Yes AB
Hebrew is very deep and meaningful as a language. Miles

Spider how could Yahshua ever called himself G-d? or J-sus? Miles

Milesoftheusa,

I know that the Hebrews used the word "Adonai"...it's a Hebrew word.
But they would NEVER call God Adonai. Call a synogog and ask them.
It's a simple fact. What do you guys have to argue and pick at
everything. There are such things as facts and sometimes you just have
to shut up and accept them. Adonai IS NEVER EVER EVER EVER used by Jews
to refer to God. EVER. Get it? Got it? I'm done on this stupid
tangent, either read what I have typed and learn or remain ignorant.

Milesoftheusa,

"Before Abraham was I AM"

The people picked up rocks to stone him to death on the spot
for...Blaspheme! Because Jesus was claiming to be God. You either
believe Jesus or he was a liar or he was crazy.

I strongly suggest that you go to http://www.blbi.org/ and sign up for
their free courses. Take the course on Christology, it explains this
all very clearly with lots of scriptural support.

Spider:


I AM also.

I will allways be I AM. I have allways been I AM. I will be I AM after
I pass from this world to the next.

I AM that that I AM.

Jesus was right in that statement but he was not calling himself God, He
gave all honor to the Father. Abraham was the first Prophet. The
station of Jesus is greater that that of Abraham therefore before
Abraham IS Jesus IS, in the Sight of God.

Before Abraham I AM. He spoke but the truth. You have read it from
your own desires and not by the truth of the words.

AdventureBegins,

That's what you say, after reading the scripture (probably just the
quote I posted) and applying what Jesus said to your own perverse
beliefs. But the Jews of Jesus' age had no doubts or questions about
what Jesus was saying. Jesus was telling them that he is God. They
were going to kill him for that. Jews didn't kill people for being
crazy or being happy with who they were, they stoned them to death for
Blaspheme.

I HAVE ONE STATEMENT TO MAKE I SEE EITHER YOU KNOW THAT JESUS IS THE WAY
OR YOU DO NOT,
I KNOW THE WAY FROM NOW ON I AM SIDING WITH THE PEOPLE THAT STAND UP FOR
CHRIST IF THEY WSANT TO SIDE WITH PEOPLE WHO DO NOT THEN OH WELL THE
HOLY SPIRIT TOLD ME TO SAY THIS I AM 100 PERCENT FOR CHRIST ENOUGH SAID

As for the name of God, our Indo-European language tradition has an
impressive and consistent history. In Sanskrit, the name was dyus; in
Phoenician & ancient Briton it was dias; in Greek it was theos and zeus;
in Latin it was deus. The word YHWH never entered our Bible until nearly
1,000 AD when the Masoretic Text (MT) in Hebrew was completed and
presented to the Roman Catholic church as the authentic original
language and text of the Old Testament. The eastern half of Christendom
at that time rejected the text as fraudulent and retained the Greek
Septuagint of 285 BC, which they still use today.

The name, "Jesus," is the proper English pronunciation for His true
Greek name of IESU. The Aramaic pronunciation for IESU is "yahshua."
That Aramaic name is then translated into English as Joshua. It was a
IESU who led the Israelites across the Jordan into Canaan, their
promised land. And it will be IESU again who leads God's people from
this kingdom of World into the Kingdom of Heaven. To use the Aramaic
pronunciation, namely "yahshua," is a mistake. Jesus, his disciples, and
everyone else spoke Greek. Some of the Cain races who were their
neighbors retained their native language of Aramaic along with the
common language of Greek. Certainly, Jesus and his friends knew some
Aramaic (He even spoke a phrase of it from the cross, Eli, Eli,
lamasabachthani, where "El" was a generic name for God. But Greek was
their first language because it had naturally evolved from the
Phoenician language of their ancestors. Those who claim that Jesus'
first language was Aramaic may be wrong. Greek was the language of the
people.

Ultimately, the case for or against the sacred name YHWH is
circumstantial. There is little material evidence to support the Edomite
claim that the name was even known to any patriarch or existed in any
ancient scripture. There was no Hebrew language until after the
captivities and there was no Hebrew alphabet until the Herodian Script
which was invented just before Jesus arrived. There was no Hebrew Old
Testament text until 1,000 AD. The sacred name idea was unknown to
Josephus and Philo. The name YHWH was never used in the Greek Septuagint
of 285 BC. Perhaps the most convincing argument against the sacred name
usage is that it is part of the religion of a race of people who are
notorious liars, as Jesus accused them in John 8:44. Also, there is ((no
place in the entire Bible that God ever suggested a personal name for
Himself)), and certainly there is no favorable support of a religion of
magic for the sake of attaining worldly desires. Lastly, the name YHWH
is from the Afro-Asian language family, not from the Indo-European
(Aryan) family which is the language lineage of Adam, Noah, Abraam, and
Israel. I would welcome information from anyone that might suggest ANY
circumstantial evidence in support of the sacred name YHWH as authentic
for pre-captivities Israelites.

You see research is a difficult and many interpretations can come from
it. Who is right? Is there a wrong? Can we all be a little right?

Kat

As for the name of God, our Indo-European language tradition has an
impressive and consistent history. In Sanskrit, the name was dyus; in
Phoenician & ancient Briton it was dias; in Greek it was theos and zeus;
in Latin it was deus. The word YHWH never entered our Bible until nearly
1,000 AD when the Masoretic Text (MT) in Hebrew was completed and
presented to the Roman Catholic church as the authentic original
language and text of the Old Testament. The eastern half of Christendom
at that time rejected the text as fraudulent and retained the Greek
Septuagint of 285 BC, which they still use today.

The name, "Jesus," is the proper English pronunciation for His true
Greek name of IESU. The Aramaic pronunciation for IESU is "yahshua."
That Aramaic name is then translated into English as Joshua. It was a
IESU who led the Israelites across the Jordan into Canaan, their
promised land. And it will be IESU again who leads God's people from
this kingdom of World into the Kingdom of Heaven. To use the Aramaic
pronunciation, namely "yahshua," is a mistake. Jesus, his disciples, and
everyone else spoke Greek. Some of the Cain races who were their
neighbors retained their native language of Aramaic along with the
common language of Greek. Certainly, Jesus and his friends knew some
Aramaic (He even spoke a phrase of it from the cross, Eli, Eli,
lamasabachthani, where "El" was a generic name for God. But Greek was
their first language because it had naturally evolved from the
Phoenician language of their ancestors. Those who claim that Jesus'
first language was Aramaic may be wrong. Greek was the language of the
people.

Ultimately, the case for or against the sacred name YHWH is
circumstantial. There is little material evidence to support the Edomite
claim that the name was even known to any patriarch or existed in any
ancient scripture. There was no Hebrew language until after the
captivities and there was no Hebrew alphabet until the Herodian Script
which was invented just before Jesus arrived. There was no Hebrew Old
Testament text until 1,000 AD. The sacred name idea was unknown to
Josephus and Philo. The name YHWH was never used in the Greek Septuagint
of 285 BC. Perhaps the most convincing argument against the sacred name
usage is that it is part of the religion of a race of people who are
notorious liars, as Jesus accused them in John 8:44. Also, there is ((no
place in the entire Bible that God ever suggested a personal name for
Himself)), and certainly there is no favorable support of a religion of
magic for the sake of attaining worldly desires. Lastly, the name YHWH
is from the Afro-Asian language family, not from the Indo-European
(Aryan) family which is the language lineage of Adam, Noah, Abraam, and
Israel. I would welcome information from anyone that might suggest ANY
circumstantial evidence in support of the sacred name YHWH as authentic
for pre-captivities Israelites.

You see research is a difficult and many interpretations can come from
it. Who is right? Is there a wrong? Can we all be a little right?

Kat

As for the name of God, our Indo-European language tradition has an
impressive and consistent history. In Sanskrit, the name was dyus; in
Phoenician & ancient Briton it was dias; in Greek it was theos and zeus;
in Latin it was deus. The word YHWH never entered our Bible until nearly
1,000 AD when the Masoretic Text (MT) in Hebrew was completed and
presented to the Roman Catholic church as the authentic original
language and text of the Old Testament. The eastern half of Christendom
at that time rejected the text as fraudulent and retained the Greek
Septuagint of 285 BC, which they still use today.

The name, "Jesus," is the proper English pronunciation for His true
Greek name of IESU. The Aramaic pronunciation for IESU is "yahshua."
That Aramaic name is then translated into English as Joshua. It was a
IESU who led the Israelites across the Jordan into Canaan, their
promised land. And it will be IESU again who leads God's people from
this kingdom of World into the Kingdom of Heaven. To use the Aramaic
pronunciation, namely "yahshua," is a mistake. Jesus, his disciples, and
everyone else spoke Greek. Some of the Cain races who were their
neighbors retained their native language of Aramaic along with the
common language of Greek. Certainly, Jesus and his friends knew some
Aramaic (He even spoke a phrase of it from the cross, Eli, Eli,
lamasabachthani, where "El" was a generic name for God. But Greek was
their first language because it had naturally evolved from the
Phoenician language of their ancestors. Those who claim that Jesus'
first language was Aramaic may be wrong. Greek was the language of the
people.

Ultimately, the case for or against the sacred name YHWH is
circumstantial. There is little material evidence to support the Edomite
claim that the name was even known to any patriarch or existed in any
ancient scripture. There was no Hebrew language until after the
captivities and there was no Hebrew alphabet until the Herodian Script
which was invented just before Jesus arrived. There was no Hebrew Old
Testament text until 1,000 AD. The sacred name idea was unknown to
Josephus and Philo. The name YHWH was never used in the Greek Septuagint
of 285 BC. Perhaps the most convincing argument against the sacred name
usage is that it is part of the religion of a race of people who are
notorious liars, as Jesus accused them in John 8:44. Also, there is ((no
place in the entire Bible that God ever suggested a personal name for
Himself)), and certainly there is no favorable support of a religion of
magic for the sake of attaining worldly desires. Lastly, the name YHWH
is from the Afro-Asian language family, not from the Indo-European
(Aryan) family which is the language lineage of Adam, Noah, Abraam, and
Israel. I would welcome information from anyone that might suggest ANY
circumstantial evidence in support of the sacred name YHWH as authentic
for pre-captivities Israelites.

You see research is a difficult and many interpretations can come from
it. Who is right? Is there a wrong? Can we all be a little right?

Kat

Oh my gosh!!!!!! How does this happen??? Sorreeeeee.

Why should someone go to a study group.

You have said yourself that one must only read accept and let the Holy
Spirit decide.

Yet one someone does this you do not accept what they have learned.
Telling them to go learn what some other has decided it means.

How can they be an authority. We have in this thread alone roughly 12
different ideas of the Name of God. And each pounding it at the others
as the ONLY name.

I learned what I needed to from this thread. No one alive today knows
his name. Even the term YHWH tells it not for no one alive knows how to
pronounce it correctly.

What is the Hebrew word for Son?

AB, have you nothing learned yet?

Do you still not know that Spider is the only one here to decide who

a) is saved
b)can read the bible
c) and lately even who is a Christian or not

I think somebody here has some thinking to do, putting himself above
others.

Spider
you report to know things that you do not. I have been to synagogues in
Chicago where they walk to sabbath and speak almost the whole service in
Hebrew. And yes i know enough Hebrew words to know what they are
saying.But you blaspheme when you call YHWH od Yahshua by such titles.

Prov 30:4-7

4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son's name,
If you know?

5 Every word of Elohim is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words ,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV
Listen and read what he says!!!!!!!!!

Prov 12:5
The thoughts of the righteous are right,
But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.
NKJV
Prov 16:3-5

3 Commit your works to YHWH,
And your thoughts will be established.

4 YHWH has made all for Himself,
Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

5 Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to YHWH;
Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.
NKJV
Isa 55:8-9
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," says YHWH.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
NKJV
You want to believe man not the word of YHWH. I will believe YHWH.
that is why I will not change words that he escesially refers to himself
as. The words you quote are from the father of lies. Learn and do as
IsaYAH (he has Yahweh's name in his)has said and you will have life
evermore.. Miles

Ben?

Do you and will you admitt you vare wrong if i show you proof. Paleo
Hebrew is even in the Indian writings in New Mexico with the Paleo YHWH.
Do u really want your point disproven? Miles

Milesoftheusa,

What point? That Jesus is God? You can't disprove that. That Jews use
the word Adonai to refer to God? You are 100% wrong on that. Adonai
ONLY referred to an "earthly lord", never to God. Tell me what point I
have made that you are "proving" wrong, so I can completely nuke it for
you.

By the Words of Christ Himself he is not God.

Thou shalt have no God before me.

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 7:24 No man can serve two masters;...

Matthew 11:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will
I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his
works.

Mark 9:37
Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me:
and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting
on the right hand of power, and comming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him. Why callest thou me good? none is
good, save one, that is, GOD.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the
Father:...

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of
man, then shall ye know that I am he. and that I do nothing of myself;
but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Jon 9:42 Jesus said unto them, If God where your Father, ye would love
me; for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither cam I of myself,
but he sent me.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again
unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto
the Fahter; for my Father is greater than I.

I feel that the Paleo hebrew must be seen by peopl on this posts..
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_demers.html

Now this is an ancient language and even the Paleo hebrew is found in
the United States.. Praise Yahweh..

Spider. U do not want to learn do as you said and be through with me and
AB. I may disagree with AB but he is showing truths that I am learning
from. You just splatter your Customs..
also see
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_loslunas.html
and finally a wiki article..
Los Lunas Decalogue Stone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone bears a very regular inscription carved
into the flat face of a large boulder on the side of Hidden Mountain,
near Los Lunas, New Mexico, about 35 miles south of Albuquerque. The
inscription appears to be an abridged version of the Decalogue or Ten
Commandments in a form of Paleo-Hebrew. A letter group resembling the
tetragrammaton YHWH, or "Yahweh," makes four appearances. The stone is
controversial in that some claim the inscription is Pre-Columbian, and
therefore proof of early Semitic contact with the Americas.





The first recorded mention of the stone is in 1933, when professor Frank
Hibben, an archaeologist from the University of New Mexico, saw it.
Hibben was led to the stone by an unnamed guide who claimed to have
found it as a boy in the 1880s. The 1880s date of discovery is important
to those who believe that the stone was inscribed by a lost tribe of
Israel. The Paleo-Hebrew script was unknown to scholars in the 1880s,
making a forgery at that time unlikely, and thus allegedly proving the
stone's antiquity.[citation needed] However, the Paleo-Hebrew script is
practically identical to the Phoenician script, which was known at the
time, thus not precluding the possibility of fraud. Additionally, Frank
Hibben has been found to have created a lifetime of fraudulant and
falsified data. The Mystery of Sandia Cave. New Yorker, 71(16):66-83.
The validity of his lifetime of work is now considered highly
questionable and in some instances, completely falsified. In particular
Hibbens work on the Sandia cave was found to be a fraudulant attempt at
pre-dating man's existence in North America to be Pre-clovis. A
Chronological Problem Presented by Sandia Cave, New Mexico. American
Antiquity, 1940a 5(3):200-201. Ref. Sandia Cave. Correspondence in
American Antiquity, 1940b 6(1):77-78. Hibbens was also found to have
completely made up the existence of a cave and it's contained artifacts
along the alaskan coast in order to support his pre-clovis migration
ideology. This brings into question the validity of the Los Lunas
Decalogue Stone as it was originally identified by one North America's
greatest archaeological frauds of the 20th century. Nature 426, 374 (27
November 2003) | doi:10.1038/426374a




One argument against the stone's antiquity is its use of modern Hebrew
punctuation. Fringe epigraphist Barry Fell argues that the punctuation
is consistent with antiquity.[1]

Controversial archaeolinguist Cyrus Gordon once proposed that the Los
Lunas Decalogue is in fact a Samaritan mezuzah.[2]

Though the stone is sometimes cited as evidence for the existence of the
Nephites in Mormon archaeology, FARMS appears to have no scholarship
dealing with the site.

Because of the stone's weight of over 80 tons, it was never moved to a
museum or laboratory for study and safekeeping. Many visitors have
cleaned the stone inscriptions over the years, likely destroying any
possibility for scientific analysis of the inscriptions's patina.
Nevertheless, comparing it to a modern inscription nearby, geologist G.
E. Morehouse estimates that the inscription could be between 500 and
2000 years old. [3]

The stone is accessible to visitors by purchasing a $25 Recreational
Access Permit from the New Mexico State Land Office.

The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is often grouped with the Kensington
Runestone, Dighton Rock, and the Newport Tower as examples of American
landmarks with disputed provenances.


[edit] References
^ Fell, Barry; "Ancient Punctuation and the Los Lunas Text," Epigraphic
Society, Occasional Publications, 13:35, 1985. It should be noted that
Fell's Epigraphic Society is considered to be highly questionable by
professional archaeologists, such as the members of the West Virginia
Archaeology Society, among others.
^ Gordon, Cyrus, "Diffusion of Near East Culture in Antiquity and in
Byzantine Times," Orient 30-31 (1995), 69-81.
^ Morehouse, George E.; "The Los Lunas Inscriptions, a Geological
Study," Epigraphic Society, Occasional Publications, 13:44, 1985.

[edit] See also
Diffusionism
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Pseudoarchaeology

[edit] External links
Los Lunas Decalogue Stone GalleryDetailed gallery of photos showing
entire site. Close-ups of Inscriptions and nearby petroglyphs.
The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone (picture)
Illustrated site
New Mexico State Land Office - Mystery Stone
The Los Lunas Inscription of New Mexico at Ancient Hebrew Research
Center
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone"
Categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All
articles with unsourced statements | Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
| Pseudoarchaeology
ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsSign in /
create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file wizard
Contact us
Make a donation
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this article
In other languages
Dansk

This page was last modified 00:22, 3 May 2007. All text is available
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights
for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,
a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

Milesoftheusa,

I don't even know what you think I'm arguing with you about. I am so
frustrated right now. You post this long post about the 10 commandments
in the US...WHAT? What does that have to do with anything I was
discussing with you? Are you just adding new information to drive me
crazy? What are you trying to say? Can't you JUST ONE TIME try to be
clear with what you are saying? I'm really confused if you can't tell
from this post and I would really apprecaite if you A) Be clear and tell
me what it is that you are trying to get at or B) I will stop responding
to you completely.