Comments (Pronunciation Only)
יהוה : IAUA
The genuine name of the Messiah:
יהושה : IAUSHA = "IAUA save"
אהרון : Aaraun
אברהם : Abraam
אינם : Ainam
בר־נבי : Barnabai
בר־רבה : Barraba
בר־שבה : Barshaba
בר־תלמו : Barthalamai
בר־טימי : Bartimai
דוד : Daud
אלהזר : Èlazar
אליהו : Èliau
גמליאל : Gamalièl
חנן : Ḥanan
יחקוב : Iaqaub
יודה : Iauda
יהוחנה : Iauḥana
יהוחנן : Iauḥanan
יהוספ : Iausaph
ישייהו : Ishaiyau
מטטיהו : Mattiau
נתנאל : Nathanèl
שמון : Shamaun
שושנה : Shaushana
תדי : Thadai
זבדי : Zabadia
זכריהו : Zakariau
זכי : Zakai.
-4
The genuine name of the Messiah:
יהושה : IAUSHA = "IAUA save"
אהרון : Aaraun
אברהם : Abraam
אינם : Ainam
בר־נבי : Barnabai
בר־רבה : Barraba
בר־שבה : Barshaba
בר־תלמו : Barthalamai
בר־טימי : Bartimai
דוד : Daud
אלהזר : Èlazar
אליהו : Èliau
גמליאל : Gamalièl
חנן : Ḥanan
יחקוב : Iaqaub
יודה : Iauda
יהוחנה : Iauḥana
יהוחנן : Iauḥanan
יהוספ : Iausaph
ישייהו : Ishaiyau
מטטיהו : Mattiau
נתנאל : Nathanèl
שמון : Shamaun
שושנה : Shaushana
תדי : Thadai
זבדי : Zabadia
זכריהו : Zakariau
זכי : Zakai.
-4
I believe that the name would actually be pronounced yahveh. Although we can't be sure of what vowels are actually correct, vav makes a v sound, not a w sound.
3
3
Yâ-hwéh \ēŏ-hwĔ\ – hwhy in paleohebrew, is known also as the “tetragrammaton” due to its having four letters, which in English would be YHWH. יָהְוֶה is how it should be rendered in vowel-pointed Aramaic square script. The evidence for this is found below in this document. We choose to transliterate this יָהְוֶה into the modern Latin alphabet as “Yâ-hwéh”. Except for the hyphen, this English transliteration is also a letter-for-letter transcription, which also makes it easier to see where it came from. We inserted the hyphen in order to prevent anyone from applying English phonetical rules and think the first h might be silent or just a phonetic modifier to make the first “a” become a short ŏ. The h is not there merely as a syllable closer.
The spelling of this name in any language should be whatever makes it most likely to accurately reproduce its original pronunciation as it is in Hebrew. Thus, in Spanish, it would be “Iâjuéh”, because salvation is by calling on His correct names, not by spelling it a specific way. The reason for this is in the very definition of a name: a name is a pronounced Word, a Saying, which He honors to invoke Him, and which must not be altered because it is pure, and any alteration in the pronunciation is a corruption, and as He is Pure, He will not be invoked by a corruption. So though some people accept corruptions of their own name, they cannot hold Him to their lower standards of purity. [Yshá`Yâhuw 55: 8-9]
The internal linguistic evidence
Yāhwéh is a causative imperfect (present/future) form of a verb derived of a verbal root meaning “to be”, which would show up in Hebrew as *hwy. This verbal root developed from the third person pronouns, *huwa and *hiya (masculine and feminine) * [An asterisk before a word indicates an undocumented reconstruction (hypothetical)]. The verb is Strong’s #1933 hâwâ´h which is from derived from this primitive root supposed to mean properly to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence). The grammatical form of Yāhwéh is the third person masculine singular type of prefix conjugation, where the yā- is the third person masculine singular prefix. Some linguists have reconstructed the name of Yāhwéh with a short “a” vowel (patach ַ) in the first syllable as yahwéh because they theorize that its conjugation is the causative active stem (hif`îl). We however have determined it to instead be a long qamatz ā (ָ), with a short “o” sound, as in “hot”, as when conjugated in the causative passive (hophal) conjugation. To verify this earlier vocalization you may see it in the Roman and the Greek epigraphic evidence (see below), moreover we have noticed the fruits of the spirit to be present when pronouncing it with a long qamatz ā (ָ), and them to be conspicuously absent when using the short “a” vowel (patach).
Thus, this long qamatz ā (ָ), as we write it in Yāhwéh is consistent with a third person masculine imperfect singular Hophal conjugation for weak verbs of the form ל״ה such as Strong’s #1933 hâwâ´h. It is seen using a short “a” vowel (patach ַ) when conjugated as a hif`îl. You may find this under Paradigm P, pg. 484/486 of Gesenius Hebrew grammar (see below), which presents the Hophal example יָגְלֶה. Note it contains the same identical vowel pointing within it as יָהְוֶה.
P. Weak Verbs,.ל״ה
Qal. Niph_al. Pi_ēl. Pu_al. Hiph_ı̂l. Hoph_al. Hithpa_ēl.
_________________________________________________________________
Impf. Sing. 3.
m.
יִגְלֶה *יִגָּלֶה *יְגַלֶּה *יְגֻלֶּה *יַגְלֶה *יָגְלֶה *[יִתְגַּלֶּה
(from Gesenius Hebrew Grammar.pdf pg 484/486, emphasis added)
Now, for those inexperienced in using paradigms to construct verb forms, applying this to the `Ivríyth verb HâWâ´H (to be), would mean that these are the 3rd person male singular imperfect tense conjugations for this weak verb which ends in H:
Qal is YiHWéH. Niphal is YiHHâWéH. Piel is YHaWWéH. Pual is YHuWéH. Hif`îl is YaHWéH. Hophal is YâHWéH. Hithpael is YithHHaWéh.
Please take note of the conspicuous absence of “YHoWâH” from among these.
The final syllable of yāhwéh, -éh is normal for the imperfect indicative form (present-future or past continuous). A form like yāhwéh developed from *yahwiyu. This development of -iyu to -éh is thoroughly demonstrated for the verbal system in general. This long form yāhwéh is the causative stem (hophal) of the verb “to be” and it is present/future (imperfect) meaning “He causes/will cause to be existed.” The hif`îl or hophal form use a shwa after the h and do not imply a U or O vowel in the original pronunciation of YHWH (debunking the false versions “yahuweh”, “yahuah”, “yahuwah”, “yahowah”, “yaohu”).
Some pseudolinguists challenging the name of Yâ-hwéh are alleging this form ending in –éh to be “female” to excuse their changing it to their own false rendition, but note that the same reference, Paradigm P in Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, shows that the feminine conjugation of the same type would use the example תָּגְלֶה to form a female rendition of the Verb, תָּהְוֶה tâhwéh. This means that יָהְוֶה is male, not female, and that their “male rendition” is just another false name.
These same pseudolinguists frequently allege that the –éh ending is a Greek contamination and that this does not happen in Hebrew. For those, we include from the same Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, this illustration for weak verbs ending in H. Note the middle line, this symbol ה-ֶ- is the same as –éh:
Epigraphic evidence
The internal evidence from the Hebrew language is strong and confirms the accuracy of the Greek transcriptions. Greek transcriptions of the pronunciation of YHWH in religious papyri have been found in Egypt. The best of these is Iäouiēe (London Papyri. Xlvi, 446-482). Clement of Alexandria said “The mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton … is pronounced Iaoue, which means ‘Who is, and who shall be.’” IAOUE is how this teacher of Origen pronounced YHWH - in which I and the diptong OU probably represent the semivowels Y and W not found in Greek. We believe the ao to also be a diphthong to represent the English short “o” sound of the long qamatz ā (ָ), instead of a short “a” vowel (patach ַ). More historical epigraphic evidence of this pronunciation is found in the Roman transliteration “IOUE”, which later commonly evolved to “Jove” in common knowledge. Scriptures document that the Romans were the sons of Kittíym and did learn the name of Yâ-hwéh and fought under it at one time (Yâshâ´r 63: 22 - 64: 6), about 1633 BC Roman dates. Much later, starting in 214 BC Roman dates, they did conquer Greece and adopted their pantheon of demons and were deceived to think IOVE (their transliteration for Yâ-hwéh) and Father Yâ´hu (in Latin, IUPITER) was the Greek Zeus. But note that the Roman transliteration of Yâ-hwéh is spelled with an O. Had Yâ-hwéh instead contained a short “a” patach sound, it would easily have been transliterated to “IAUE” instead of IOUE, and we would have had “Jave” as its vestige instead of “Jove”. Along the same line of reasoning, had His name instead been “yahuwah” as some allege, the Romans would have been transliterating it as “IAUA” instead of IOUE, and we then would have had “Java” as its vestige instead of “Jove”. Yet all this is lost on the proponents of that false near-miss name, who mistakenly allege instead that this other culture’s having used His name at one point as evidence that the eternal name of Yâ-hwéh originated from them as a name of Zeus. If this were so, why would the high priest at the temple on the Day of Atonement have said “Yâ-hwéh”? Because that is what the Greeks above did transliterate.
http://www.yahuwshua.org/en/Saving%20Testimony.mp3
http://www.yahuwshua.org/en/name.htm
0
The spelling of this name in any language should be whatever makes it most likely to accurately reproduce its original pronunciation as it is in Hebrew. Thus, in Spanish, it would be “Iâjuéh”, because salvation is by calling on His correct names, not by spelling it a specific way. The reason for this is in the very definition of a name: a name is a pronounced Word, a Saying, which He honors to invoke Him, and which must not be altered because it is pure, and any alteration in the pronunciation is a corruption, and as He is Pure, He will not be invoked by a corruption. So though some people accept corruptions of their own name, they cannot hold Him to their lower standards of purity. [Yshá`Yâhuw 55: 8-9]
The internal linguistic evidence
Yāhwéh is a causative imperfect (present/future) form of a verb derived of a verbal root meaning “to be”, which would show up in Hebrew as *hwy. This verbal root developed from the third person pronouns, *huwa and *hiya (masculine and feminine) * [An asterisk before a word indicates an undocumented reconstruction (hypothetical)]. The verb is Strong’s #1933 hâwâ´h which is from derived from this primitive root supposed to mean properly to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence). The grammatical form of Yāhwéh is the third person masculine singular type of prefix conjugation, where the yā- is the third person masculine singular prefix. Some linguists have reconstructed the name of Yāhwéh with a short “a” vowel (patach ַ) in the first syllable as yahwéh because they theorize that its conjugation is the causative active stem (hif`îl). We however have determined it to instead be a long qamatz ā (ָ), with a short “o” sound, as in “hot”, as when conjugated in the causative passive (hophal) conjugation. To verify this earlier vocalization you may see it in the Roman and the Greek epigraphic evidence (see below), moreover we have noticed the fruits of the spirit to be present when pronouncing it with a long qamatz ā (ָ), and them to be conspicuously absent when using the short “a” vowel (patach).
Thus, this long qamatz ā (ָ), as we write it in Yāhwéh is consistent with a third person masculine imperfect singular Hophal conjugation for weak verbs of the form ל״ה such as Strong’s #1933 hâwâ´h. It is seen using a short “a” vowel (patach ַ) when conjugated as a hif`îl. You may find this under Paradigm P, pg. 484/486 of Gesenius Hebrew grammar (see below), which presents the Hophal example יָגְלֶה. Note it contains the same identical vowel pointing within it as יָהְוֶה.
P. Weak Verbs,.ל״ה
Qal. Niph_al. Pi_ēl. Pu_al. Hiph_ı̂l. Hoph_al. Hithpa_ēl.
_________________________________________________________________
Impf. Sing. 3.
m.
יִגְלֶה *יִגָּלֶה *יְגַלֶּה *יְגֻלֶּה *יַגְלֶה *יָגְלֶה *[יִתְגַּלֶּה
(from Gesenius Hebrew Grammar.pdf pg 484/486, emphasis added)
Now, for those inexperienced in using paradigms to construct verb forms, applying this to the `Ivríyth verb HâWâ´H (to be), would mean that these are the 3rd person male singular imperfect tense conjugations for this weak verb which ends in H:
Qal is YiHWéH. Niphal is YiHHâWéH. Piel is YHaWWéH. Pual is YHuWéH. Hif`îl is YaHWéH. Hophal is YâHWéH. Hithpael is YithHHaWéh.
Please take note of the conspicuous absence of “YHoWâH” from among these.
The final syllable of yāhwéh, -éh is normal for the imperfect indicative form (present-future or past continuous). A form like yāhwéh developed from *yahwiyu. This development of -iyu to -éh is thoroughly demonstrated for the verbal system in general. This long form yāhwéh is the causative stem (hophal) of the verb “to be” and it is present/future (imperfect) meaning “He causes/will cause to be existed.” The hif`îl or hophal form use a shwa after the h and do not imply a U or O vowel in the original pronunciation of YHWH (debunking the false versions “yahuweh”, “yahuah”, “yahuwah”, “yahowah”, “yaohu”).
Some pseudolinguists challenging the name of Yâ-hwéh are alleging this form ending in –éh to be “female” to excuse their changing it to their own false rendition, but note that the same reference, Paradigm P in Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, shows that the feminine conjugation of the same type would use the example תָּגְלֶה to form a female rendition of the Verb, תָּהְוֶה tâhwéh. This means that יָהְוֶה is male, not female, and that their “male rendition” is just another false name.
These same pseudolinguists frequently allege that the –éh ending is a Greek contamination and that this does not happen in Hebrew. For those, we include from the same Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, this illustration for weak verbs ending in H. Note the middle line, this symbol ה-ֶ- is the same as –éh:
Epigraphic evidence
The internal evidence from the Hebrew language is strong and confirms the accuracy of the Greek transcriptions. Greek transcriptions of the pronunciation of YHWH in religious papyri have been found in Egypt. The best of these is Iäouiēe (London Papyri. Xlvi, 446-482). Clement of Alexandria said “The mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton … is pronounced Iaoue, which means ‘Who is, and who shall be.’” IAOUE is how this teacher of Origen pronounced YHWH - in which I and the diptong OU probably represent the semivowels Y and W not found in Greek. We believe the ao to also be a diphthong to represent the English short “o” sound of the long qamatz ā (ָ), instead of a short “a” vowel (patach ַ). More historical epigraphic evidence of this pronunciation is found in the Roman transliteration “IOUE”, which later commonly evolved to “Jove” in common knowledge. Scriptures document that the Romans were the sons of Kittíym and did learn the name of Yâ-hwéh and fought under it at one time (Yâshâ´r 63: 22 - 64: 6), about 1633 BC Roman dates. Much later, starting in 214 BC Roman dates, they did conquer Greece and adopted their pantheon of demons and were deceived to think IOVE (their transliteration for Yâ-hwéh) and Father Yâ´hu (in Latin, IUPITER) was the Greek Zeus. But note that the Roman transliteration of Yâ-hwéh is spelled with an O. Had Yâ-hwéh instead contained a short “a” patach sound, it would easily have been transliterated to “IAUE” instead of IOUE, and we would have had “Jave” as its vestige instead of “Jove”. Along the same line of reasoning, had His name instead been “yahuwah” as some allege, the Romans would have been transliterating it as “IAUA” instead of IOUE, and we then would have had “Java” as its vestige instead of “Jove”. Yet all this is lost on the proponents of that false near-miss name, who mistakenly allege instead that this other culture’s having used His name at one point as evidence that the eternal name of Yâ-hwéh originated from them as a name of Zeus. If this were so, why would the high priest at the temple on the Day of Atonement have said “Yâ-hwéh”? Because that is what the Greeks above did transliterate.
http://www.yahuwshua.org/en/Saving%20Testimony.mp3
http://www.yahuwshua.org/en/name.htm
0
Jews through all ages knew the meaning of God's name: it is "He will be, is, was" or somewhat more accurately "He shall prove to be as he is and was". This is no secret and Jewish people freely speak of its meaning, as there is no rabbinical ban on speaking about it. The ban only applies to its pronunciation and discarding/effacing it in written form. It is even incorporated into one of the most famous and beautiful Jewish hymns "Adon Olam", and Jewish children learn the words from early on. One line reads "v'hu hayAH v'hu HOVeh v'hu Yih'yeh b'tif'arah" (And he was, and he is, and he will be in glory). The name is formed by taking a part of each of the three tenses of the verb "to be", so the name is actually a contraction of the three, Y+HV+H. The pronunciation is Y'HOVAH. Yahweh on the other hand is gibberish, ask any Jew, it is NOT a Hebrew word!
4
4
HEY VAV HEY YOD is the MODERN HEBREW TERM. In ancient Hebrew the vav was waw, so in earliest term it would of been hey waw hey yod or YHWH or new YHVH.
-1
-1
The correct pronunciation for Yahweh Yahuwshua
http://www.yahuwshua.org/en/Saving%20Testimony.mp3.
-2
http://www.yahuwshua.org/en/Saving%20Testimony.mp3.
-2
Absolutely no one can know exactly how to pronounce many Hebrew words, including his name. No one should be trying to explain how someone should pronounce the name of God since the language really had to almost be re-invented because it was almost lost. I am of the opinion that God respects someone knowing and using his name and applying his name to their lives in baptism, however pronunciation is used. If God made us understand the exact way his name is and was pronounced in past biblical days, we all would be in great and eternal peril, for no one knows exactly how it was pronounced. Anyone who says they do just doesn't know what they are talking about. I believe the name of Jesus is equivalent to the name of God the Father, whom Jesus said was the only God. He stated that he came in his fathers name. The name of God is pronounced differently depending on what language one speaks. He said it was his name forever but never said he would not add something to it.
1
1
Whenever I've heard anyone at my church read this name out of the Bible they've pronounced it YAH-way. [noted -ed]
3
3
It's pronounced "YAH-veh" not "YAH-weh." Waw in my opinion should be called vav since there's no "w" sound in Hebrew. Some people refer to it as such since that's how it's pronounced.
2
2
As in any language, there have been changes in the pronunciation of Hebrew. Modern Hebrew doesn't have the w sound, but Ancient Hebrew is believed to have had it. See "Reconstructing the Pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew, A simplified Guide to the Main Points" by David Steinberg
(http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm).
2
(http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm).
2
Comments are left by users of this website. They are not checked for accuracy.
By Dr. Michael S. Heiser
The “a” vowel in the first syllable is quite secure. We know this because an abbreviated form of the divine name (“Yah” – always vocalized with “a”) appears in the Hebrew Bible nearly 50 times, mostly in Psalms (e.g., Exod 15:2; Exod 17:16 – note, this is the same book as the longer form; Isa 12:2; Isa 26:4 – along with the longer form; Psa 68:5; Psa 68:19). The most familiar form to readers is no doubt the phrase halelû-Yah (“praise Yah!”; e.g., Psa 146:10; Psa 147: 1).
The real controversial part of all this for scholars comes with the second syllable (scholars lead exciting lives). Here’s what must be accounted for:
1. The form itself must be the imperfect conjugation, since the “y” of the first syllable is prefixed to the verb root (hyh/hwh).
2. The first syllable must have an a-class vowel (“yah”) to account for the abbreviated form of the name noted above.
3. The second syllable must be an i-class vowel because of the verb root (lemma). The ancient Semitic root hwy also requires an i-class vowel in the second syllable.
There is only one morphological verb formation (parsing) that makes sense of these elements: Hiphil stem, third person, singular, imperfect conjugation, from hyh/hwh. This form is vocalized yahyeh / Yahweh and would mean “he who causes to be” (the Hiphil is a causative stem in Hebrew). This is controversial because the verb hyh/hwh does not appear in the Hiphil causative stem elsewhere. Hence scholars are uneasy about taking the divine name this way. Personally, the logic here doesn’t feel compelling to me. I'm not sure why it’s necessary to have a verb form appear elsewhere for it to be considered coherent where it does / might occur. I understand the desire for another example, but it is not a logical necessity if it makes sense. And in the context of Israel’s God in effect creating a nation out of the slave population of Israel, it makes good theological / conceptual sense. But I’m in the minority here, probably because of the (in my view, overly cautious and logically unnecessary) desire for an external example of this lemma in this stem.
https://PeopleofYahweh.org