The Bible does not once mention "Yhwh".

The Bible does not once mention "Yhwh".

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 8 months ago
    JWanon

    It does more than 7000 times.

    The point of life is that Jehovah will vindicate his holy name. That is why he summoned his witnesses, to testify about him.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Exodus 33:19 was in the readings today

      ...No it doesn't. They use lord, or a dominus derivative.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the bible was written latin

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The first were written in Greek. The Hebrew masoretic texts weren't fabricated until the 9th century AD. The Latin clearly took from the Greek "Kyrie". If Latins took it from Hebrew then they would have identified Yhwh with Jove (Jupiter) or Ioue (another Greek derivative). Since they didn't, we know that the Yhwh insertions are much later additions.

          Miss me with that Dead Sea Scrolls nonsense. They weren't "discovered" until Israeli historians realized they had major issues to patch because rabbinicalism is based on the Masoretics, which in turn were designed ad hoc as propaganda pieces.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The first were written in Greek. The Chinese Daotic texts weren't fabricated until the 9th century AD. The Latin clearly took from the Greek "Kyrie". If Latins took it from Chinese then they would have identified Shen with Jove (Jupiter) or Ioue (another Greek derivative). Since they didn't, we know that the Shen insertions are much later additions.

            Miss me with that Yellow Sea Scrolls nonsense. They weren't "discovered" until Chinese historians realized they had major issues to patch because Confucionism is based on the Daotics, which in turn were designed ad hoc as propaganda pieces.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Take your meds.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not Aramaic?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not originally, but some of the sources plagiarized for use in the OT were Assyrian.

            The edition chronology runs like this:
            >The church fathers around the time of late Rome argued that the earliest version of the Bible is the Septuagint
            >The Septuagint is named the "seventy" after the 72 tribal members that supposedly came from Israel to pen first Biblical texts
            >This was done in the 3rd century in Alexandria, Egypt under Ptolemy
            >Ptolemy is known as a cult crafter like his father (his father calls himself "Ptolemy the saviour")

            >Years afterward we lose this original Septuagint
            >It is followed up with by the Latin Vulgate
            >Jerome's is the most common
            >It has a significant number of oddities like Moses comes down from a meeting with God with horns on his head
            >This is the decisive edition used by the church officially for over one millennium and we have it, unlike the Septuagint

            >The rabbinicalists form after several centuries of not existing
            >They represent a reconstructed judaism
            >no temple, no cohens
            >superstition and magic rituals are on the menu
            >They remove parts of the Bible pointing to Jesus as the Messiah
            >This becomes the "Masoretic" foundation
            >The first Halakah comes from them by the 11th century
            >Their Masoretic Bible is published in the 9th century
            >They come from the early 9th century but probably aren't even related to the original israelites

            >The Dead Sea Scrolls are invented by the Israeli government in the 20th century
            >They're found in caves that have flooded previously but we're supposed to believe they are real
            >Their government won't let anyone look at them
            >Whenever they are examined outside of Israel they are exposed as forgeries
            >They combine elements of the Masoretic and Vulgate, presumably parts of the Septuagint
            >This is to give legitimacy to the Masoretic texts which have no basis

            So these are the four foundations. As we have seen, half of these four foundations are already baseless themselves!

          • 8 months ago
            Dirk

            You're arguing the OT was first written in Greek? The LXX isn't a translation despite its history?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            There were no tribes of Israel or Judah. There was no Israel or Judah. They are purely Greek inventions.

          • 8 months ago
            Dirk

            Is this your own thesis?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Academic consensus of historians. Stop taking history lessons from Biblical studies majors.

          • 8 months ago
            Dirk

            Citation?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The masoretic texts aren't the oldest. For frick's sake, the Ketef Hinnom amulets use the tetragrammaton, and that's like 6th-7th century B.C.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ketef Hinnom amulets
            Do you sincerely believe that a discovery made by the Israeli government authorities, silver scrolls that reflect the Masoretic texts forged in the 9th century AD, are legitimate?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think that the same Israeli government that couldn't even spot the buildup for the attack that started the Yom Kippur war didn't have the means or honestly inclination to fake an obscure archeological find. Furthermore, given that it aligns with things like Josephus's mention of a 4 letter Hebrew name, or the Tomb of Abba or the Cave of Jehosef son of Caiphas; both of which were discovered before the founding of Israel and contain names which are themselves etymologically derived from "YHWH".

            Pretty much every time you read "LORD" in an English Bible, that was an instance of YHWH. Since Judaism forbids the pronunciation of the name of God, every instance where "YHWH" is written, the israeli reader substitutes the word "Adonai" when speaking aloud, Adonai meaning "Lord" in English.

            Technically it means 'my master', in a very master and slave sort of way.

            >Hebrew is a medieval reconstruction of Aramaic (Hence why the Tel Dan stele is rife with issues)
            Bullshit. Where did, to pull just one example, the writing of the Tomb of Benei Hezir come from if Hebrew is medieval?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Last line of this is in response to

            There are a number of problems with this theory:
            >Yhwh would not be used in the Latin or Greek if it existed
            >They would have used Jove or Ioue
            >Instead the original word would have to be Malek or Baal

            >The proscription against writing God is not ancient
            >It's a later rabbinical construction

            >Hebrew is a medieval reconstruction of Aramaic (Hence why the Tel Dan stele is rife with issues)

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Technically it means 'my master', in a very master and slave sort of way.
            Well yeah, which is why it's translated as "Dominus" in Latin

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >etymologically derived from "YHWH"
            You do not even have a proper etymology for the word itself.

            >Bullshit. Where did, to pull just one example, the writing of the Tomb of Benei Hezir come from if Hebrew is medieval?
            I'll have to examine the piece- I'm not familiar with it. If the steles, DSS, or Ketef Hinnom are to be used as examples then we can only surmise it should be the Israeli state authorities themselves.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So I just reviewed the tomb of the Hezir's. There are a couple intersting facts;
            >It used to be called the Tomb of St. James
            >Apparently the original finders of the tomb did not see the inscriptions for several centuries until they randomly decided to appear

            >Hezir was a somewhat common enough name- no direct links to a Biblical Hezir family

            >The columns on the tomb are difficult to date
            >The columns on a nearby structure clearly date to post -2nd BC Greek influences

      • 8 months ago
        Dirk

        Those are translation choices. Other translations use transliterations
        >And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of Yahweh before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.”

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm surprised you don't have a better understanding of edition chronology.

          • 8 months ago
            Dirk

            What do you mean

  2. 8 months ago
    Dirk

    Exodus 33:19 was in the readings today

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    They call it "Elohim" or some other demonic israelite blackspeak

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I get the other names for it, Elohim is plural but at least it's a reasonable insertion in a polytheistic context. Baal or Malek would make sense for original transliteration. My only complaint is that "Yhwh" makes zero sense.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay. And?

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty much every time you read "LORD" in an English Bible, that was an instance of YHWH. Since Judaism forbids the pronunciation of the name of God, every instance where "YHWH" is written, the israeli reader substitutes the word "Adonai" when speaking aloud, Adonai meaning "Lord" in English.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are a number of problems with this theory:
      >Yhwh would not be used in the Latin or Greek if it existed
      >They would have used Jove or Ioue
      >Instead the original word would have to be Malek or Baal

      >The proscription against writing God is not ancient
      >It's a later rabbinical construction

      >Hebrew is a medieval reconstruction of Aramaic (Hence why the Tel Dan stele is rife with issues)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *