The Allah Of The Quran And The God Of The Bible Are Not The same

[Fly]

(Je·ho′vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah′ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].

 

The personal name of God. (Isa 42:8; 54:5) Though Scripturally designated by such descriptive titles as “God,” “Sovereign Lord,” “Creator,” “Father,” “the Almighty,” and “the Most High,” his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name.—Ps 83:18.

 

Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name. “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning “four,” and gram′ma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).

 

The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. Furthermore, because of a religious superstition that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.

 

In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ’Adho·nai′ (meaning “Sovereign Lord”) or ’Elo·him′ (meaning “God”).

 

The Codex Leningrad B 19^A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah′, Yehwih′, and Yeho·wah′. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah′. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah′ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehoh′, Yoh, Yah, and Ya′hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be′ and I·a·ou·e′, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”

 

Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yesha‛·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′a‛ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

 

Many modern scholars and Bible translators advocate following the tradition of eliminating the distinctive name of God. They not only claim that its uncertain pronunciation justifies such a course but also hold that the supremacy and uniqueness of the true God make unnecessary his having a particular name. Such a view receives no support from the inspired Scriptures, either those of pre-Christian times or those of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

 

The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In the Hebrew Scriptures the New World Translation contains the divine name 6,973 times, because the translators took into account, among other things, the fact that in some places the scribes had replaced the divine name with ’Adho·nai′ or ’Elo·him′. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests to its importance to the Bible’s Author, whose name it is. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as “Sovereign Lord” or “God,” applied to him.

 

Noteworthy, also, is the importance given to names themselves in the Hebrew Scriptures and among Semitic peoples. Professor G. T. Manley points out: “A study of the word ‘name’ in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs. . . . When a person puts his ‘name’ upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection.”—New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1985, p. 430; compare Everyman’s Talmud, by A. Cohen, 1949, p. 24; Ge 27:36; 1Sa 25:25; Ps 20:1; Pr 22:1.

 

For an easy more thorough study into the divine (Jehovah) name can be found at jw.org Online Library.   http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391

Edited January 16, 2015 by Fly

[Jim1cor13]

Thanks Fly

 

I am aware of what you wrote, but that does not

nullify the meaning of what Strongs concordance states as far as I can tell

and also other language experts that do not have the motive to defend anything.

 

'Jehovahs witness' I can understand why they would state the above, I mean it is

after all the label they go by.

[Djorgie]

DeJorgie, I read through the material below and I am still convinced that a study of the context and a through exegesis of the passages are essential elements to understanding the Bible.  The logic of the article you posted is way out of whack.  The author assumes a belief to be true and then sets out to find proof through twisting the passages to coincide with the interpretation by adding, unsuccessfully I might add, his doctrine of incarnation into the meaning.  He then concludes with illogical conclusions.  The author does not understand the after life, the resurrection, death, or salvation.  I suspect that he would say that Jesus was not God come in the flesh, did not die for mankind’s sin.  Again, that is what I see in his theology as he writes. 

I really got tired of reading such gibberish and just stopped.  Why continue on when the material is so bad? 

I’m sure that you will not agree with my evaluation.  From what you have already said, you are not really concern with seeking to find “truth,” but with promoting the Gnostic position of reincarnation. 

 

Hi Nelg,

 

I agree completely that a STUDY of scripture in context is absolutely necessary. If not then we know what happens. Just look at all of the "churches" and false teachers today. That is in part a result of taking scripture not only out of context but also, making up thier own doctrine and using those selected texts to build thier twisted doctrines with.

 

I did state that I looked online for something that could maybe be more explainatory of what I was trying to get across, however, I obviously failed lol...

 

I am pretty sure that NONE of us understand "the afterlife" completely because we have not been there... and no one will be until Yahushua/Jesus returns. The human soul is NOT immortal until he makes it so. The reserection, death and salvation are all also  difficult for many to grasp... I do not promote the "gnostic" anything. I follow what Yahushua/Jesus taught according to his Father's word and I believe that Yahushua/Jesus is litterally the Son of YHWH/God and that he was sent here to the earth born of a woman by the Heavenly Father. He died for all of our sins and was raised by YHWH on the third day. He will return again and raise the dead in him and the living in him will be changed in a twinkling of an eye and caught up with the raised to meet him in the heavens or sky. He IS Messiah, Saviour, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.

 

I stated previously that I used to believe in "the trinity", however, that view changed as have MANY as I continue to grow in the Spirit and Word. I don't believe that there are 3 seperate beings that are God. I beleieve that there is one God, YHWH and that his begotton Son Yahushua is really his Son. He was his Son in spirit at the begining of creation and he was his Son when he was here on earth as a man, and he is still his Son after he ascended back to Heaven with his Father in Spirit again.

 

I am DEEPLY concerned with the "truth" and thus the reason I pray, study the word and walk in the spirit as directed, and also why I have these conversations. I love my Father more than anything. I owe him everything. I am still human and make errors just like everyone else, but, I am seeking him each and every day and surrendering to his will and keeping his commands so, if that is not what some would agree for them is not seeking his truth then  what else can I do but, PRAY?

Edited January 16, 2015 by Djorgie

[Jim1cor13]

Nice response DJ. it is really about the heart, and

not about having to be 'right' all the time. There are many

things that are taught today that are error, but after awhile

some things are accepted blindly, and rarely questioned.

 

Exegesis, Eisegesis, etc., fancy terms, but it has never

fostered spirituality in anyone. Understanding and wisdom

come from Spirit, it never comes from the institutes of higher

learning.

[Fly]

Thanks Fly

 

I am aware of what you wrote, but that does not

nullify the meaning of what Strongs concordance states as far as I can tell

and also other language experts that do not have the motive to defend anything.

 

'Jehovahs witness' I can understand why they would state the above, I mean it is

after all the label they go by.

 

If you already knew then why ask?

 

Strongs concordance teachings supports false religion along with it practices and belief system.

 

it is your choice in saying “'Jehovahs witness' I can understand why they would state the above, I mean it is after all the label they go by.”  But not apply your same reasoning to Strongs teachings…?  

 

Responsibility of finding and recognizing truly reliable satisfying answers, to your own ‘questions’ rest solely on your shoulders.

 

How much effort is it worth, to know you have the right answer?

 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Fly

[Jim1cor13]

Thanks again Fly.

 

There may be some misunderstanding. I asked the question in regards to

the name due to how Strongs broke it down from original language. I used

to use Strongs Concordance many years ago, I never saw anything in it as

far as 'teachings' go. it was a concordance of words form original hebrew

and greek, with translations. That is all I recall seeing, just words then a 

translation of what those words would mean in english.

 

I asked to see what others thought, so you are saying Strongs is false? It

has been held in high regard for a long time, quite reliable as far as I recall.

 

I agree totally about learning for ones self. It is the only way, and I learned that

the hard way many years ago. The effort to find a 'right' answer is priceless,

and after over 30 years, I learned to question everything and still do.

 

I was aware of what you wrote about the name, I was desiring to hear others thoughts

pertaining to what I recalled. Either Strongs and many others are incorrect, or we need

to dig deeper. I don't know, and there seem to be 100 different ideas about it all.

 

Have a good night!

[Nelg]

Nice response DJ. it is really about the heart, and

not about having to be 'right' all the time. There are many

things that are taught today that are error, but after awhile

some things are accepted blindly, and rarely questioned.

 

Exegesis, Eisegesis, etc., fancy terms, but it has never

fostered spirituality in anyone. Understanding and wisdom

come from Spirit, it never comes from the institutes of higher

learning.

But it does come from understanding of what God said in the text.  Emotions and "think so" can produce about anything the individual wants it to say.  Exegesis or how to understand the text does not eliminate spirituality, nor does higher learning.  If anything "higher learning" humbles the spirit in what they do no know.  Understanding and wisdom come from the Spirit, but not when that understanding we place upon the text has nothing to do with what the text says.  By the way, exegesis is a biblical word. Exeegeomai simply means that one "declares the meaning," as when Jesus declares His understanding of God to us (Jno 3:18.  Also Lk 24:35; Acts 10:8, 15:12, 14, 21:19.   When it is applied to the Scripture it means the same.  One studies the word of God in order "to declare the mean" to others.  But one MUST know the meaning before one can declare the meaning.  

Simply to state an opinion based on a "think so" or "special revelation" of the meaning of the text without studying the text is a position that I do not have the hubris to do!  Therefore, I will continue to exegete as I study the word of God in order to assist my understanding of what the Spirit says through the revelation given to the apostles and prophets.  

[Fly]

Has anyone ever taken the time to question the names often

attributed to 'god'? For instance, 'jehovah' and what it means

in actual ancient hebrew. Maybe some twisted translations, but

it would appear the name contains "ruin and mishief" (hovah)

 

When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah)

is revealed. "Yah" (#H3050) means "god". "Hovah" (#H1942) translates to

"eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness,

noisome, perverse, very wickedness."  Is this accurate? If so, then why has so few

ever questioned it? If it is not an accurate break down, what actually is accurate

concerning the name? Does the Strongs concordance not properly break it down,

and if it does, WHO is this character?

 

What about this information?

http://globalfire.tv/nj/11en/religion/lucifer.htm

 

Or this?

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/christianity/Satan-Jehovah.html

 

Can it all be swept away by ignoring what is being stated, without actually

researching this matter?

 

Is it possible that we have been lied to, again? Maybe some things should

never be accepted at face value or via traditions, and perhaps certain popular

teachings may need a closer examination. Just thinking out loud in the midst of

so much confusion.

 

Ok thanks for your input of Strong’s.   

 

When I put the (#H1942) you gave into Strong’s what comes up as calamity is: havvah pronounced hav·vä'

 

These are the places were Strong’s says it is found in the bible, none of them pertain to the most High.  

 

“If only my anguish could be fully weighed And put on scales together with my calamity!" (Job 6:2)

 

"They tear up my roadways And make my calamity worse, Without anyone to stop them." (Job 30:13)

 

KJV- “A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.” (Pro 19:13)

 

 

Yes it is helpful seeing the original writings, and then translated into English. Although while I was looking for Strong’s to compare, there are web sites promoting twisted lies using Strong’s in correctly! I might add, to support their propaganda with the same results you presented to the divine name.

 

Is this accurate?

No! it is not accurate.

 

Does the Strongs concordance not properly break it down?

I found that it dose, although obviously can be misconstrued to easily fool anyone not willing to do there own research.      

 

WHO is this character?

That character is a total fabrication, lie.

 

Can it all be swept away by ignoring what is being stated, without actually

researching this matter?

I don't No, you tell me?

By the way what did you learn from the link I provide you on the name Jehovah that is a whole lot of research to do in the 14min it took for your response? http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391

 

By the way Satan is the god of this system of things; one aspect of which he uses for control is the world empire of false religion, Babylon the great. From there it can be twisted into all kinds of crap. If you are looking for truth why are you searching through lies asking others to sort them out? 

 

Truth can only be found in the bibles teachings, why? It’s the only source not of this world!

 

I believe you mean well.

 

Peace

 

  

Edited January 17, 2015 by Fly

[Artitech]

I have three Bible classes to teach today and do not have the time to fully answer your post.  I do want to say that I try to read all the material I can research and verify.  I, nor you, have access to anything that was destroyed.  Speculation, maybe, but not assurance.  

There are many, many, texts that are available for reading.  However, there are reasons not to accept them as Scripture.  That is the basis from which I read.  IF anything contradicts the major teachings of the already established and verified texts, and is of a date beyond the apostles and prophets of the first century, then it is not from God, but a writing of man trying to find meaning apart from revelation.  Basically that is what the Gnostic writings are all about.  Results:  rejection from being considered Scripture.  

I'm leaving for my studies, but yes, the gospels were written before the end of the 1st century.

Where do you teach at! We have a lot of very knowledgeabe people on this site, regarding the Word! I enjoy reading everyones comments & thoughts! Thanks for sharing!!

[Djorgie]

"Truth can only be found in the bibles teachings, why? It’s the only source not of this world!"

 

EXACTLY!

 

Thank you Fly

[Nelg]

Where do you teach at! We have a lot of very knowledgeabe people on this site, regarding the Word! I enjoy reading everyones comments & thoughts! Thanks for sharing!!

I no longer teach students going into preaching and teaching.  I retired (?) from that.  But I still teach some great students from our church in Chattanooga, Tn.  They are eager and dedicated students of the word of God.