Showing posts with label yahweh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label yahweh. Show all posts

Sunday 9 October 2016

In a few days time it will be 2020 years ago that the Messiah was born

Lord Krishna displays his Vishvarupa (Universa...
Lord Krishna displays his Vishvarupa (Universal Form) to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In a few days time it will be 2020 years ago that the Messiah was born.

Since the appearance of the Messiah 2 millennia ago for man's attitude not so much has been changed. Still man wants to go his own way, without God. Still many people think they can be their own god and/or play for god, playing with nature.

Since the death of the master teacher lost of new teachings found light.There have been given some changes to scriptural meanings, and additional doctrines have been taught by man.
Throughout the ages several people looked at the book of books, the Bible, and found that they could bring some more money in their publishing company by editing this best seller.
The early, and later translators of the Bible into English and other languages, took license with their work, and did some editing on their own. In many languages we can see that publishers where not afraid to take away the name of God.
James Gerke reminds us that they changed the Sanctified and made Holy, the Hebrew names of the Creator to God. It is a Germanic, Indo European name, meaning “Invoked one" This form is also used in ancient Hindu Sanskrit.
 “Much invoked, to call forth by incantations” (Magic spells).
Readers Digest word finder, Pg. 351 (1975) The majority of demonic deities are referred to, as God. Moon God, Sun God, Fish God, etc.
 

When looking at the Older Hebrew Scriptures the Divine Creator God clearly told mankind they should have no other God than He Who is. The Creator Deity of everything also let the people know his Name and tells them that it should be a set-apart or Holy Name. His Holy Name is mentioned over 3 thousand times and the Old Testament also gives so many more titles of this Divine Superior Being.

Bible translators sought ways to bring God's Name but also not going into the establishment or ruling class, which made that at certain times they found it not appropriate to print the real name of god and substituted it with a title or names as Elohim Yehowah and Yahweh were changed to the 'name' God, which is a non descriptive name, that has no title or meaning consistent with the Bible.

The Jewish National name for our Creator is Yehovah (Jehovah in modern spelling), it is listed in the Bible over 7000 times. The translators changed it to Lord, which is also the title of several Hindu deities such as Lord Krishna, Lord Vishnu and others like Lord Budda.

It can well be that the adversaries of God or 'Satan' put it into the minds of the translators, to insert generic names "God" or "Lord" so that both the wrong gods and our Creator would be known by them or be taken to be one and the same, like many today take Jesus as their god and confuse him with the God, giving him equal status by name.

It is blasphemy, irreverent, and disgusting to use these pagan names for our Creator.
Psalms 113:1-4 The Scriptures 1998+  (1)  Praise Yah! Praise, O servants of יהוה {Jehovah}, Praise the Name of יהוה {Jehovah}!  (2)  Blessed be the Name of יהוה {Jehovah}, Now and forever!  (3)  From the rising of the sun to its going down, The Name of יהוה {Jehovah} is praised.  (4)  יהוה {Jehovah} is high above all nations, His esteem above the heavens.
The man who was born 2020 years ago knew very well this Most High divine Creator God and wanted only to do His Will. Jesus was able to put his own will aside to do the Will of God and demands also from his followers to come to do that what God wants from mankind.

Jesus also taught a prayer wherein we express our aim to look at that set-apart Name and to declare
"Holy is They Name"
Blessed be the Name of the Most High, from this time forward and for evermore. From the rising of the sun to going down, we should praise the Name of The One Who declared that Jesus was His only begotten beloved son. It was that son of the Only One True God, who showed how we should come closer to the One  God Who makes the rules and should know that preachers, or anyone else, don't make the rules.

Having this year a special year, in the way that it is 2020 years ago that the son of man who came to declare God and to show mankind the way to God, we should take this master teacher his lessons at heart and remind all those around us who Jesus really is and how we should accept him as the Way to God, and not make him to be our god, but to come closer to the God of Jesus, the God of Abraham. and God of gods.



The man born in Bethlehem 2020 years ago was to be that long awaited Messiah, the Christ Himself who set his face to Jerusalem, and resolved to go the full length of God’s will. He gathered up his courage and steeled himself for the journey.
He was, and forever will be the Unflappable Champion. And we have been called to follow in his steps.
Coming closer to the day of his return there is more talk these days of vision. But vision is much more than a good idea that stirs the soul to temporary endeavours. Vision is the ability to see it, the faith to believe it, the courage to do it, and the hope to endure until it happens.
Take any of these components away and vision fails. Each is vital, and indispensable.


Those who call themselves Christian should follow the teachings and vision of Christ who has a way of summoning our hearts to rise to the calling God has placed on our lives. Our vision, our look onto Christ, also supplies us with the grace to pace ourselves to go the full distance, regardless of the difficulties that await us. Courage is the mental and moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear or difficulty.

The journey we have undertaken as followers of Christ demands all the courage we possess. It requires of us a steely, unwavering resolve to meet whatever seeks to delay us, defeat us, detour us, or deny us  –  to meet such things with a faith that says, “Nevertheless!” Courage is one of the distinguishing marks of true faith.

Man's fall, whatever else it may have been, resulted in a complete change of the centre of his being. Being made in the likeness of God, Who is absolutely selfless, man thought more about his own self. God's will and purpose was the one rule of man's existence until the moment came when our first parents substituted the gratification of self for the will and law of God. From that hour the self-life became the dominant principle of mankind, and the world is what it is because the essence of life is the service of self.


In this world full of envy, jealousy, strife, and murder, we should follow the example of Christ Jesus, the son of God, who was willing to give his life for us. Though he warned us that the gate to the Kingdom of God may be small and that we should be prepared for his return which might come like a thief in the night.


In this life we come to learn that a straw may throw us, and a pebble can wound us, mere children tremblingly taking our first steps in the walk of faith, our heavenly Father holding us by the arms, Jesus making us able to keep us from falling.

With a deep sense of our utter weakness, we may cherish a firm belief in our perfect safety, and say, with joyful confidence,


“Against me earth and hell combine, But on my side is power divine; Jesus is all, and he is mine!”

This simple proclamation of living by faith is so profound that it is repeated in three strategic epistles in the New Testament.
The first mention is in Romans in connection with the gospel of grace.

 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek."
Paul was not embarrassed by the good news of the grace of God that was available in Jesus Christ. He knew that it was God's powerful truth that would save the soul of anyone (Jew or Gentile) who would believe in Christ.
That message of grace offered God's righteousness to all who would believe.

 "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith."
The same righteousness that the law demanded, the gospel of grace provided.
"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe" (Romans_3:21-22).
The righteousness that people need (both for a standing in heaven and for a walk on earth) comes by grace through faith. Yes, initially and continually,
 "The just shall live by faith."
Having faith in Jesus Christ, the son of God, we should others get to know this sent one from God, who is our saviour and the best one to hope for.

+

Please do find to read:
  1. Looking for a primary cause and a goal that can not offer philosophers existing beliefs
  2. The true light in recorded words
  3. 2020 years since
  4. The Right One to follow and to worship
  5. A season for truth and peace
  6. Looking for a spiritual new life
  7. Going deep into cultures to reach lost people
  8. Authority given to him To give eternal life
  9. 2020 jaar geleden werd de weg geopend
  10. Na 2020 jaar 
+++

Thursday 7 February 2013

Jehovah in the BASF

George Booker looks at the BASF as a time-honored document. It has stood the test of generations, and if we let down our guard on a single matter, then we surely will have offended in all points!

No manmade statement can be perfect because it is, in the best case, the expression of saving truth by some fallible man (or committee of fallible men). You know what they say about a camel? It’s a horse designed by a committee.
But then it might be said, ‘It is the best we have, or are likely to have.’ This probably means, ‘We have no mechanism in the brotherhood for improving it — so you and I just have to make the best of it.’
This may be true. But then again, nothing was ever changed without somebody (forerunner, troublemaker, agitator, visionary: take you pick) suggesting that it could be changed.
Is someone who suggests that the BASF could be changed (i.e., improved) a heretic? Suppose the change could bring this “touchstone” of a Christadelphian statement of faith closer to the Biblical standard — we already know it isn’t perfect, so that is a possibility. Shouldn’t such proposals be discussed?

In North America it has been used to exclude from fellowship a lot of folks who would have been accepted long ago if they lived in Australia or the UK.

According to sources at The Christadelphian Office, “Yahweh” never occurs in the original version of the first Birmingham Statement of Faith, nor the earliest versions of the BASF. However, “Jehovah” does!

Which name of God is acceptable and suitable for Christadelphians to use? Well, the name “Jehovah” does appear in the BASF, but the name “Yahweh” never does, at least not in the “real” BASF, the one the was written in England and then amended there in 1898. That one used “Jehovah”!

The funny thing is: a lot of Christadelphians (in North America for sure) think they not only must substitute “Yahweh” for “God” when they do the Bible readings (even when the original text doesn’t allow for it!), but they just might throw out someone who tried to slip a “Jehovah” in there.
Jehovah-God%27s_Name_
Jehovah-God%27s_Name_ (Photo credit: ideacreamanuelaPps)


On the other hand, probably many others would say, “So what?” Still they allow the “Yahweh” clique to persist and proselytize, oblivious to the evidence against it in the earliest BASF. A bit of an ironic or sarcastic anomalous situation, don’t you think? (If you’re not sure what that meant, feel free to look it up for homework. You may be tested.

Description unavailable
Description unavailable (Photo credit: Tom Paton)
By the way, an informal and unscientific survey suggests that, worldwide, there may be many more Central Fellowship ecclesias that use “Yahweh” than those that use “Jehovah”. This also means, of course, that — strictly speaking — they are not truly BASF ecclesias. But I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell them!

George Booker


Course Notes:
Class 1 | Class 2Class 3 | Class 4

WCF

+++

 About God's Name find a.o.:
  1. The Bible and names in it
  2. Creator of heaven and earth and everything aroundיהוה The Only One Elohim who creates and gives all
  3. יהוה , YHWH and Love: Four-letter words 
  4. I am that I am Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh אהיה אשר אהיה 
  5. Titles of God beginning with the Aleph in Hebrew
  6. Some one or something to fear #7 Not afraid for Gods Name 
  7. God about His name “יהוה“
  8. Another way looking at a language #5 Aramic, Hebrew and Greek
  9. Trusting, Faith, calling and Ascribing to Jehovah #1 Kings Faith
  10. Trusting, Faith, calling and Ascribing to Jehovah #2 Calling upon the Name of God
  11. Trusting, Faith, calling and Ascribing to Jehovah #3 Voice of God #2 Instructions and Laws
  12. Trusting, Faith, calling and Ascribing to Jehovah #3 Voice of God #3 A voice to be taken Seriously
  13. Praise and give thanks to God the Most Highest
  14. Listening and Praying to the Father
  15. Prophets making excuses
+++
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday 2 November 2011

Accuracy, Word-for-Word Translation Preferred by most Bible Readers

Survey: Bible Readers want Accuracy, Word-for-Word Translation

A new study from LifeWay Research reveals some key findings on what distinctives Bible readers desire for their Bible. A total of 2,000 Bible readers participated through a demographically representative online panel, but to qualify, participants had to read the Bible in a typical month either by themselves or as part of a family activity and not merely in a church or corporate group setting.


Most American Bible readers prefer word-for-word translations of the original Greek and Hebrew over thought-for-thought translations and value accuracy over readability.
That is the finding of a new LifeWay Research study of a total of 2,000 Bible readers who participated through a demographically representative online panel. To qualify, participants had to read the Bible in a typical month either by themselves or as part of a family activity and not merely in a church or corporate group setting.
When asked whether they prefer “word-for-word translations, where the original words are translated as exactly as possible” or “thought-for-thought translations, where the translators attempt to reproduce the intent of the original thought rather than translating the exact words,” 61 percent chose word-for-word.
That includes 33 percent who strongly prefer word-for-word translation and 28 percent who somewhat prefer it. In contrast, 20 percent prefer thought-for-thought, including 6 percent with a strong preference and 14 percent who somewhat prefer it. Fourteen percent say both translation philosophies are equally fine, and 5 percent are not sure.
Regarding accuracy, respondents were asked, “In general, what is more important to you in a Bible: total accuracy to the original words, or easy readability?” Three out of four (75 percent) opt for total accuracy, with 43 percent saying accuracy is much more important and 32 percent saying it is somewhat more important.
Fourteen percent say easy readability is somewhat more important, and 8 percent say it is much more important. Three percent are not sure.
“It is interesting to note that Bible sales do not necessarily follow these preferences,” said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. “Those reading the Bible each month represent only a portion of all Bible purchasers.
“Bible readers can share their preferences for different translation principles but may not be aware of which characteristics are present in specific translations – even the ones that they own. Without specific instruction most readers will not notice when a translation moves away from a literal or word-for-word translation.”
Respondents hold a variety of opinions regarding the style of language they prefer in a Bible translation for personal reading. Among them:
– 68 percent want language to be simpler to understand while 7 percent want it to be more difficult to understand.
– 81 percent say it should be more enjoyable to read while 4 percent prefer it to be more of a chore to read.
– 27 percent favor contemporary language while 46 percent want traditional language.
– 36 percent want more modern language while 37 percent favor more old-fashioned language.
– 19 percent feel understanding the language should require a higher level of education while 49 percent say it should not require a higher level of education.
– 63 percent believe it should be simple for anyone to understand while 14 percent say the language should be meant more for people who have a lot of experience with the Bible.
– 40 percent prefer more formal language while 26 percent say should be more informal.
– 22 percent want language more for casual reading while 44 percent say it should be designed more for in-depth study.
“In the same way drivers want big, powerful, fuel-efficient vehicles, Bible readers want word-for-word translations that are easy to understand,” said McConnell. “As translators try to cross the globe and two millennia, fully accomplishing both is not always possible.”
The survey also asked about translation of God’s name. Though many Bible versions translate God’s name in the Old Testament as “the LORD,” others prefer using what is believed to be the original pronunciation, “Yahweh.”
Nearly eight in 10 Bible readers (79 percent) prefer the traditional translation “the LORD” over the original pronunciation “Yahweh.” That includes 51 percent who strongly prefer “the LORD” and 27 percent who somewhat prefer it. Seven percent somewhat prefer “Yahweh” while 6 percent strongly prefer it. Eight percent are not sure which they favor.
The vast majority of Bible readers do not prefer gender-inclusive translation approaches. A full 82 percent prefer a literal translation of masculine words that describe people in general rather than a more inclusive translation like “humankind” or “person.”
Study participants were told: “Bible translators have to make choices regarding gender issues. For example, the original Greek and Hebrew often uses masculine words such as those literally meaning ‘man’ to describe people in general. Some translators think these should be translated literally as ‘man’ while others think they should be translated into gender-inclusive terms such as ‘humankind,’ ‘human being,’ ‘person’ or ‘one.’ Which do you prefer?”
A majority (53 percent) strongly prefer literal translation while 29 percent somewhat prefer the literal rendering. Only 9 percent somewhat prefer gender-inclusive translation, and 3 percent strongly prefer it. Six percent are not sure.
Bible readers are even more adamant about not making references to God gender-inclusive.
They were told, “Another issue Bible translators face relates to references to God as ‘father’ in the Greek and Hebrew. Some translators think these should be translated literally as ‘father’ while others think they should be translated into gender-inclusive terms such as ‘parent.’ Do you prefer the literal or more gender-inclusive?”
In response, 89 percent want a literal translation of gender-specific references to God, including 68 percent who strongly prefer literal translation and 21 percent who somewhat prefer literal translation. Five percent somewhat prefer gender-inclusive translation, and 2 percent strongly prefer gender-inclusive translation. Four percent are not sure.
“The places in the Bible in which the inspired writers used masculine words for God, a large majority of Bible readers want translators to use masculine words as well,” noted McConnell. “This is true regardless of whether the reader describes their own spiritual beliefs as liberal or conservative.”
Methodology: The LifeWay Research survey was conducted in August 2011 via online panel. A representative sample of U.S. adult population was invited to participate. Two thousand people who read the Bible once a month or more qualified for the study. Only people who read the Bible personally (outside of group activities) or as part of a family activity were included. The sample of 2,000 provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed + 2.2 percent.
- Nashville, Tenn. - PRWEB -  October 03, 2011

Hebrew, Aramaic and Bibletranslation

Every academic year we do like to swap Bibletranslation to keep our minds alert to what is written and meant in the Holy Scriptures.

Most of us do not speak Hebrew or even do not know to speak or read the language. Having no knowledge of the language in which most of the Books of the Bible are written does not make it easy to come to the full understanding of those Hebrew words.

We do have to depend on translations which can be very strict in their translation or take a lot of freedom to translate what is written with a few words but gives a whole (long) meaning. Having no vowels or "the" "a" or "an" at certain places can create a certain confusion.


The Hebrew language  (/ˈhbr/) (עִבְרִית, Ivrit, About this sound Hebrew pronunciation ) is a Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group or Afroasiatic language family, closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup.
Culturally, is it considered by Jews and other religious groups as the language of the Jewish people, though other Jewish languages had originated among diaspora Jews, and the Hebrew language is also used by non-Jewish groups, such as the Samaritans. Most of the Samaritans went to use modern Hebrew or Arabic as their vernacular.

Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was sup­planted by the western dialect of Aramaic which Jeshua (Jesus) also spoke, during the 3rd century BCE; the language con­tinued to be used as a liturgical and literary language, however. It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries CE and is the official language of Israel.

The history of the Hebrew language is usually divided into three major periods:
 1.Biblical Hebrew is often looked at as a dialetic form of Classical Hebrew The Biblical Hebrew according to scholars flourished around the 6th century BCE, around the time of the Babylonian exile. Classical Hebrew was used until c. 3rd century BCE, in which most of the core of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) or Old Testament is written. For this reason, Hebrew has been referred to by Jews as Leshon HaKodesh (לשון הקודש), "The Holy Language", since ancient times.
 2. Mishnaic or rabbinic Hebrew, the language of the Mishna (a collection of Jewish traditions), written c. CE 200 (this form of Hebrew was never used among the people as a spoken language);
 and 3. Modern Hebrew, derived from the word "ʕibri" (plural "ʕibrim") one of several names for the Jewish people, the language of Israel in modern times.

In the Bible, the Hebrew language is called Yәhudit (יהודית) because Judah (Yәhuda) was the surviving kingdom at the time of the quotation, late 8th century BCE (Isaiah 36, 2 Kings 18). In Isaiah 19:18, it is also called the "Language of Canaan" (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן).

Scholars generally agree that the oldest form of He­brew is that of some of the Old Testament po­ems, especially the "Song of Deborah" in chapter 5 of Judges. The sources of borrowed words first appearing during this period include the other Canaanite languages, as well as Akkadian and Aramaic. Hebrew also con­tains a small number of Sumerian words borrowed from an Akkadian source. Few traces of dialects exist in Biblical Hebrew, but scholars believe this to be the result of Masoretic editing of the text. In addition to the Old Tes­tament, a small number of inscriptions in He­brew of the biblical period are extant; the earliest of these is a short inscription in Phoenician characters dating from the 9th century BC. During the early Mishnaic period, some of the guttural consonants of Biblical Hebrew were combined or confused with one another, and many words, among them a number of adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, were borrowed from Aramaic. Hebrew also borrowed a number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words. Use of the language declined from the 9th century until the 18th century. Modern Hebrew, based on the biblical lan­guage, contains many innovations designed to meet modern needs; it is the only colloquial speech based on a written language. The pronunciation is a modification of that used by Jhe Sefardic (Hispano-Portuguese) Jews rather than that of the Ashkenazic (East European) Jews. The old guttural consonants are' not clearly distinguished or are lost, except by Oriental Jews. The syntax is based on that of the Mishna. Characteristic of Hebrew of all stages is the use of word roots consisting of three consonants, to which vowels are added to derive words of different parts of speech and meaning. The language is written from right to left in a Semitic script of 22 letters.

Hebrew alphabet, either of two distinct Semitic alphabets-the Early Hebrew and the Classical, or Square, Hebrew. Early Hebrew was the alphabet used by the Jewish nation in the period before the Babylonian Exile -i.e., prior to the 6th century BCE - although some inscriptions in this alphabet may be of a later date.

Several hundred inscriptions exist. As is usual in early alphabets, Early Hebrew exists in a variety of local variants and also shows development over time; the oldest example of Early Hebrew writing, the Gezer Calendar, dates from the 10th century BCE, and the writing used varies little from the earliest North Semitic alphabets. The Early Hebrew alphabet, like the modern Hebrew variety, had 22 letters, with only consonants represented, and was written from right to left; but the early alphabet is more closely related in letter form to the Phoenician than to the modern Hebrew. Its only surviving descendant is the Samaritan alphabet, still used by a few hundred Samaritan Jews.

Between the 6th and 2nd centuries BCE, Classi­cal, or Square, Hebrew gradually displaced the Aramaic alphabet, which had replaced Early Hebrew in Palestine. Square Hebrew became established in the 2nd-1st centuries BCE and developed into the modern Hebrew al­phabet over the next 1,500 years. It was ap­parently derived from the Aramaic alphabet rather than from Early Hebrew but was nonetheless strongly influenced by the Early Hebrew script.

Classical Hebrew showed three distinct forms by the 10th century CE: Square Hebrew, a formal or book hand; rabbinical or "Rashi-writing," employed by medieval Jewish scholars; and various local cur­sive scripts, of which the Polish-German type became the modern cursive form.

Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, corresponding to the Hellenistic and Roman Periods before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the Qumran Scrolls that form most (but not all) of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Commonly abbreviated as DSS Hebrew, also called Qumran Hebrew. The Imperial Aramaic script of the earlier scrolls in the 3rd century BCE evolved into the Hebrew square script of the later scrolls in the 1st century CE, also known as ketav Ashuri (Assyrian script), still in use today.

The son of Myriam (Mary/Maria) and Joseph (Josef/Jozef) from the tribe of Daniel, also known as Jeshua, Jesus Christ the Messiah, spoke the Aramaic language which also belongs to the Semitic languages of the Northern Central or Northwestern group or to the Afroasiatic language phylum.The name of the language is based on the name of Aram,  an ancient region in central Syria.(Oxford English dictionary, http://oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/10127)

During its 3,000-year written history, Aramaic has served variously as a language of administration of empires and as a language of divine worship. It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BCE – 70 CE) The difficulty with this language is that Aramaic's long history and diverse and widespread use has led to the development of many divergent varieties which are sometimes called as dialects, though they are quite distinct languages. Therefore, there is no one singular Aramaic language.

In the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, it gradually supplanted Akkadian as the lingua franca of the Near East and later became the official language of the Persian Empire. Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews; portions of the Old Testament books of Dan­iel and Ezra are written in Aramaic, as are the Babylonian and, Jerusalem Talmuds.

Jesus and the Apostles also spoke this language. Its period of greatest influence extended from c. 300 BC until c. AD 650; it was supplanted by Arabic.

In the early Christian era, Aramaic divided into East and West varieties. West Aramaic dialects include Nabataean (formerly spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrene (spoken in Palmyra, which was northeast of Damascus), Palestinian-Christian, and Judeo-Aramaic. West Aramaic is still spoken in a small number of villages in Lebanon. East Aramaic includes Syriac, Mandaean, Eastern Neo-Assyrian, and the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud.

One of the most important of these is Syriac, which was the language of an extensive literature between the 3rd and 7th centuries. Mandaean was the dialect of a Gnostic sect centred in lower Mesopotamia. East Aramaic is still spoken by a few small groups of Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in the Middle East.

Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by many scattered, predominantly small, and largely isolated communities of differing Christian, Jewish and Mandean ethnic groups of West Asia. (Heinrichs 1990: xi–xv; Beyer 1986: 53.)
Today we can find it by the Assyrians (also known as Chaldo-Assyrians) in the form of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic.

File:Syriac Sert book script.jpg


Looking into those ancient languages we do want to follow their way of thinking, understanding how the thoughts are blended into words and phrases full of verbatim and proverbs which we do have to try to see and understand in the light of the way of thinking at that time.

To give a simple example, a few weeks ago when somebody said he was "mad about his apartment" the American listener thought he had become crazy or out of mind because of his apartment. Though the speaker meant just the opposite, namely that he was in love with his apartment. He did not detest it in such a way that he became insane of it, but he came into the clouds living there. (Not meaning that he really went up into the clouds, high in sky.) I use this simple example in the hope everyone can understand how we have to follow the way of saying and have to be careful not to take a proverb literally. Because that happens a lot today when folks read the Bible. As Bible readers we have to transpose ourselves in the time when it was written and how the people thought at that time.

Further we have to take into account how we are going to or how Bible-translators did  translate the The Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: אָלֶף־בֵּית עִבְרִי‎‎, Alephbet 'Ivri).

By using the Jewish script, square script, block script, or more historically, the Assyrian script, it has to be taken into account how it is spoken out and how one word is written against an other. Best it can be compared to other Jewish languages, most notably Yiddish, Ladino, and Judeo-Arabic.

There have been two script forms in use. The original old Hebrew script is known as the paleo-Hebrew script (which has been largely preserved, in an altered form, in the Samaritan script), while the present "square" form of the Hebrew alphabet is a stylized form of the Aramaic script, which has its alphabet adapted from the Phoenician alphabet and became distinctive from it by the 8th century BCE. The letters all represent consonants, some of which are matres lectionis, which also indicate long vowels.
The Aramaic alphabet is historically significant, since virtually all modern Middle Eastern writing systems use a script that can be traced back to it, as well as numerous Altaic writing systems of Central and East Asia. This is primarily due to the widespread usage of the Aramaic language as both a lingua franca and the official language of the Neo-Assyrian, and its successor, the Achaemenid Empire. Among the scripts in modern use, the Hebrew alphabet bears the closest relation to the Imperial Aramaic script of the 5th century BCE, with an identical letter inventory and, for the most part, nearly identical letter shapes.
Aramaic alphabet, major writing system in the Near East in the latter half of the 1st mil­lennium BC. Derived from the North Semitic script, the Aramaic alphabet was developed in the 10th and 9th centuries BC and rose into prominence after the conquest of the Aramaean states by Assyria in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. The Aramaic language and script were used as a lingua franca over all of the Near East, and documents and inscriptions in the Aramaic alphabet have been found in Greece, Afghanistan, India, northern Arabia, and Egypt. The oldest inscription in Aramaic script yet discovered dates from approximately 850 BC.
The Aramaic alphabet is a writing system of 22 letters, all indicating consonants, and it is written from right to left. It is ancestral to Square Hebrew and the modern Hebrew al­phabet, the Nabataean and modern Arabic scripts, the Palmyrene alphabet, and the Syriac, as well as hundreds of other writing sys­tems used at some time in Asia east of Syria. Aramaic also has been influential in the devel­opment of such alphabets as the Georgian, Armenian, and Glagolitic.
Various "styles" (in current terms, "fonts") of representation of the letters exist. There is also a cursive Hebrew script, which has also varied over time and place.

When we want to use names of persons and places we should carefully look how they are written and spoken. When we transfer certain letters into our language into a consonant we should do that for all the words the same way. In English translations we can often find irregularities in that. For example do we not find Yona, but Jonah, Joshua, and Jeruzalem for Yerusalem, but for Yeshua they write Jesus and for Yahuhwah they suddenly go from three syllables to two syllable and write for the Yod an Ypsolom giving God the Name Yahweh instead of the better translation, keeping to the three original syllables, Jehovah and speaking it better not as Americans with an "Dzee" but with an "Yea".

This year we shall become more confronted with those Aramaic names and also will see that in the original writings of the Scriptures they used different words for slightly different things. In such a way we shall wonder if we not better take those different meanings also in our language as different words so that we clearly shall be able to see if there is been spoken off of a direct pupil of Jeshua (Jesus),  or one of the many disciples or the special pupils or sent ones (Shlichim) or one of the seventy.

By checking if the Beth, Daleth, Gimel Heth, Kaf, Qof and the vowels tërë and bireq are translated into the other languages we shall see where there was no consistency and which one we better should follow.

We do know that within a Hebrew name the aleph represents a smooth breathing, and for practical purposes may be considerd a 'silent' letter, but because it gives a softer sound than without putting the 'h' on top of it we do prefer to use the 'h' as well in Dutch, though the Language Commision gives it without an 'h'. The Governemental Dutch language regulation, by the Dutch Language Union and the Spellingraad (Spelling Committee and Dutch Spelling Council) indicate that we should write Jehova in Dutch for the Hebrew Name of God, but there we prefer to use the International used form of Jehovah to have uniformity on our websites in the different languages (and giving more possibilities to have it spoken out as in Hebrew with the soft h-ending. )


For this article is made use of the Encyclopaedia Britannica where you can find more:

Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia: Major re/. 1:621 b ·alphabetical order antiquity 1:619d . Semitic calligraphy development 3:662b . signs and English equivalent, table 3 8:594 . vowel indication methods 19: 1038c; table 1035 . Yiddish adaptation 8:26c

 alphabet origins and standardization 1:621 b; table 620 . alphabet and English equivalent, table 3 8:594 'alphabetical order antiquity 1:619d ·English vocabulary borrowings 6:879a ·Hamito-Semitic languages map 8:590 ·Israel's revival of common language 9: 105ge ·Jewish liturgical use and status 10:297c . Karaite impetus to 9th-century studies 10:318f ·medieval belief in aboriginality 10:643h ·naming patterns 12: 818f ·origins, development, and literary use 10: 196d 'preservation and educational respect 6: 322f 'punctuation and pointing since 800s 15:276g 'relationships, writing, and phonology 8:592d passim to 595c . sacral status as biblical language 7:60h 'U.S. parochial education curriculum 6:42ge ·Yiddish formative influences 8:25h
 
See also Syriac language. 'ancient spread and influence 17:942g +
 Major re/. 1:619h . calligraphy style and development 3:662b ·Iranian varieties and adaptations 9:456d . origins, spread, and influence 17:942g ·vowel indication methods 19: 1038c; table 1035

RELATED ENTRIES in the Ready Reference and Index: Armenian alphabet; Brahml; Georgian alphabets; Greek alphabet; Hebrew alphabet; Kharo~!l; Klik Turki alphabet; Nabataean alphabet; Pahlavi alphabet; Palmyric alphabet; Samaritan alphabet; Syriac alphabet

Hebreeuws en Aramees vs Germaanse talen

Hebreeuws behoort tot de Semitische tak van de Afro-Aziatische talen. Hierdoor is het Hebreeuws verwant aan andere Semitische talen als het Arabisch, Aramees en Akkadisch en in mindere mate ook aan andere Afro-Aziatische talen als het Amhaars, Berbers en het Egyptisch. De Thora bevat de oudste vorm van Hebreeuws. Het Hebreeuws werd opnieuw een levende taal begin 19e eeuw, waarbij het onder met name seculiere joden geleidelijk een aantal andere door joden gesproken talen, zoals Jiddisch en Ladino, tot op zekere hoogte verving.

Jezus sprak Aramees in de omgang en in de tempel sprak hij het gebruikelijke Hebreeuws. De geschriften uit zijn tijd werden veelvuldig ook in het Aramees opgesteld.

Om die reden nemen wij voor dit academisch jaar de Aramese Bijbels ter hand voor onze Dagelijkse lezingen en in onze dienst.In het Nederlands zullen wij "De Geschriften" en de "AEDNT" of Aremaic English Dutch New Testament gebruiken. In het Engels de equivalent Aramaic English New Testament en "The Sricptures".

 Een kenmerk van veel Semitische talen, waaronder het Hebreeuws, is het zogenaamde triconsonantalisme. Bijna alle woorden kunnen herleid worden tot drie consonanten (medeklinkers), de radicalen, die de wortel (radix) van het woord vormen. Sommige radicaalstammen zijn 'afgesleten' of 'uitgehold', zodat er soms nog maar twee radicalen zichtbaar zijn. Er zijn ook stammen die uit meer dan drie radicalen bestaan, soms onder invloed van andere talen. En dan zijn er nog de leenwoorden, waarvoor de linguïstische wetten van het Hebreeuws uiteraard niet gelden. Hoewel het Jiddisch veel Hebreeuwse en Aramese woorden bevat, behoort die taal tot de Germaanse tak van de Indo-Europese talen - dezelfde taalgroep waartoe ook het Nederlands, het Duits en het Engels behoren.

Het is in de optie rekening te houden met de originele taal dat wij ook beter voorkeur zouden geven aan óf hetzelfde gebruik van een woord óf om een gelijkaardige vertaling te gebruiken. Men kan niet voor één worod een bepaalde klinker of medeklinkerkeuze gebruiken terwijl men voor een ander woord een andere medeklinker en klinker keuze zou gaan toepassen. Zo kan de Yod in het Hebreeuws niet vervangen worden door een J terwijl men op een andere plaats de voorkeur geeft aan het gebruik van een Ypsolom. De Y zou in elke Germaanse taal moeten vertaald worden met een J, daarom niet Yahweh bijvoorbeeld, maar Jahwe. Maar die naam voor god is niet overeenkomstig de drieklank in het Hebreeuws waar het Yahuwhah klinkt als het Nederlandse Jehovah (of "Jehovwhah") Om die reden moet men dan ook opteren voor Jehovah als de meest geschikte omzetting van de Naam van God, de Hashem Elohim "Ik ben die ben".

Monday 10 October 2011

Spelling van Bijbelse namen

Vanaf midden 19° eeuw begon het bij sommige Bijbelonderzoekers en Bijbelvorsers te knagen dat er in de Bijbelvertalingen veranderingen waren ingeslopen waarvan men zich kon afvragen of dat deze wel door de beugel konden.

Men kon er inkomen dat men wegens het ontbreken van een bepaald woord om het originele Hebreeuws of Aramees te vertalen men zocht naar een equivalent in de moedertaal. Het was namelijk zo dat men ook wel eens verveeld zat met een tittel of een naam die eigenlijk een omschrijving inhield waar men in de taal naar waar men wenste te vertalen meerdere woorden moest plaatsen en de leesbaarheid in het gedrang bracht.

Voor bepaalde Nemen van personen kon men echter zijn goedkeuring niet geven en ging men over om terug de oude vormen te gebruiken. Naargelang er een beweging van onderzoekers groeide en men ook meer gegevens vond om te bevestigen dat men op de goede weg was,  kon men niet alleen duidelijk inzien welk eigenlijk de juiste naam was of wat de eigenlijke betekenis van een woord was. Ook hielpen veel ongelovige Hebreeuws en Aramees taalkundigen, archeologen en Joden mee om de taal te leren kennen waarin de Heilige Schrift was geschreven en de ware achtergrond te zien van de vele beeldspraken die er werden in gebruikt.

Eind 19° eeuw waren er verscheidene Bijbelstudenten, waaronder ook John Thomas die aan hun thuishaven wilden vast houden en woorden blijven gebruiken die ze van hun herkomst gewoon waren. Ook werden zij door een beweging tegen bepaalde geloofsgroepen opgehouden om bepaalde namen te gebruiken. De angst voor represailles of minachting was groter dan hun moed om doortastend verandering te brengen bij die mensen die vasthielden aan een Drie-eenheid en een God die toch niet dezelfde kon zijn als de rondtrekkende niet-trinitariërs.

Maar naar de 20° eeuw toe kwam er in Noord Amerika een beweging op gang die zich maar half liet afschrikken. Een deel hield vast aan de ondertussen standaard namen Yahweh en Jesus (Jahwe en Jezus) terwijl de ernstige Bijbelstudenten doortastend verder gingen in hun onderzoek en handelden naar hun bevindingen. Daar waar aanpassingen moesten gebeuren deden zij dat ook. Zij wilden zich niet vasthouden aan bepaalde doctrines of vooraf vastgestelde volglijnen van één of andere kerkgemeenschap.
Hun openheid tot verdere Bijbelstudie gaf hen niet alleen meer Bijbelkennis maar versterkte het vertrouwen in de richting die zij waren uitgegaan.
Ook al brachten verschillende meningen weer verscheidene groepen in leven en wenste een bepaalde groep niet toegeven dat zij zelf een scheuring van een grote beweging waren die ook veel mensen in andere bewegingen zag gaan.

Eveneens kwam er een beweging op gang om de Naam van God in het verdom hoekje te krijgen. Zo past het ook in hun kraam om twijfel te brengen over het gebruik van Jehovah in de alom gebruikte King James Bible. Naargelang de tijd vorderde werden uitgevers ook bang minder goede verkoopcijfers te hebben als zij die zelfde naam zouden gebruiken als bepaalde predikers die heel andere dingen verkondigden dan de mensen wilden horen. Meer en meer schrapte men de Naam van God uit de Bijbel en verving hem door een naamloze god "Heer". Door die tittel te gebruiken bracht men de tweehoofdige god Baal uit het Babylonisch tijdperk terug naar voor. Deze kreeg nu een plaatsje in de bijbel naast de reeds lange tijd geleden veranderde naam van de Messias uit Nazareth. Zijn geboortenaam Yahushua met roepnaam Yashua uitgesproken en schrijfbaar in onze taal als Jeshua werd vervangen door Iessou uitgesproken als Jesus en naar het Nederlands vertaald in de Katholieke Canussius Bijbel door Jesus, terwijl latere Katholieke en Protestantse Bijbels voor Jezus opteerden. Maar het bleef de verborgen uitroep van "Ya Sus" Je-Zeus of "Lof aan Zeus"

Vreemd genoeg overweeg de grootste beweging van de Ernstige Bijbelstudenten nooit publiekelijk om ook de naam van de zoon van God te herstellen terwijl zij toch zeer hoog opliepen met de juistheid van de Naam van God en Zijn soevereiniteit die wij moesten hoog houden. Zij namen de Naam van God op in de tittel van hun beweging en maakten het dat anderen bijna niet konden zeggen dat zij getuigen van God waren, omdat als zij de Naam van God gebruikten zouden zij verward worden met die groep Getuigen van Jehovah. Nochtans is dat wat zij bleven doen: Getuigen voor Jehovah, en dat is wat wij allemaal als Christenen zouden moeten doen.

Vanuit de adventisten groeide een groep die er verder ook op stond om Gods Naam te gebruiken, maar eerst was die ander groep een hinderpaal om de juiste Naam te gebruiken, dus gebruikten zij eerst het meest voor de hand liggende alternatief Yahweh. Maar met de jaren begon het schoentje erg te knellen doordat men voldoende inzicht had verworven dat het toch eigenlijk Jehovah moest zijn en dat men zo wel voor God als zijn zoon moest over gaan tot de juiste naam. Anderen wilden het zelfs verder drijven en begonnen ook die woorden die eigenlijk uit de heidense woordenschat kwamen te vervangen door de eigenlijke Hebreeuwse begrippen. Zo wensten zij alle functies beschreven in het Woord van God terug tot hun volle recht laten komen.

De Zuid-Afrikaanse arts Chris Koster, die eerst begonnen was met een Bijbelvertaling naar het Afrikaans ging over naar het omzetten van de Hebreeuwse en Aramese Bijbelteksten naar modern Engels zonder de originele taal geweld aan te doen. Het werd een letterlijke vertaling die toch vlot leesbaar kon zijn,, met de aanpassing van de Bijbelse voor en eigennamen. Zijn vertaling werd regelmatig bijgewerkt en is nu een van de standaard Bijbelvertalingen gebruikt in vele Messiaanse geloofskringen naast de "Aramaic English New Testament" (AENT)  van Andrew Gabriel Roth.
Veel gading vinden ook "The Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition" (SSBE) die gebaseerd is  op de 1901 American Standard Bible versie en Yahshua gebruikt. Het andere populair werk "The Word of Yahweh"  verkoos vast te houden aan Yahweh en Yahsua.

Voortbordurend op Koster zijn werk zijn en op Rudolph Kittel's Biblia Hebraica uitgave van 1937 heeft men de recentere versies van de Geschriften "The Scriptures" en de  "HalleluYah Sriptures" die nu 'vechten om de troon', waarbij de laatste beweerd dat de eerste de doelstelling van Koster passeert, namelijk dat de Bijbel makkelijk voor iedereen ter beschikking moest zijn en dat men er geen geld voor mocht vragen. [Het bewijs dat HallelYah Scriptures de Bijbelvertaling echt gratis zou leveren moeten wij nog bevestigd zien. (Diegenen die er ervaring mee hebben kunnen hier altijd hun bevindingen neerschrijven.)]

De idee van beide vertalingen loopt parallel, maar het moet nu bekeken worden tot waar zij elk hun  rechtzettingen van namen en begrippen willen doorvoeren. Want het moet  of eerder mag niet te ver doorgedreven worden zodat mensen bijna Hebreeuws zouden gaan  spreken.

In ieder geval mag men een bloeiende aandacht zien naar het herstel van de namen in de Bijbel.

Lees hier verder over in:



Enkele citaten uit de vroegere Engelse uitgavevan The Sriptures kan u vinden in: Creator of heaven and earth and everything around יהוה The Only One Elohim who creates and gives all

Vindt en voorbeeld van een Nederlandse vertaling van De Geschriften (1998+ Vertaling) God over zijn Naam יהוה

Related articles:

Vindt de Online versie van de Geschriften in het Engels: Online versie van TS98

Spelling Yahshuah (יהשע) vs Hebrew using Yehoshuah (יהושע)

For centuries, Bible translators around the world did not transliterate or copy the tetragrammaton in their translations. For example, English Bible translators (Christian and Jewish) used "LORD" to represent it. Many authors on Bible translation have explicitly called for translating it with a vernacular word or phrase that would be locally meaningful.

The spelling Yahshuah (יהשע), first documented during the early days of the Sacred Name movement in the 1930s, is not found in Hebrew texts. The Hebrew Bible uses Yehoshuah (יהושע), and later Yeshua, for Joshua, which means "Yah is Salvation." Christians, historians, and linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua in favor of Yeshua (ישוע) as the original pronunciation written in Germanic languages like Dutch as in English with a J for the Yod = Jeshua.

Critics say that in their labor to get the pronunciation "Yahshua" out of יהושע, they are ignoring Hebrew linguistics that do not allow the waw to be silent, so "Yahshua" is a questioned translation. Furthermore, it is argued by some that this pronunciation is not attested in antiquity, unlike the pronunciation "Yehoshua".

Those who really love the One and Only God and his son, should consider them as part of their family and use the sounds of the names of those persons.
We should consider it appropriate to use Semitic names in our translations of both the Old and New Testament.
- Bible scholars and translators such as Eusebius and Jerome (translator of the Latin Vulgate) consulted the Hexapla, but did not attempt to preserve sacred names in Semitic forms. Justin Martyr (second century) argued that YHWH is not a personal name, writing of the “namelessness of God”.  - (Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address, ch. 21)

Good christians should transliterate (“bring over the sound”) into their own language, e.g. English and Dutch. We can wonder if we not have to go to the phonetic use of the name, or should we write it phonetically right but let it pronounced in the tongue of the speaker?

But we should not give preference to go for the popular version like the translator Joseph Bryant Rotherham lamented not making his work in to a Sacred Name Bible by using the Yod in English as well and not keeping to the three Hebrew vowels when he choose for the English favourite in his translation.
Some Restored Names Bibles therefore keep using the populist form Yahweh and even go to base there version on the King James Version (where in the old edition was used Jehovah) and just change the names of the Father to Yahweh and His Son into Yahshua in both Testaments.

From the beginning of the 20th century many people became more aware of the importance of the use of Gods Name, but like several Sacred Name groups they clanged to the English "Yahweh" and "Yahshua" instead for opting for the Hebrew conversion of hte sound for Yehowah wich would sound as "Yea-Hovwhah" and could best be written as Jehovah in Latin and Germanic languages. also for the wrong name of the Nazarene son of Joseph and Myriam (Mary/Maria) from the tribe of David who became generally known as Jesus (from the Greek "Iesous", which means 'Hail Zeus') Christ (= the "Christos"), the Messiah. Bringing over the Hebrew sounds it would be

"‘Jesus’ is a transliteration of a Latin name Ioesus, pronounced heysus - which means NOTHING in Hebrew, but in Latin it means ‘Hail Zeus’. If Yahshua’s name had been
transliterated into our language, it would have been closer to Joshua (or Jehoshua).." (


Originally, the name of the Messiah was , pronounced Yahushua or (Yehoshua). This is the Messiah's original name. The correct pronouncement would be "Yahushua" or spoken out as "Yea- Hu- Shua" (In Dutch "Je-hoe-shoewha") and could be written down as Jehushua. While the short form for "Ya-Saves" or better "Jeh-Saves" also often used in the scrolls would be Jeshua.

Biblequotes from Restored Name Bible "The Scriptures" >

God about His name “יהוה“ + Creator of heaven and earth and everything around יהוהThe Only One Elohim who creates and gives all


in the Dutch Translation "De Geschriften":
God over zijn Naam  + יהוה Schepper van hemel en aarde en alles er op en eraan

Read more:
Related articles:
In Dutch

About the change of the son of God for the sake of keeping the piece (in the 4° Century CE):