Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Daystar

Yehovah

20 posts in this topic

There is a deep significanc in the meaning of Yehovah, or Jehovah. Yehovah is a combination of three hebrew words which can be translated into English as follows:

"Yehi," which means "he will be."

"Hove," which means "(he is) being."

Hahyah, which means "he was."

Yehovah is formed by taking "Yeh," (from Yehi), "ov" (from hove), and "ah" (from hahyah). So Yehovah means, "I was, I am, I will be." There are seven web sites that deal with "yehi, hove, hahyah."

The botton line is that God (Yehovah) is "I am," just what Jesus claimed to be (John 8:58)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for your pointless argument, Eheyeh is the Name you are attempting to link with `Isa's (as) statement that he existed before Ibrahim (as).

As i have pointed out numerous times, the GREEK says only "Before Abraham existed, i existed." It is the man-made innovation of translators and propagandizers of the Paulian myth-making, that have made this "I AM."

Unfortunately for them "I AM" is not the meaning of "Eheyeh." Musa (as) was not told "I AM THAT I AM" when he was told "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh." He was told "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE."

Are you attempting to say that `Isa (as) said "Before Abraham was, I WILL BE?" That makes no sense at all; grammatically or otherwise.

Once again your linguistic ignorance has been your undoing.

Moreover, "Yehovah" is absolutely NOT how you pronounce Ha'Shem. Thanks for playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i have pointed out numerous times, the GREEK says only "Before Abraham existed, i existed." It is the man-made innovation of translators and propagandizers of the Paulian myth-making, that have made this "I AM."

[day] Peter also declared the deity of Jesus (2 Pet. 1:1). Did you want to include him with Paul the Propagandist? You could call his doctine Peterian Propaganda. Also, Jude declared the diety of Jesus 1:4.

[Day] Regardless what people say about I AM (ego eimi), it should be patently clear that Jesus was declaring himself to be God. Why do you think the Jews tried to stone him after he said it?

Unfortunately for them "I AM" is not the meaning of "Eheyeh."

[Day] Hayah (Eheyeh) simply means "to be, exist." But Yehovah still means "was, is, will be." Make it simple and call him I AM.

Musa (as) was not told "I AM THAT I AM" when he was told "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh." He was told "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE."

[Day] Hayah simply means to be, exist. If God is, he is I AM.

Are you attempting to say that `Isa (as) said "Before Abraham was, I WILL BE?"

[Day] No, I am attempting to say what the scripture clearly says - I AM. If the Jews understood Jesus to say "I will be," or something other than I AM, they wouldn't have tried to stone him. They knew very well what he was saying, just as they did in John 5:18 and 10:33.

That makes no sense at all; grammatically or otherwise.

[Day] Your denial of the deity of Jesus forces you to seek alternative explanations for the truth who Jesus said he was- the Alpha and Omega, "the Almighty." (Rev. 1:8,17; 22:13,16)

Once again your linguistic ignorance has been your undoing.

Moreover, "Yehovah" is absolutely NOT how you pronounce Ha'Shem. Thanks for playing.

[Day] There are literally dozens of names applied to God. Jews call him Hashem, we call him the Almighty God, which he said he was. The day will come when every knee will bow to the Lord Jesus Christ (Isa. 45:23, Rom. 14:11, Phil. 2:10,11).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As i have pointed out numerous times, the GREEK says only "Before Abraham existed, i existed." It is the man-made innovation of translators and propagandizers of the Paulian myth-making, that have made this "I AM."

[day] Peter also declared the deity of Jesus (2 Pet. 1:1). Did you want to include him with Paul the Propagandist? You could call his doctine Peterian Propaganda. Also, Jude declared the diety of Jesus 1:4.

i have explained before that Peter WAS NOT the author of the psuedepigraphical Books of "Peter." Below is what i have said:

Peter did not write the Books attributed to him. In fact the writing style in the so-called Books of Peter are IDENTICAL to the writing style of Paul. This should not surprise us since the Books praise Paul unceasingly.

Many scholars think 1 Peter is pseudepigraphic, since "Babylon" (5:13) is not used until after 70 C.E., and since the Greek is much too good for a simple Galilean fisherman.

Moreover, Silvanus is the scribe of 1 Peter (5:12). This could well mean that he is the author himself. Silvanus was a missionary associate of Paul, whom he tried to infiltrait the Jerusalem community with. Silvanus is the same person named "Silas" in Acts is always called "Silvanus" in Paul's letters exclusively; thus indicating the PAUL and not Peter is the origin of these Pseudepigraphic books of "Peter."

Beyond that, Mark is called "my son" in 1 Peter 5:13, yet he had no such connection with Peter, as he did with PAUL, as one of Paul's disciples.

Regardless of the identity of the author (which is logically not Peter), i ask you, is it Just for a man to rape a child, and then for that child's parents to forgive the rapist, but ONLY by first shedding the blood of the child? This is not justice, this notion of vicarious atonement is perverse, pagan and satanic in origin.

Moreover, Jesus spoke of there being no greater love than someone laying down their life for their friends. i'm sure no Muslim would disagree with that. i love my wife so much that i would die for her, i would take a bullet in her place. i love my children so much that i would do the same. As a matter of fact, i would undergo torture for them. i have various friends who i would die for, who i would suffer for in their place as well. This is not uncommon. This is TRUE friendship and TRUE love. Jesus did NOT say that he came to die, or that he would lay down his life for the world. He was saying that he loved his friends so much that he would face death to avert the persecution that they were facing as outlaws; by making Rome think that their leader had died.

[Day] Regardless what people say about I AM (ego eimi), it should be patently clear that Jesus was declaring himself to be God. Why do you think the Jews tried to stone him after he said it?

i have explained this many times. They tried to stone him because he claimed pre-existence. This is for the same reason that a Wahhabi or Deobandi would try to kill a Muslim for saying the same thing.

Unfortunately for them "I AM" is not the meaning of "Eheyeh."

[Day] Hayah (Eheyeh) simply means "to be, exist." But Yehovah still means "was, is, will be." Make it simple and call him I AM.

What you say is simply not true. i could explain to you the meaning of Ha'Shem (YHWH), but you will first have to acknowledge that your pronunciation of it is completely wrong.

Moreover, "hayah" (HYH) is not "Eheyeh" (AHYH).

Musa  was not told "I AM THAT I AM" when he was told "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh." He was told "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE."

[Day] Hayah simply means to be, exist. If God is, he is I AM.

You are speaking non-sense. Christian translations of the Tanakh say "I AM" for Eheyeh, when in fact this means "I will be." Do not make excuses for this incorrect translation.

Are you attempting to say that `Isa  said "Before Abraham was, I WILL BE?"

[Day] No, I am attempting to say what the scripture clearly says - I AM.

The Scriptures DO NOT say this, they say "Eheyeh" which means "i will be." You do not know Hebrew, so you are essentially lying when you pretend to know the definitions of words that you do not in fact know.

If the Jews understood Jesus to say "I will be," or something other than I AM, they wouldn't have tried to stone him. They knew very well what he was saying, just as they did in John 5:18 and 10:33.

Incorrect. Refer to my answer earlier in this reply.

That makes no sense at all; grammatically or otherwise.

[Day] Your denial of the deity of Jesus forces you to seek alternative explanations for the truth who Jesus said he was- the Alpha and Omega, "the Almighty." (Rev. 1:8,17; 22:13,16)

It is no "alternative explanation" to refer back to the ORIGINAL languages of the Bible and point out that no such thing as what you are claiming is said!

Once again your linguistic ignorance has been your undoing.

Moreover, "Yehovah" is absolutely NOT how you pronounce Ha'Shem. Thanks for playing.

[Day] There are literally dozens of names applied to God. Jews call him Hashem

,

Ha'Shem just means "The Name" and refers to the "Name" (Shem) "YHWH."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As i have pointed out numerous times, the GREEK says only "Before Abraham existed, i existed." It is the man-made innovation of translators and propagandizers of the Paulian myth-making, that have made this "I AM."

[day] Peter also declared the deity of Jesus (2 Pet. 1:1). Did you want to include him with Paul the Propagandist? You could call his doctine Peterian Propaganda. Also, Jude declared the diety of Jesus 1:4.

i have explained before that Peter WAS NOT the author of the psuedepigraphical Books of "Peter." Below is what i have said:

[Day] Ok, so whoever wrote it said that Jesus is God :-)

Peter did not write the Books attributed to him. In fact the writing style in the so-called Books of Peter are IDENTICAL to the writing style of Paul. This should not surprise us since the Books praise Paul unceasingly.

[Day] Denial always finds a reason not to believe.

Many scholars think 1 Peter is pseudepigraphic,

[Day] I have to chuckle when I hear "many scholars." Who are they? How many are there? What else don't they believe? Why don't you believe the greater number of scholars who disagree with them? Personally, I think these scholars whom you mention were foreknown by scripture, "always learning, but never able to acknowlege the truth." (2 tim. 3:7) as they lead their flock down the broad path of destruciton. We call such men "liberal" because they don't hold fast to sound doctrine, rather distort and twist the scriptures to suit their desires. Unfortunatley, they have a large following and tickle their ears with things they want to hear. Scripture records a just and tormenting end for their foolishness.

since "Babylon" (5:13) is not used until after 70 C.E., and since the Greek is much too good for a simple Galilean fisherman.

[Day] Not used by who? Simpletons don't use greek?

Moreover, Silvanus is the scribe of 1 Peter (5:12). This could well mean that he is the author himself. Silvanus was a missionary associate of Paul, whom he tried to infiltrait the Jerusalem community with. Silvanus is the same person named "Silas" in Acts is always called "Silvanus" in Paul's letters exclusively; thus indicating the PAUL and not Peter is the origin of these Pseudepigraphic books of "Peter."

[Day] So because you think Silas is Sylvanus, Paul now becomes the author of Peter's letters? What do you do with 2 Pet. 3:15? "Bear in mind that our Lord' patience means salvation, just as our dear brother PAUL wrote you with the wisdom God gave him."

Beyond that, Mark is called "my son" in 1 Peter 5:13, yet he had no such connection with Peter, as he did with PAUL, as one of Paul's disciples.

[Day] Peter and Mark were co-laborers in the Kingdom of God and Mark was probably influenced by the power and authority of Peter's walk with Jesus and his own ministry. In this sense, he may have referred to Mark as, "my son." Jesus referred to John as his mother's son (John 19:26), yet there was no connection between them. He was telling Mary and John to treat each other as though they were mother and son, because Jesus was departing.

Regardless of the identity of the author (which is logically not Peter),

[Day] Again, let's agree that Peter was not the author. Will you then accept what the real author said about the deity of Jesus in 2 Pet. 1:1?

i ask you, is it Just for a man to rape a child, and then for that child's parents to forgive the rapist, but ONLY by first shedding the blood of the child? This is not justice, this notion of vicarious atonement is perverse, pagan and satanic in origin.

[Day] Was it just for the Jews to kill innocent lambs as sacrifices for their sins?

Moreover, Jesus spoke of there being no greater love than someone laying down their life for their friends. i'm sure no Muslim would disagree with that.

[Day] Now perhaps you understand what Jesus ment when he said he lays down his life for his friends :-)

i love my wife so much that i would die for her,

[Day] I think you're beginning to get it :-) See how much Jesus loves you?

i would take a bullet in her place.

[Day] Do you not see what you are saying? Jesus took "the bullet" for all of us.

i love my children so much that i would do the same. As a matter of fact, i would undergo torture for them.

[Day] "His appearance was marred beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness." (Isa. 52:14)

have various friends who i would die for, who i would suffer for in their place as well. This is not uncommon. This is TRUE friendship and TRUE love. Jesus did NOT say that he came to die,

[Day] You will have to "torture" scripture beyond recognition to say that Jesus never said he would die. I won't waste our time by listing the many places where he said he would die. Besides, you know where they are.

or that he would lay down his life for the world. He was saying that he loved his friends so much that he would face death to avert the persecution that they were facing as outlaws; by making Rome think that their leader had died.

[Day] I am going to refer you to "Torturer in Chief." No one can twist and distort scripture to mean what it doesn't say as well as you can. You get the Blue Ribbon :-)

[Day] Regardless what people say about I AM (ego eimi), it should be patently clear that Jesus was declaring himself to be God. Why do you think the Jews tried to stone him after he said it?

i have explained this many times.

[Day] and that many times you torture the scriptures.

They tried to stone him because he claimed pre-existence.

[Day] Well, we could say that he was God if he pre-existed. But you really know better. The Jews woudn't want him dead just because he said that he lived before Abraham. They would have just laughed at him for saying something so stupid. Use your REASON, man!

This is for the same reason that a Wahhabi or Deobandi would try to kill a Muslim for saying the same thing.

[Day] If a Muslim said Jesus was God, the Wahhaibs would try to kill him?

[Day] Hayah (Eheyeh) simply means "to be, exist." But Yehovah still means "was, is, will be." Make it simple and call him I AM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just skimming through your response before i respond, FIRST answer this question: DO YOU KNOW HEBREW OR GREEK?

If the answer is no then please stop acting like you do and stop arguing with me about languages that you do not even know how to read in the first place.

You are not even pronouncing YHWH remotely correctly, nor are you defining it correctly. Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE." You have literally no idea what you are talking about, and it shows to anyone who knows an ounce of Hebrew.

Edited by Naziri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE."

Yup :D . Ehye asher ehye -- I will be that which I will be.

Ahh, I love that story of Moses and the burning bush :wub: .

Shaloms.

Edited by Netzari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE."

Yup :D . Ehye asher ehye -- I will be that which I will be.

Ahh, I love that story of Moses and the burning bush :wub: .

Shaloms.

Exactly right, which is why Christians claiming that `Isa (as) said "Before Abraham was, I AM" (prin abraam genesqai egw eimi) makes no sense at all as an alleged claim of Divinity.

Edited by Naziri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just skimming through your response before i respond, FIRST answer this question: DO YOU KNOW HEBREW OR GREEK?

[Day] I don't have to know either. What you have to do is convince the translators and Publishers of the different Bible versions that they are wrong. I don't have to know how a car works to drive it. Just imagine how famous you would be by proving to the world that Jesus is not I AM, God Almighty.

If the answer is no then please stop acting like you do and stop arguing with me about languages that you do not even know how to read in the first place.

[Day] OK, just convince these publishers that they are wrong.

You are not even pronouncing YHWH remotely correctly, nor are you defining it correctly. Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE."

[Day] What do you think God "will be" that he already hasn't been, or is. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6). "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb. 13:8). When was yesterday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just skimming through your response before i respond, FIRST answer this question: DO YOU KNOW HEBREW OR GREEK?

[Day] I don't have to know either.

Then this should really be the end of the discussion. If you do not know languages, do not argue with someone who does regarding them.

What you have to do is convince the translators and Publishers of the different Bible versions that they are wrong.

They mistranslate DELIBERATELY. They KNOW they are wrong and NO JEWISH version of the Bible states what their translations say AT ALL. Ask any Jew about how different the Jewish translations of the Tanakh are from the Christians' "Old Testament" (so-called).

I don't have to know how a car works to drive it.

But you do have to know how a car works if you intend to argue with a mechanic about how a car works.

Just imagine how famous you would be by proving to the world that Jesus is not I AM, God Almighty.

i intend to do just that, although not for fame or personal glory whatsoever.

If the answer is no then please stop acting like you do and stop arguing with me about languages that you do not even know how to read in the first place.

[Day] OK, just convince these publishers that they are wrong.

That would be like convincing a mass murderer that he is killing people. These shaiyatin know what they are doing and they do it DELIBERATELY to DECIEVE; like their master Paul. Christian translators of the Bible cannot be taken as experts over JEWISH translators of the Tanakh who translate VERY differently than the Christian propagandists.

You are not even pronouncing YHWH remotely correctly, nor are you defining it correctly. Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE."

[Day] What do you think God "will be" that he already hasn't been, or is. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6). "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb. 13:8). When was yesterday?

You obviously do not understand what the Name means. "Eheyeh asher eheyeh" is a response to Musa (as) asking what the Name was. Allah replied "Eheye asher eheyeh." That Allah will be that which Allah will be, and it is not for Musa (as) to know or fathum beyond those Attributes that Allah gives him. In the same way he asked for Allah to manifest to him, but this too was unrealistic, and he only saw the vieled Small Face, (Zer Anpin as opposed to the Arikh Anpin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think God "will be" that he already hasn't been, or is. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6). "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb. 13:8). When was yesterday?

Yes, Naziri is right. When God says "I will be that which I will be," he is basically saying that he is undefinable, and that Moses shouldn't worry about explaining him.

Salaam and Shalom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just skimming through your response before i respond, FIRST answer this question: DO YOU KNOW HEBREW OR GREEK?

[Day] I don't have to know either.

Then this should really be the end of the discussion. If you do not know languages, do not argue with someone who does regarding them.

[Day] Wrong. I challenge you to take on the publishers who did the translations. If you convince them, you convince me. I have faith in their work, esp. the NASB. Prove to me I shouldn't.

What you have to do is convince the translators and Publishers of the different Bible versions that they are wrong.

They mistranslate DELIBERATELY. They KNOW they are wrong and NO JEWISH version of the Bible states what their translations say AT ALL.

[Day] Not even Jewish Translations agree on many verses. But you are wrong when you say that all verses of the English Bibles are ALL wrong when compared to Jewish Bibles. That is pure hype on your part.

Ask any Jew about how different the Jewish translations of the Tanakh are from the Christians' "Old Testament" (so-called).

[Day] In my two Jewish Bibles, I find far more agreement with English Bibles than disagreement. Where do you get the notion that they are so different?

Just imagine how famous you would be by proving to the world that Jesus is not I AM, God Almighty.

i intend to do just that, although not for fame or personal glory whatsoever.

[Day] I will watch for the headlines: NAZIRI PROVES A DEITYLESS JESUS. Bill O'Reilly will be the first to interview you :-) Should you, or anyone, satisfy Christians that Jesus isn't God, I will be the first to burn my Bibles, cancel my church membership, and then GO OUT AND LIVE LIKE THE DEVIL because there will be no judgment since Jesus isn't God.

If the answer is no then please stop acting like you do and stop arguing with me about languages that you do not even know how to read in the first place.

[Day] OK, just convince these publishers that they are wrong.

That would be like convincing a mass murderer that he is killing people. These shaiyatin know what they are doing and they do it DELIBERATELY to DECIEVE; like their master Paul. Christian translators of the Bible cannot be taken as experts over JEWISH translators of the Tanakh who translate VERY differently than the Christian propagandists.

[Day] Well, like I said, my two Jewish Bibles are quite similar to my three English Bibles. Concerning something important about doctrine, give me an example where Jewish Bibles differ from English Bibles.

You are not even pronouncing YHWH remotely correctly, nor are you defining it correctly. Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE."

[Day] What do you think God "will be" that he already hasn't been, or is. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6). "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb. 13:8). When was yesterday?

You obviously do not understand what the Name means. "Eheyeh asher eheyeh" is a response to Musa (as) asking what the Name was. Allah replied "Eheye asher eheyeh." That Allah will be that which Allah will be, and it is not for Musa (as) to know or fathum beyond those Attributes that Allah gives him. In the same way he asked for Allah to manifest to him, but this too was unrealistic, and he only saw the vieled Small Face, (Zer Anpin as opposed to the Arikh Anpin).

[Day] Veiled Small Face??? What are you talking about?

First, concerning Exo. 3:13,14, The NEW JPS TRANSLATION ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL HEBREW TEXT says, "Moses said to God, 'When I come to the Israelites and say to them, 'the God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, 'Ehyeh ahser Ehyeh."

Notice that this version does not translate 'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh' into english in the text. But in a footnote below, it says the following: "The meaning of 'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh' is uncertain; variously translated "I am that I am," "I am who I am," "I will be what I will be." Others say, "I AM," or "I will be."

Second, my Jerusalem Bible is very similar. Verse 14 says, "And God said to Moshe, 'EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (I will ever be what I now am): and he said, 'thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, EHYEH (I AM) has sent to me to you.

Here are two Jewish Bibles that find "I AM" completely acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then this should really be the end of the discussion. If you do not know languages, do not argue with someone who does regarding them.

[Day] Wrong. I challenge you to take on the publishers who did the translations. If you convince them, you convince me. I have faith in their work, esp. the NASB. Prove to me I shouldn't.

i don't need to prove anything to you. i am not in the business of trying to prove to the arrogant that they are arrogant, and trying to prove to the die-hard disbeliever that they disbelieve. You can consult ANY - ANY - Hebrew DICTIONARY if you find what i am saying so unbelievable.

QUOTE 

What you have to do is convince the translators and Publishers of the different Bible versions that they are wrong.

They mistranslate DELIBERATELY. They KNOW they are wrong and NO JEWISH version of the Bible states what their translations say AT ALL

[Day] Not even Jewish Translations agree on many verses. But you are wrong when you say that all verses of the English Bibles are ALL wrong when compared to Jewish Bibles. That is pure hype on your part. .

i have three Jewish translations of the Tanakh and i have the Tanakh in Hebrew. NONE of these say what you claim they say.

Ask any Jew about how different the Jewish translations of the Tanakh are from the Christians' "Old Testament" (so-called).

[Day] In my two Jewish Bibles, I find far more agreement with English Bibles than disagreement. Where do you get the notion that they are so different?

What are the ISBN numbers of your Jewish Bibles and please quote me EXACTLY what they translate "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh" as?

QUOTE 

Just imagine how famous you would be by proving to the world that Jesus is not I AM, God Almighty. 

i intend to do just that, although not for fame or personal glory whatsoever.

[Day] I will watch for the headlines: NAZIRI PROVES A DEITYLESS JESUS.

Stay tuned, the day WILL come; i'm still very young and have many years of combating your kufr and shirk left in me insha'Allah.

What i do not finish, my children will.

Bill O'Reilly will be the first to interview you :-)

Bill O'Reilly would have a heart attack after debating me for five minutes.

You are free to arrange a debate between me at your church. i will bring Muslims and you will bring Christians. i will debate your most educated paster or theologian.

Think of all the chances you will have to "win hearts for Christ!"

Should you, or anyone, satisfy Christians that Jesus isn't God, I will be the first to burn my Bibles, cancel my church membership, and then GO OUT AND LIVE LIKE THE DEVIL because there will be no judgment since Jesus isn't God.

There is ABSOLUTELY Judgment without ANYONE being God but THE ONE AND ONLY GOD, YHWH, who is Allah ta'ala and NO ONE ELSE.

In order to "satisfy Christians" then Christians must first at least LISTEN to what i am saying.

Thoreau said: "It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak, and another to hear."

Are you willing to hear? Are you willing to listen? Are you willing to read the texts that i have written? Please start with "The Greatest Story NEVER Told" at: http://www.taliyah.org/unformatted/crucifixion.html and get back to me with your rebuttal BASED IN SCRIPTURE from the PROPHETS and NOT PAUL.

This should be an easy thing if the Bible REALLY says what you and your master Paul claim it says.

QUOTE 

If the answer is no then please stop acting like you do and stop arguing with me about languages that you do not even know how to read in the first place.

[Day] OK, just convince these publishers that they are wrong.

You have changed the argument from what the name mean to me writing to publishers. Many Jews have written to these publishers ALREADY to tell them that they are lying and mistranslating. One more Jewish Muslim writing to them will do no good.

That would be like convincing a mass murderer that he is killing people. These shaiyatin know what they are doing and they do it DELIBERATELY to DECIEVE; like their master Paul. Christian translators of the Bible cannot be taken as experts over JEWISH translators of the Tanakh who translate VERY differently than the Christian propagandists.

[Day] Well, like I said, my two Jewish Bibles are quite similar to my three English Bibles. Concerning something important about doctrine, give me an example where Jewish Bibles differ from English Bibles.

i have over a dozen times already on this forum. Nearly every so-called "Old Testament prophecy" about `Isa (as) is a fabrication and mistranslation. You have certainly read many of the times i have pointed this out on this forum and you can read them throughout the texts that i have written.

Please read what i have written if you sincerely are willing to consider a perspective other than the one you have been indoctrinated with. i do you the same courtesy, please do me the same.

QUOTE 

You are not even pronouncing YHWH remotely correctly, nor are you defining it correctly. Similarly you think "I AM" is a Divine Name when the Name you are thinking of "Eheyeh" in fact means "I WILL BE."

[Day] What do you think God "will be" that he already hasn't been, or is. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6). "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb. 13:8). When was yesterday?

Once again, i have explained what this means and you have skimmed over it. Even your fellow Christian has disagreed with you.

Moreover, if you acknowledge that YHWH does not change then why do you preach that He changed from Tanakh to Gospel? Why do you teach that the Torah and the Mitzvot are abrogated?

You obviously do not understand what the Name means. "Eheyeh asher eheyeh" is a response to Musa  asking what the Name was. Allah replied "Eheye asher eheyeh." That Allah will be that which Allah will be, and it is not for Musa  to know or fathum beyond those Attributes that Allah gives him. In the same way he asked for Allah to manifest to him, but this too was unrealistic, and he only saw the vieled Small Face, (Zer Anpin as opposed to the Arikh Anpin).

[Day] Veiled Small Face??? What are you talking about?

It's a matter that would be apparent to you if you knew as much about Hebrew and Judaic traditions as you claim to.

First, concerning Exo. 3:13,14, The NEW JPS TRANSLATION ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL HEBREW TEXT says, "Moses said to God, 'When I come to the Israelites and say to them, 'the God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, 'Ehyeh ahser Ehyeh."

Notice that this version does not translate 'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh' into english in the text. But in a footnote below, it says the following: "The meaning of 'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh' is uncertain; variously translated "I am that I am," "I am who I am," "I will be what I will be." Others say, "I AM," or "I will be."

Then get a dictionary and look it up. Once again, you are arguing a language you don't even know with someone who does. This is the epidome of folly.

Second, my Jerusalem Bible is very similar. Verse 14 says, "And God said to Moshe, 'EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (I will ever be what I now am): and he said, 'thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, EHYEH (I AM) has sent to me to you.

Here are two Jewish Bibles that find "I AM" completely acceptable.

Those wouldn't happen to be "Messianic Jewish" translations would they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think God "will be" that he already hasn't been, or is. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6). "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb. 13:8). When was yesterday?

Yes, Naziri is right. When God says "I will be that which I will be," he is basically saying that he is undefinable, and that Moses shouldn't worry about explaining him.

[Day] I disagree. I think God is very defineable. Whatever the scriptures say about him basically define him. But we have been trying to determine what "hahyeh" really means. It isn't Exo. 3:13,14 that are the real issue, rather what Jesus ment when he said, "I AM." The greek (ego eimi), according to different scholars can mean "I AM," or "I WILL BE," I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." How about, "I am because I will be what I am and will be :-)

Salaam and Shalom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Day] Not even Jewish Translations agree on many verses. But you are wrong when you say that all verses of the English Bibles are ALL wrong when compared to Jewish Bibles. That is pure hype on your part. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Day] Not even Jewish Translations agree on many verses. But you are wrong when you say that all verses of the English Bibles are ALL wrong when compared to Jewish Bibles. That is pure hype on your part. .

i have three Jewish translations of the Tanakh and i have the Tanakh in Hebrew. NONE of these say what you claim they say.

QUOTE

Ask any Jew about how different the Jewish translations of the Tanakh are from the Christians' "Old Testament" (so-called).

[Day] In my two Jewish Bibles, I find far more agreement with English Bibles than disagreement. Where do you get the notion that they are so different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
day, you got punk'd

Umm, do you even watch that show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the ISBN numbers of your Jewish Bibles

[Day] THE NEW JPS TRANSLATION is ISBN# 0-8276-0252-9 (Cloth). My JERUSALEM BIBLE is published BY Koren Publishers in Jerusalem and doesn't have an ISBN.

You will notice that on Amazon.com the FIRST reviewer is a Christian. The second says the following: "A readable, but bad translation, August 22, 2000"

[Day] OK, how about the Jerusalem Bible? Also, the Jewish Publication Society Bible of 1917 records "I AM."

This confirms what i have said. It is a BAD translation. "Bad" here meaning "inaccurate."

[Day] That's one reviewers opinion.

and please quote me EXACTLY what they translate "Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh" as?

[Day]

NEW JPS TRANSLATION - Exo. 3:13,14

Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them 'the God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His Name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, 'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh sent me to you."

The footnotes below say:

a. Meaning of Heb. uncertain; variously translated: "I AM that I AM, "I will be what I will be."

b. Others, "I AM," or "I will be."

c. the name YHWH (traditionally read Adonai "the LORD) is here associated with the root hayah "to be."

THE JERUSALEM BIBLE - Exo. 3:13,14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

day, you got punk'd

[Day] We'll see :-) Like I'm trying to explain to Naziri, it is impossible to understand the spiritual nature of Christianity. This is why Jews and Muslims don't accept the incarnation and Trinity. You must be "born again." Why won't you believe Jesus? If Jews and Muslims ever get a hold of this, it will revolutionize their thinking. This "born again" thing was foretold in the OT (Jer. 31:31-34 and Ezek. 36:26,27) If you don't want to believe Jesus, then believe the prophets. As Jesus told the two men on the way to Emmaus, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness will be preached in his name to ALL nations." (Luke 24:46,47). ALL nations include the Islamic nations, otherwise Jesus didn't know what he was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.