-European].

[[User:83.19.52.107|83.19.52.107]] 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See [http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/p/Pokorny,J/life.htm this Life][[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. [[User:Wikinger|Wikinger]] 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' [[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]] 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== question ==

''his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) ''
If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

==Yahweh = I AM????==

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

:::It is interesting that the editors of [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911] state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"
:::It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

:::It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."
:::I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62.

::To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
::I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
::Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.[[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

::User 213.84.53.62
::The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
::Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? [[User:Calgary|Calgary]] 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD's (Articles for Deletion) ==
Any body interested?
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton]]
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)]]
[[User:SerialVerb|SV]] 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

*I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.
So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information.
There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--[[Special:Contributions/87.115.6.26|87.115.6.26]] ([[User talk:87.115.6.26|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

:The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

:Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.[[User:Teclontz|Tim]] ([[User talk:Teclontz|talk]]) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Intro ==
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago.
The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH
proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that
one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that ''[[Jehovah]]'', the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God".
Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc.
So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|213.84.53.62}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}} 

:User 213.84.53.62
:You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
:If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, '''who is?'''
::If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
::or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
::where does it come from?

::Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

::Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
::or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

::I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

::Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

::Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
::before the BDB Lexicon was written.

::Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
::Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
::or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
::In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

::The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
::as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

::Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::or in an early use of the ''English'' spelling "Yahweh"?

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Seeker,
:::Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
:::I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62
I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text.
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Intro (2) ==
Anthony Appleyard,
I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times.
Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. [[User:213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

::User:213.84.53.62
::Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
::While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that ''the "Moderator approved" title of this article'' is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
::I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
::''which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.''
::The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
::''The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.''
::However,
::Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
::rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
::Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!
[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 

::Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since '''"Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton,''' based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb ''hawah'' (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--[[User:Vassilis78|Vassilis78]] 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
*Best leave it at [[Yahweh]]. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== [[Tetragrammaton]] ==

The online link reference is inconsistent with the [[Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary]].
:The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Is that so difficult?]] ==
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova)
DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater)
IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove)
SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.14.27.84|87.14.27.84]] ([[User talk:87.14.27.84|talk]]) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences==
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic.
That's all this page could need.
Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence.
[[User:77.249.45.145|77.249.45.145]] 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

==Derivation: Jove==
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/123.200.248.107|123.200.248.107]] ([[User talk:123.200.248.107|talk]]) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 

:If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.[[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

::In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PiCo|contribs]]) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

==Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?==
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See:
the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

:This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

== Psalms (KJV) ==
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name '''''JAH''''', and rejoice before him."--[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Yahweh? No way. ==

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/205.68.95.65|205.68.95.65]] ([[User talk:205.68.95.65|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

== Jehovah's Witnesses Project ==
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.208.65.90|203.208.65.90]] ([[User talk:203.208.65.90|talk]]) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 

== Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image ==

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciation''Yahweh'' because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form ''Yahweh''". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?[[User:SamuelTheGhost|SamuelTheGhost]] ([[User talk:SamuelTheGhost|talk]]) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} = "Yahweh".

:[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/yahwehfromiabe660pixels.JPG Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"] also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}} represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

:The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}.

:I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from {{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

:Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

:[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

== Clean article up, please... ==

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — [[User:RaspK FOG|RaspK FOG]] ([[User talk:RaspK FOG|talk]]) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidamos|contribs]]) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. [[User:Davidamos|Davidamos]] ([[User talk:Davidamos|talk]]) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

:No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, ([[WP:LEAD]]), which should explain the crux of what the article is about. In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is ''a'' pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the [[WP:LEAD]] to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.

:Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma. Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence; please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh"; please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is ''any'' serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".

:So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up". I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.

:PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles. Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point. And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the ''end'' of the talk page. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of links ==
[http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/metatronyhwh Metatron as the Tetragrammaton] < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --[[User:The Founders Intent|'''''THE FOUNDERS INTENT ''''']][[User talk:The Founders Intent|''TALK'']] 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[[Special:Contributions/195.91.64.52|195.91.64.52]] ([[User talk:195.91.64.52|talk]]) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

== Image edit warring ==

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

:The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

:The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"<ref>“And Abraham called the name of that place ''Jehovah-Jireh''" Genesis 22:14</ref>(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

:Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --[[User:Teacherbrock|Teacherbrock]] ([[User talk:Teacherbrock|talk]]) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

::Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.69.77.53|72.69.77.53]] ([[User talk:72.69.77.53|talk]]) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

:::So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against [[WP:NOR]]. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on [[User talk:Teacherbrock]], with reference to [[Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]]. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font <tt>semear.ttf</tt> (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article [[Proto-Canaanite_alphabet]] in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
== Redirect from JEHOVAH?==
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--[[User:Lepton6|Lepton6]] ([[User talk:Lepton6|talk]]) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{done}}Fixed.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|[talk]]] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalization ==
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] ([[User talk:67.180.39.64|talk]]) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  
- Moved from top of page. --[[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, [[User:Eliyak|Eliyak]] [[User talk:Eliyak|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Eliyak|C]] 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

::: John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user [[Special:Contributions/67.180.39.64|67.180.39.64]] for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:: They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

:::If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::::: My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --[[User:JohnArmagh|JohnArmagh]] ([[User talk:JohnArmagh|talk]]) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== Yahweh is the Name of "God"? ==

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".[[User:VatoFirme|VatoFirme]] ([[User talk:VatoFirme|talk]]) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

::In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG]
::Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}}.
::This same proposed Hebrew punctuation {{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
::{{hebrew|יַהְוֶה}} is preserved in '''NO''' extant Hebrew Manuscript.

::There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
::By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
:It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.84.53.62|213.84.53.62]] ([[User talk:213.84.53.62|talk]]) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Is this true? ==

''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.''
This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --[[Special:Contributions/86.88.18.236|86.88.18.236]] ([[User talk:86.88.18.236|talk]]) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Yhw in the land of the Shasu ==

The article [[History of ancient Israel and Judah]] notes an Egyptian inscription of [[Amenhotep III]], at the [[Soleb]] temple, "Yhw in the land of the [[Shasu]]", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

----
== Neutrality problems ==

The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.

* "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and '''unquestionably contemptible''' to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
*"The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
* "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
*In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
*There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
*This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, '''it would make considerable sense''' that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have '''restored the Sacred Name Yahweh''' to the Bible texts. A '''respectable and well-known''' one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by {{User|Davidamos}}. (Here's a consolidated diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233327893&oldid=233211480], even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).

:These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation [[Jehovah]], with its own problems, to its separate article. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the '''unquestionably contemptible''' is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... [[Special:Contributions/82.203.3.3|82.203.3.3]] ([[User talk:82.203.3.3|talk]]) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now. It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

==Bias in the versions before Davidamos==
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like {{User|Davidamos}}candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template {{User|Davidamos}}has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before {{User|Davidamos}} edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article: 

• The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

• The unbalanced argument against the Name

• The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

• The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

• Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least {{User|Davidamos}} added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion.
I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

----

What I am trying to say is…
This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against.
Before {{User|Davidamos}}we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please.
Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mod objective|contribs]]) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Discuss before editing during dispute ==

Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text):
#The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on ''Using the Name in the Bible'' includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
#Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
#Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
#Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to ''Witnesses to the Name''
#Why was this removed? [[cdo:Ià-huò-huà]]
#Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do [[WP:OR|your own]] exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often ''isn't'' for others. I'd like to add another point: I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=233514091&oldid=233514008] Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See [[WP:PSTS]] -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I'll look for those sources...
Thanks for the info...[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi [[User:HG|HG]]. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

==Cartoon reference==
[[User|Movingboxes]]...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per [[WP:CENSOR]], was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate." I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus. Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate.
Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
:It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name." The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced. That certainly does have something to do with the article. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== here is The/An advance warning ==

I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle ''WARNING'' -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact [[WP:Wrong version|the current version]], which reads: "'''Yahweh''' is an English transliteration of '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. '''{{lang|he|יהוה}}''' ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."

:What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
:Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
:Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
:To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
:Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is '''the''' rendition. We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side. To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not ''prescriptive.'' [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

:::::Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
:::::#Yahweh (scholars),
:::::#Jehovah (traditionalists), and
:::::#the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
:::::The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane". Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient. If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about. In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each. It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why). Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehfromSmithsBibleDictionarylowres.JPG] William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}'''. Yahweh is an accurate English '''transliteration''' of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, '''{{lang|he|יַהְוֶה}}''', which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. [[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it. I won't do it again without consensus. However, I do object to "the", since it isn't. Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities. The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility. I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
::::I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
::::"Yahweh is an '''accurate''' English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"

::::However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
::::is an '''accurate''' vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

::::That is a different issue altogether.

::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually. I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost. Same with the EB. Who do you think preserved it?

::::::And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea. I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was. The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name. They prefer something they can say. John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa.
I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history [[Edward Horowitz]], How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.

:Anyway, my copy of ''How the Hebrew Language Grew'' is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word. That's called original research, and it's not allowed here. You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.

:Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable. Clearly it is. But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of ''how'' it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should. We should just list them in a neutral way and move on. Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days. Good luck with sorting things out! Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes. It doesn't prescribe. We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation. I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it. And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/bdbandstrongs500x271.JPG The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905] state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
:::[ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
:::occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
:::[ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]

:::Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
:::most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].

::: יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"

:::The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.

:::The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.

:::יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
:::and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
:::instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.

:::Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"

:::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what. "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost. Fine. Document who says what and move on. WE don't decide the truth. We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.[[User:SkyWriter|Tim]] ([[User talk:SkyWriter|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar? ==

This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant [[WP:OR]]. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Jehovah this source]. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

<blockquote>
::A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).
</blockquote>

::That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2. Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations. And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.

::Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.

::Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in [[WP:V]]:

<blockquote>
::I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
</blockquote>

::Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake. I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here. Just bad practice. I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith. That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith. Thanks. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess. "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".

::::My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do ''not'' support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in. I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section. I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go. That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

According to [[WP:LEAD]], part of [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]], each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read [[WP:LEAD]], and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood [[WP:LEAD]]. -- [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.[[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...
:Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs. The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.

:::The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to [[WP:LEAD]], presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.

:::On the other hand, the one-sentence version does ''not'' satisfy the needs of [[WP:LEAD]]. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Name of God stinks of syncretism ==

This is theologically false.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have substituted [[God of the Bible]].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== History of utterance ==

The Hebrew Bible contains ''Yahweh'' in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the [[Septuagint]] which uses ''theos'' and ''[http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962 kurios]''. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh''.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that ''Yahweh'' wasn't replaced with a title.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC) 

:::Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except ''Yahweh''? I am doubtful.--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha|talk]]) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
::::::that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
::::::the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.

::::::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes:
We need more information concerning the history of uttering ''Yahweh'' "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D.,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue",
in Greek Letters.
 [http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaouFootnote.jpg see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911]

Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
::Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
::[Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
::is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
::which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.

::[[User:Seeker02421|Seeker02421]] ([[User talk:Seeker02421|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite alphabetical disparity, ''Iaoue'' does sound like ''Yahweh'' phonetically. I would pronounce ''Iaoue'' as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable. I am sure some may pronounce ''Iaoue'' differently. Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Targum.jpg] is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said ''Yahweh''--or however they pronounced then. The substitution of the name with ''god'' and titles started with the founding of Christianity. The Jews don't know this themselves. The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others. This [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM ineffable] thing is from the Catholic church. The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM#-149 god of the Muslims].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Here is the [http://jihadwatch.org/archives/018704.php state of the "Catholic" Church today].--[[Special:Contributions/71.118.6.168|71.118.6.168]] ([[User talk:71.118.6.168|talk]]) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., [[WP:SOAPBOX]]) and violates our sense of [[WP:CIVIL|civility in cooperation]] with other editors. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof.[http://bible.cc/proverbs/12-1.htm].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

===Why page change===
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? [[User:Mod objective|Mod objective]] ([[User talk:Mod objective|talk]]) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
:As far as the "vote" request goes, [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Pictures of what? [[User:Movingboxes|Movingboxes]] ([[User talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Let's read a bit more of [[WP:LEAD]]:

::''Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.

:and please note:

::''The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

:As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:

:* that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
:* that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
:* that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
:* but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

:The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.

:Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it ''was'' much closer to what [[WP:LEAD]] envisages, and much more fully succeeded in ''summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist''. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== clintonfultz.net ==

The following statement was added to the article:
<blockquote>
Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained ''Yahweh''.<ref>http://www.clintonfultz.net/yahwehnameinseptugaint.htm</ref>
</blockquote>
Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -[[User:LisaLiel|LisaLiel]] ([[User talk:LisaLiel|talk]]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:HG|HG]] | [[User talk:HG|Talk]] 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain [[Jehovah-jireh]]: "And Abraam called the name of that place, '''The Lord hath seen'''; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." [http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14].--[[Special:Contributions/71.108.0.87|71.108.0.87]] ([[User talk:71.108.0.87|talk]]) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== References ==
<references />