Yahweh’s Name: the Correct Pronunciation

Yahweh’s Name: The Correct Pronunciation

Some people believe the correct pronunciation of God’s Name was lost, but that’s not so.  You can check it out for yourself: Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 7, Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, Israel, the Macmillan Company, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 680.  The debate persists because people use the Name Yahweh so infrequently today.

Many people believe that all the letters in Yahweh’s Name are consonants, but that is not the case either.  In fact, each letter in His Name is a vowel-consonant or semivowel. (Weingreen, J.A.  Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, Clarendon Press, 1939, pp. 6-7; Harris, R. Laird.  Introductory Hebrew Grammar, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan, 4th Edition, 1955, p. 16; Marks, John H. and Rogers, Virgil M.  A Beginner’s Handbook to Biblical Hebrew, Abingdon, Nashville, 1958, p. 7; and Horowitz, Edward. How the Hebrew Language Grew, Jewish Education Committee Press, 1960, pp. 333f.)

The Hebrew spelling of Yahweh, yod-hey-vav-hey, appears below.  Since Hebrew reads right to left, “yod” is the letter on the far right:

Most Bible scholars and Hebrew linguists believe that “Yahweh” is the correct way to pronounce God’s Name.  The Y-a-h in His Name sounds like “Yah,” and the w-e-h in His Name sounds like “way.” That said, considerable debate persists about whether to enunciate the second syllable in God’s Name with a “v” sound or with a “w” sound, but compelling evidence proves that the “w” sound is correct. (Encyclopedia Judaica, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, The Jewish Encyclopedia (Volume 12), the Encarta Encyclopedia, or Clover, R.  The Sacred Name Volume I Third Edition, Qadesh La Yahweh Press, Garden Grove, California, 2002, chapter 9.)

For more information about the Name Yahweh, see below:

Back to SnyderTalk Homepage

22 thoughts on “Yahweh’s Name: the Correct Pronunciation

  1. YHWH = yod hay vav hay (vav with the uu sound) = Yahuah
    YHWDH = yod hay vav DALET hay = Yahudah (Tribe of Judah)
    Remove the DALET from YahuDah = Yahuah
    After elementary study of the Hebrew letters and language, the pronunciation of Abba Yahuah’s name seems simple and beautiful;
    Yahuah and Yahushua – “…My Name is in Him.” (Exod.23:21)(ISRV)
    “…What is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name, if you know..(Pr30:4)
    In song, it is perfect – “Sing Hallelu Ya hu ah … Sing Hallelu Ya hu shua”

  2. The correct way to pronounce His name is “YaH” plus “WeH” with the “weh” sound as in the “we” from the English word “wet” the trailing “hey” letter is expressed in the exhailing of the breath (sigh). It is not pronounced as in “way”.

    hay + waw+ hay in Hebrew spells “exist” the addition of the “yod” adds the prefex “he.” The name means “He-exists” or He-is. He, YHWH says “I exist (or I Am) ” this is with the prefix “alpeh”. HWH is the present perfect form and includes past, present, and future.

  3. Hello! I just discovered your blog via Yahoo. What a informative blog you have! I appreciate it very much! Thank you for providing such priceless information to the entire internet world!

  4. I have already responded as to the correct pronunciation in another post. I would like to comment here, that though the Yod, He, and Waw are vowels, they are only vowels in certain cases. In origen, these letters were strictly consonants, yet when utilized in certain parts of a noun or verb they can become vowels.

    The yod is never a vowel at the beginning of a word, rather in the middle or end; while the hey is only a vowel at the end of words. The waw is a vowel in the middle or the end, and rarely at the beginning, and in this case only when used as the conjunction and before the consonants bet, lamed, mim, and pey.

    Some mistakenly consider all the letters strictly vowels, based mainly upon Josephus’ assertion that the letters are four “vowels”. However, in the context of what Josephus was writing, and to whom, this makes sense. In Classical Greek the iota, epsilon, and digamma (ΙΕFΕ) were all vowels, and in Hellenistic Greek the digamma was replaced with Upsilon and hence the name would have been (ΙΕΥΕ) and this would have been the only way Josephus could describe them to his Greek patrons. The IABE (ΙΑΒΗ) of Theodoret came much later. In Attic Greek, the Iota was used to represent the Semitic Yodh, the Epsilon represented the Semitic He, and the Digamma/Upsilon the Semitic Waw. It is important to note, that these matres lectionis only occured at the end of Greek words, and the Greeks to whom Josephus was writing would certainly understand this.

  5. You’ve done a good job of presenting your case. I can’t respond for someone else, but I can approve your comments which I have done. We’ll have to wait and see what happens next.

  6. In Hebrew there are only two types of syllables, open and closed. Syllables always begin with a consonant. Syllables may end in a vowel or a consonant. Open Syllables are syllables which end in a vowel, while Closed Syllables end in a consonant.

    יהוה YHWH represents the meaning of אהיה EHYeH in Ex 3:14. This verse without doubt equates the meaning of יהוה YHWH with the verb אהיה EHYeH. Since YHWH represents not only the name EHYeH, but also the Eternal Covenant name of the Hebrew Deity, we can be sure the letters are not merely a grouping of vowels. They represent the conjugated form of the Aramaic verb הוה HaWaH in the pa’al/pe’al (simple) imperfect 3rd masculine singular. In like manner, the name first given to Mosheh אהיה EHYeH is the pa’al (simple) imperfect common singular of the Hebrew verb היה HaYaH.

    In Semitic languages the alphabets are abjad, meaning they represent consonants only. Today, only Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew survive of the Semitic branch. Anyone who learns these languages will realize that there is no written vowels in either of these languages. The vowels only occur in places where foreign names are used, for pronunciation purposes only. The Semite learns vowels and syllabification by learning the grammatical rules to the language. The conjugations of Semitic verbs, and the declinsion of Semitic nouns follow set rules. Once these rules are learned, there remains no reason for written vowels. The vowels which were created by the Masoretes, and by the Arab grammarians for their Quraan, were done for the purpose to enable those in the diaspora who may know how to read the Hebrew or Arabic, but not know the language, to pronounce the words correctly. They were never intended for the native Hebrew or Arabic speaker. This is clearly seen by the Hebrew and Arabic periodicals in print today.

    There are many Hebrew verbs which have weak letters. These are the gutturals, א ה ח ו י Yodh, Waw, Chet, He, and Aleph. These letters do not act as vowel letters always, but follow certain rules. For instance, the Hebrew ילד YaLaD begins with a yodh, and is considered a weak verb. The rule to the I-י I-Y weak verb class is of two types. In type I, the yodh is dropped in every form of the imperfect. In type II, the yodh is retained as a vowel letter. In the case of ילד it is conjugated as אֵלֵד imperfect 1st common singular, תֵּלֵד imperfect 2nd masculine singular, תֵּלְדִי imperfect 2nd feminine singular, etc. all in the simple. The yod is dropped in each instance except in the imperfect 3rd masculine singular and common plural.

    However, the same verb in the niphal (simple passive) is conjugated with אִוָּלֵד imp. 1st. com. sing; תִּוָּלֵד imp. 2nd sing. mas.; תִּוָּלְדִי imp. 2nd fem. sing, etc. The yodh again is missing in each conjugation except the imp 3rd masc sing and common plural. However, in this conjugation the a waw is present in the first syllable. This is because originally the verb YaLaD was WaLaD. The waw in this case is not a vowel letter, but a consonant. The waw itself in these conjugations are pronounced with a qamets.

    In like manner, the Aramaic verb הוה HaWaH is a double weak verb and a hollow verb. That is this veb contains the He as the 1st and 3rd root consonants, as well as having the Waw as the 2nd root consonant. When conjugated to the imperfect 3rd, a yodh is prefixed, which is the sign of the imperfect 3rd and hence it is written יהוה YHWH. In this class of verbs, the conjugations becomes יֶהֱוֶה YeHeWeH, having the seghol upon the yodh prefix, a hateph seghol upon the hey, a seghol hey upon the waw. The final He is not a part of the root, but in this case is actually a vowel letter, a long vowel, called seghol He.

    Any Kittah Gimel (third grade) Israeli student can explain these rules; there is no mystery here. The pronunciation is not “lost” only suppressed by the Rabbinical Authorities.

  7. I can tell you enjoy it. It’s a shame that people took it upon themselves to remove Yahweh’s Name from circulation. Their mistake may go down in history as the biggest blunder of all time. Thankfully, one day Yahweh will tell us exactly how to pronounce His Name and remove all doubt. In the meantime, we know this for a fact. We have salvation in His Name, and there is no other Name by which we must be saved. I’m glad there is general agreement about the first syllable in His Name — Yah.

  8. The יָה Yah is a contraction of the first two letters of the Name, which is why there is a mappiq in the He, which indicates the letter is not a mater lectionis, but a consonant (the final He of YHWH is a mater lectionis, not a consonant). As such, the qamets (“a” vowel) is a type of anaptyxis epenthesis, a vowel which has been added to ease pronunciation. Normally this is produced by the shewa, but a vocal shewa prefers open, pro-pre-tonic syllables, which Yah does not afford. According to the Hebrew rules to grammar, a long vowel prefers a closed accented syllable, or an open pre-tonic syllable. This doesnt represent the true first syllable of the Name, but is used simply to ease the pronunciation.

  9. Hey
    I have read this artical and coments and it seems as if there is a couple of smart and well studied people here. Please help me with two things. Could you agree about a name and how to pronounce it? and then is this the actual name of our heavenly father or is it just a hebrew word for “the god” or “the lord” .
    Thank you for your posts.
    Ian

  10. Hello Ian,

    The Hebrew scripture states that the Deity of Israel has a Name, which He gave to Moses to give to Israel, to be His Name and Memorial forever. This can be seen in Exodus 3:13-15. This Name was given in two aspects, both having the same meaning. First, the name was EHYeH, which is the Qal (Simple) Imperfect 1st Masculine Singular of the verb HYH; it means, I Am or I Will Be, or simply I Exist. Moses was told to tell Israel EHYeH sent him. Later in this same context, Moses is instructed to tell Israel YHWH sent him. It was the latter form which was to be His Name and Memorial forever.

    The form of the latter is definately a verb, not a noun. It is the qal (simple) Imperfect 1st Masculine Singular of the verb HWH. It is my opinion that the Name, which is a verb, should be conjugated according to the Hebrew/Aramaic Verb Conjugation of the Qal Imperfect of the Week/Hollow class, and thus should be YeHeWeH, and not YaHWeH, which is the Hiphil conjugation of the HWH root suggested in 1567 CE by a French Benedictine exegete named Gilbert Genebrard (1537-97), professor of Hebrew at the College Royal in Paris (Bernhard Lang, The Hebrew God, pg. 207, Yale University Press, March 2002). This was supported by the famous Hebrew scholar Wilhelm Gesenius (Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, pg 337 under the entry יהוה). Both based their pronunciation on Theodoret’s statement concerning Exodus 3:15: καλουσι δε αυτο Σαμαρειται ΙΑΒΕ Ιουδαοι δε ΙΑΩ “the Samaritans say it IABE but the Jews IAO. (Theodoret, Quaest. 15 ad Exod.) However, the Samaritans have a different pronunciation of Hebrew than the Jews. The Samaritans always called YHWH Shema (Aramaic for The Name), or they pronounce the four letters, Yoot-Eay-Ba-Eey according to the Samaritan pronunciation. So Theodoret was in reality giving the Greek equivalent of the Samaritan pronunciation of the four letters themselves, and not the pronunciation of the conjugation YHWH. According to the Samaritan rules to Hebrew grammar, הוה HWH would be conjugated as יהיה YHYH pronounced YaHYeH, not any pronunciation of YHWH.

    Personally, I would agree to any pronunciation based upon either Hebrew or Aramaic grammar, for the Qal/Peal of the imperfect 3rd of HWH; as this, in my opinion, is how the Name was given in the Hebrew Text, and how it was explained to Moses and Israel. I would refrain from producing such a pronunciation which would alter the essential form and meaning of the verb form as given in the Hebrew Text.

    In Hebrew the generic form Eloah and its plural Elohim is used the same way as the English generic “god”; while Adon and its plural Adonim is used in Hebrew the same way as the English “lord”. Neither are the Name of God.

  11. I have been studying the Egyptian Hieroglyphs for a few years now. The reason for this is really twofold. First, I wished to understand the writing systems of Egypt in relation to the early hieroglyphic systems of the Sumerians, Akkadian and the Hittites, which is a facinating study in itself. Secondly, to learn if there are any Egyptian loanwords in the Hebrew language, which would be evident if there really was a 400 year span in which Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt.

    In the late 19th century and most of the 20th and now the 21st there has been a small group of pseudo-linguists who have attempted to re-write the history and meaning of the Hebrew alephbeth and the writing method in general. According to them, the Ancient Hebrew abjad was originally pictographic, and these pictographs represented some “inner” meaning into the words in which they were used. Most of these pseudo-liguists point to the Egyptian writing method as proof of their claims.

    So I embarked on this mission to truly understand as much of the Egyptian writing methods as is possible. What I have found is rather interesting. Egyptian is similar in nature to the more ancient Sumerian Cuneiform, and it resembles the Sumerian writing method. The Sumerian writing method is the earliest which can be found in the archaeologic records. From the Sumerian, we have a relation to the Akkadian, as well as the later Hittite. Each of these use a similar writing method. What is also interesting is that these writing methods survive into the 21st century, in the Eastern languages of the Chinese and Japanese.

    So what do all these languages have in common? They each have similar origins and writing methods. The scripts themselves are based upon pictures (pictorgraphs) which represent a syllabary of phonograms, ideograms and determinatives.

    Phonograms are symbols which are used to represent a phonetic value (like any alphabet). By combining phonograms one obtains the sound of the word. Ideograms are pictoral representation which stand for entire words, and usually a specific meaning. Determinatives are also image signs, but less specific, and can be used for more abstract meanings.

    The Egyptian writing method employs 134 Phonetic signs, and 180 ideographic and determinative signs. The phonetic signs are divided into: monoliteral, the sign represents one phonetic sound; biliteral, the sign represents two phonetic sounds; and triliteral, the sign represents three phonetic sounds. The entirety of Egyptian grammar is much like any other Semitic laguage. It uses the phonetic signs to build vocabulary, verbs, and is used in the same manner as the later alephbets are used. The ideographs and deternimatives are only used to give a clearer meaning to the words built upon the phonetic signs. This is due to the fact that there are many words (in many languages) which are homophones. They are spelled and sound the same. It is the ideographs and determinatives which give the reader the true meanings of these words. The Egyptian Phonetic signs are used identically to how we use our English alphabet.

    For instance, the phonetic signs for “i/y” is a reed, the “glottal stop ie. aleph and ayin” is a vulture, and the “w” is represented by a quail. Looking at them together they would be a Reed, Vulture, Quail. No Egyptian would read this as having anything to do with a Reed, Vuture or Quail. They would understand that these are Phonetic symbols, here they are monoliteral, and represents the sounds I, 3 (glottal stop), and W or I3W. In Egyptian this can represent two different words. This is where the ideograph or determinative comes into play. The ideograph and determinative come at the end of each word to give specific meaning about the word represented by the phonetic symbol. A man leaing on his cain or staff would represent “old age”, a man staning with arms stretched toward heaven would represent “adoration/worship”. Hence, when you see the Reed, Vulture, Quail with a man leaning on a staff, it means “old, or olderly”, while the exact same signs with a man holding his hands toward heaven at the end would represent prayer, or adoration. Two different meanings and neither have anything in common with the actual representation used for the phonetic symbol. This same method is employed by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, and even the modern Chinese and Japanese.

    The ancient Semites, known as the Assyro-Babylonians (Amorites) adapted the Sumerian and Akkadian systems to their Semitic language, which is sometimes called Chaldean. The Phoenician-Ugarits copied the Sumerian-Akkadian Cuneiform writing, but solely for Phonetics, they did not employ ideographs or determinatives. The Ugarits have the oldest known abjad (consonantal alphabet). This later developed into the Phoenician alphabet, and later to all other Semitic abjad systems, and eventually the English language. None of these systems used solely pictographic writing which held some inner meaning to the words the pictures represented, contrary to many modern pseudo-linguists.

    As far as loan words, I have discovered very few, which seems strange but could be explained by the longer absence from Egypt. Among these Egyptian loanwords, there is one which is rather striking. The Egyptian words Ses and Tseset are two which are almost un-mistakeably borrowed by the Cannanite Hebrews. The word Ses is represented by a looped cord and a piece of folded clothe, with a rope determinative, which means “rope”. Tseset is represented by a girdle knot, a bolt, and a loaf of bread with a rope determinative, and means “knot”. When borrowed by the Canaanite Hebrews, it becomes Tsitsith, which is a cord of knots.

  12. In the above article, Definitions of MarYah and related terms, page 1 Mr Roth quotes Jennings Lexicon, it says:

    William Jennings Syriac Lexicon (Oxford University Press, 1926), p. 130-131

    מריא (meem-resh-yodh-alap), the emphatic form used for the sacred
    Hebrew יהוה, plus אמר מריא למרי (Amar MarYah l’mari) The LORD
    said to my Lord, Matthew 22:44, also for Christ as Lord of all, Acts 10:36,
    and the one Lord, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11.

    However, Jennings does not have the transliteration which Mr. Roth provides in parehtesis, which makes it seem Jennings endoreses the MarYah which Mr Roth is promoting.

    Again on page 6 of the article, it says:

    יא (b.h.) Yah, abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton. Succ. IV, 5 (45a, missing in Mss. M., v marginal note to ed.); Tosef. ib. III, i ליה ולך מזבח unto Yah and unto thee O altar (do we give praise); Succ. 45b 0 מודים ולך ובי ליה אדהנו to Yah we offer thanks and thee (altar) we praise. Ib. V, 4 (51b) אנו ליה וליה ענינו We are Yah’s and to Y. we lift up your eyes. Gen. R.s. 79,end,v. דיקינתין; a.e.

    A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
    Midrashic Literature (New York: G. Putnam’s Sons, 1903), p.565 (emphases are mine, AGR)

    This is very misleading, and akin to lying, as the entry does not have יא YA but יה YH, which is why it says it is Biblical Hebrew. Hopefully, it is a simple mistake. Here is a link where anyone can see the entry for themselves: http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Jastrow/

    MarYah is not what is listed in the Aramaic, it is MarYa, which as I have explained, and which anyone who knows Aramaic can attest, is the Emphatic or Determined plural of Mar. In the plural Mar is Mari (Mark Jastrow’s Dictionary of the Targumim, page 834), but in the Emphatic, or Determined, it is Marya. You can see this in many other plural Emphatic/Determined words in the Aramaic, such as מֶלֶךְ Melekh.

    Daniel 2:37:

    אנתה מלכא מלך מלכיא די אלה שׁמיא מלכותא חסנא ותקפא ויקרא יהב־לך׃ Anta malka melekh malkhayya….You are the King, a King of the Kings…

    In the above verse, you can see the singular Emphatic in malka מַלְכָּא the construct, which is the same as the absolute melekh מֶלֶךְ and also the plural emphatic malkhayya מַלְכַיָּא . The final nun of the Aramaic plural malkin מַלְכִין is dropped in the emphatic form.

  13. I must correct a mistake on my part. ܡܪܝܐ marya (מריא) is not the plural emphatic, but the singular emphatic. The plural emphatic of ܡܪܝܐ marya (מריא) is ܡܪܝܐ maraya (מריא). Please accept my humble apology for any misunderstnading I may have caused.

  14. Question for anyone, I’ve been told that names are never translated, only transliterated, is this true? thanks to any one who can help. please email.

  15. I am not sure if this is the proper forum, but I thought I would try seeing this is a very important subject and one which is erroneously used for determining the meaning of the Hebrew Text.

    I would like to first thank you for the opportunity to post in this forum and on this thread. I hope that those of you who are sincere about Truth and are serious students of linguistics, and Hebrew in particular will appreciate what I am about to share. I invite all the criticism you can muster on this topic, it has been a passion of mine ever since the “pictographiles” began to muster upon the World Wide Web. I apologize in advance if any toes are stepped upon; it is only my desire to separate Truth from False, and thereby help unsuspecting persons from being misled because of personal gain, and to attain true Biblical Insights.

    There are groups of individuals who make the claim that there is a deeper meaning of the Ancient Hebrew based upon the suggestion that the original Hebrew script might have been pictographic. This is really a pseudo-science and poor scholarship. Those making the claim are not trained linguists, and have no clue how languages evolved or work.

    The earliest languages recorded are the Sumerian and Egyptian Hieroglyphic. Both languages are infact hieroglyphic in nature, being that Sumerian is also based on pictures. In these most ancient of languages, which utilize pictures for letters, even these did not utilize the picture as any inner meaning to the word. Ancient Egyptian can demonstrate this easiest, as everyone is sure what the pictures are and represent; as opposed to the Sumerian Cuneiform, which has lost much of its original form.

    The Egyptian writing method employs 134 Phonetic signs, and 180 ideographic and determinative signs. The phonetic signs are divided into: monoliteral, the sign represents one phonetic sound; biliteral, the sign represents two phonetic sounds; and triliteral, the sign represents three phonetic sounds. The entirety of Egyptian grammar is much like any other Semitic language. It uses the phonetic signs to build vocabulary, verbs, and is used in the same manner as the later alephbets are used. The ideographs and determinatives are only used to give a clearer meaning to the words built upon the phonetic signs. This is due to the fact that there are many words (in many languages) which are homophones. They are spelled and sound the same, but have different meanings. It is the ideographs and determinatives which give the reader the true meanings of these words. The Egyptian Phonetic signs are used identically to how we use our English alphabet. For instance, the phonetic signs for “i/y” is a reed, the “glottal stop ie. aleph and ayin” is a vulture, and the “w” is represented by a quail chick. Looking at them together they would be: a Reed, Vulture, Quail chick. No Egyptian would read this as having anything to do with a Reed, Vuture or Quail chick. They would understand that these are Phonetic symbols, here they are monoliteral, and represents the sounds I, 3 (glottal stop), and W or I3W. In Egyptian this can represent two different words. This is where the ideograph or determinative comes into play. The ideograph and determinative come at the end of each word to give specific meaning about the word represented by the phonetic symbol. A man leaning on his cain or staff would represent “old age”, a man standing with arms stretched toward heaven would represent “adoration/worship”. Hence, when you see the Reed, Vulture, Quail chick with a man leaning on a staff, it means “old, or olderly”, while the exact same signs with a man holding his hands toward heaven at the end would represent prayer, or adoration. Two different meanings and neither have anything in common with the actual picture representations used for the phonetic symbol. This same method is employed by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, and even the modern Chinese and Japanese.

    The Hebrew language developed much later than the Egyptian, Sumerian or even Chinese. By the time the Semites developed their own alphabet, their language already employed the Cuneiform system of the Akkadians, which was a hieroglyphic type system, utilizing pictures to represent phonemes. Even if one could prove positively that the ancient Hebrew was indeed pictographic, these pictures were phonetic signs only, and the pictures had no significance to the meaning of the words in which they were employed. The names of the alphabet were used only to represent the intitial sounds. For instance, the letter Beth only represented the “b” sound, and did not have any meaning inherent in a “house” which was what the name Beth meant. This is known as acrophony: the naming of letters of an alphabetic writing system so that a letter’s name begins with the letter itself. For example, Greek letter names are acrophonic: the names of the letters α, β, γ, δ, are spelled with the respective letters: ἄλφα (alpha), βῆτα (beta), γάμμα (gamma), δέλτα (delta).

    Hebrew developed among the nations which utilized pictographic writing, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. It would stand to reason that if the ancient Hebrews did employ a pictographic language, then their rules would resemble those of the nations in which it developed. Indeed it does. Looking at these early languages we find that there were certain signs which were used to represent phonemes; the phonetic signs. In each of these languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. there are signs which represent consonants, and vowels (Egyptian excluded); these languages had verb conjugation, and noun declensions, prepositions, adverbs, participles, ect. There are strong verbs, doubling verbs, weak verbs, and doubly weak verbs.

    Egyptian verbs work in a similar way to Hebrew verbs, mostly utilizing a triliteral root. For instance: SDMNF means “he heard”; which was written with the picture representation of: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water, Horned Viper (representing the “He” suffix pronoun). The perfect tense in Egyptian, like Hebrew is governed in the suffix. “I heard” in Egyptian would be SDMNI which would be written as: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water and a kneeling man (representing the “I” suffix pronoun). Hebrew works similarly to the Egyptian method. שמע Shama’ means “he heard”. It is written with the Shin (two front teeth) Mim (Water) and Ayin (Eye or Spring). “I heard” would be written שמעתי Shama’ti Shin (Two front teeth) Mim (Water) Ayin (Eye or Spring) Tav (an “x” mark) Yod (Hand). In Both Egyptian and Hebrew the 1st singular perfect is represented with an “I/Y”. Sedjemeni (I heard) Shamati (I heard).

    One famous Egyptian word is MS which is written: Three Fox Skins, Piece of Cloth meaning “to bear/give birth”. This is found in famous names such as Tutmoses, and could also possibly be the origin of the name Moses. Notice the meaning of the word has no relation to three fox’s skins nor a piece of cloth.

    The point I am trying to make is that even among those most ancient of languages which we all know to have used pictographs, these pictographs didn’t work the way many claim ancient Hebrew works in regard to pictographs. One final example.

    In Egyptian Hieroglyphic there is no pictograph for a “dove” even though “dove” is mentioned earliest among the Hieroglyphs. The word for “dove” is PAT, which is written as a Reed Mat, Arm, Loaf. What then does a reed mat, arm and loaf have to do with a dove? Nothing at all; the glyphs only represented the phonetic signs to pronounce the word PAT.

  16. Since I’m not a linguist, I rely on linguistic experts for technical things. But they are a secondary source since I rely on the leading of Yahweh’s Spirit to guide me toward the truth.

    Did you know that the Arabic word for him is “huah”? Therefore, in Arabic Yahuah means “Yah is Him”. Of course, that’s true, but do you think our Creator would use an Arabic name instead of a Hebrew Name. We know that Yehovah isn’t correct.

    If you are a linguist and you want to argue linguistic points, then you need to present your ideas to other linguists. They are better prepared than I am to present their case.

  17. The entire thread, as well as the thread for the YHWH Manuscript, concerns linguistics- this is the whole point of these thread (discovering the true pronunciation of YHWH). This can not be accomplished without a linguistic discussion. I applaud your efforts.

    Yehudah comes from the combination of two verbal forms- HaWaH and YaDaH. In Aramaic conjugation- remember the Hebrews were Arameans before developing their own distinct Hebrew dialect of Cana’anite- the jussive YeHeWeY combines with the YaDaH and assimilates the Yod of the YaDaH and this combination becomes YeHuDaH (יהודה) instead of (יהוידה) YeHeWeYYaDaH. The same happens to YeHoSHu’A; the jussive YeHeWeY combines with YaSHA’ and becomes YeHoSHu’A (יהושוע) instead of YeHeWeYSHu’A (יהוישוע). The jussive YeHeWeY (יהוי) is written YeHeWeA (יהוא) in the imperfect 3rd; the Hebrew equivalent is YHWH (יהוה). Incidentally, the Masoretic Text of Daniel has the jussive as LeHWoN and the imperfect as LeHeWeiA. These preformative Lameds are inserted into these verb forms to prevent the pronunciation of YHWH as would be accomplished if the normal Yods were there.

    For Genesis 9:26, Targum Pseudo Johnathan has:

    ואמר בריך ייי אלקא דשם דעבדיתיה צדיק ובגין כן יהוי כנען עביד ליה
    “And he said, Blessed is YYY the God of Shem, whose works are righteous; therefore, Kena’an shall be (YHWY) a slave to him.”

    The Targum Onkelos has the same verse as:
    וַאֲמַר, בְּרִיךְ יְיָ אֱלָהֵיהּ דְּשֵׁם; וִיהֵי כְּנַעַן, עַבְדָּא לְהוֹן
    “And he said, Blessed is YY, the God of Shem, and Kena’an shall be (WYHY) a slave to him.”

    IN the former, the jussive is written (YeHeWeY), while in the latter, the jussive is written with the Waw consecutive (WiYHeiY).

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>