Talk:Criticisms and theories on Yahweh

Advised to start a page. Please talk before anyone make changes!

The First sentence of the article seems to be inaccurate

"The first sentence of the Article reads: Yahweh is an English transliteration of יהוה, (the Tetragrammaton), which is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel [1] as it occurs in the consonantal Hebrew Text."

I do not believe that "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יהוה

I believe that YHWH is an English transliteration of יהוה

I believe that Yahweh is a letter-by-letter English transliteration of "יַהְוֶה"
a vocalization of יהוה proposed by Gesenius in the 19th Century.

William Gesenius's Hebrew punctuation (i.e. Yahweh)

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Seeker. However, I should remind you that when treating the Name as vowels, as suggested by Josephus, the Name IAUE (Yahweh) can be readily explained. However, I can understand your view. Trunkin (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeker is right. "Transliteration" has a technical meaning, and it was used incorrectly. Seeker's solution would be to say that Yahweh is a transliteration of ... (some pointed Hebrew), but that is a very strange way of putting things, since this pointed Hebrew did not exist in advance but was constructed by reverse transliteration. Yahweh is not a transliteration but a reading, where the consonants are given and the vowels conjectured. People here seem to ascribe a high degree of certainty to this conjecture, but it is just a guess, supported by only little evidence, and there are variant conjectures.213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of problems here. There are many examples of the name written in proto western semitic petroglyphs as the aten or edge of the solar disk rising over the back of a ram which is a triliteral semitic root reading iah. el, al allah, iah are cognates with Yah and wah acts as a plural suffix where the god and his consort Asherah are seen as a pantheon. Its also found written as a crescent moon in hieroglyphic Egyptian in the Sinai, at Serabit al Khadim throughout the negev desert at Petra in the transjordan and in the region of Timnah near Elat. Rktect (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User 213.84.53.62
I believe that it is correct to say that "Yahweh is a letter-by-letter English transliteration of "יַהְוֶה",
a vocalization of יהוה proposed by Gesenius in the 19th Century."
[1] William Smith's 1863 A Dictionary of the Bible stated that Gesenius proposed the Hebrew spelling
that is shown in the image on this page.

[Of course that assumes that ו has a "w" sound and not a "v" sound.]

An issue arises here because William Smith also wrote that Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation
represented the IaBe of Epiphaius, which was pronounced "IaVe" [2]

Some of Gesenius's German writings also indicated that his proposed Hebrew punctuation was supposed to represent "IaBe" [i.e. IaVe], but the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon of 1905 transliterated Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation as "Yahweh".[3]

Seeker02421 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clement of Alexandria's 190 A.D. Greek transcription ιαουε also favors "IAUE" which favors "Yahweh"

Seeker02421 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious issue

The article uses direct Bible citations as sources for conclusions that cannot be inferred from those citations. This is a case where Bible citations won't do, but secondary sources, such as Dr. X. Ample in theology, must support the text. Directly using Bible citations gives a very bad impression, making the reader believe that one fundamentalist-this-or-that interpretation is dominating the article. I'll find a suitable article-wide template for the text, signalling this issue. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the same mistake again

"In a tablet attributed to the 14th century B.C. [...] a name occurs which may be read Ahi-Yawi (equivalent to Hebrew Ahijah);[15] if the reading be correct, this would show that Yahweh was worshipped in Central Palestine before the Israelite conquest"

Only if you assume an israelite conquest after the 14th century BC ! This could actually an evidence that the israelites were in Canaan before the supposed conquest around 1250-1200 BCE. Can we change it to :

"this would either show that Y. was worshipped in the hill country of Canaan before the Israelite conquest or that the conquest happened earlier." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squallgreg (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found going back to the Chalcolithic, mayby earlier in the talmudic script of northern Arabia. Rktect (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does the worship of Y have to do with any Israelite conquest? Cush (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original symbol is the aten of the sun rising over the back of a ram and has among other glyphs for el at Kiwa and serabit el khadim

What does this sentence say?? Cush (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed it. Cush (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The title's a bit of a vague mess isn't it?

Bearing in mind that this is a sub article to the Yahweh article, and originates as a section within that article about the meaning of the name, and the origin of the deity itself, does anyone have any ideas of something more appropriate?

Clinkophonist (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete? PiCo (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]