- With all the tares Satan is sowing, here is the evidence we proclaim the Seed of Truth!
You asked for proof? Here you have it!

Yâ-hwéh Yâhuwshúa`

\ēŏ-hwĔ ēŏ-hoo-shOO-ă\

 

Do scriptures say it is important to pronounce His name correctly?

                                          

These are just a few, of the many:

 

1 Qorinthíym 15: 1-2

Now I make thoroughly known to you, my brothers, the glad tidings: that which I announced to you, that which ye also accepted, by which ye also stand,

through which also ye are being delivered by that Word [Yâhuwshúa`] I announced to you, if ye hold it fast; if not, aside from it, ye were persuaded to no effect.

 

1 Këph 1: 24 – 2: 2

… “All, of the flesh, are herbage; and all of its beauty like a flower of the field!  Herbs wither, flowers fallbut the Word of our mighty Ones is established forever!”  [Yshá`Yâhuw 40: 6-8]

But this [Word (vv. 22-24, 2: 2)] is the message the glad tidings announced unto you: [Yshá`Yâhuw 40: 9]

Therefore, having left behind all malice and all deceit and role-faking and spite and all the mispronunciations,

in that manner of newborn infants, crave ye intensely to possess the unadulterated milk which contains the Word, in order that ye may grow by It

 

1 Thessaloníkeans 2: 13

Due to this also, we give thanks to Yâ-hwéh unceasingly because, having accepted the Word of Yâ-hwéh [the name of Yâhuwshúa` (Disclosure 19: 13)] from our report, ye did not accept a word of the sons of ’Âthâ´m [YirmYâ´huw 23: 36], rather the Word of Yâ-hwéh, according as it truly is, which also is effective within you who believe.

 

Distinguishing the Seed of Truth from the tares sown by the enemy

 

Ever since learning that the KJV substitutions “the LORD” and “GOD” are not the name of Who we worship, many wonder how to distinguish the true names of our Sovereign and Savior from so many renditions that are circulating today.  He said we shall recognize those teaching the Truth by their fruits.  He also said that His pupils would be characterized by their love.  So by this same love here we give you the good fruits of others’ research and study collected on this subject, and provide you conclusive good evidence to support that these names are indeed the best way to transcribe and transliterate the saving name of our Deliverer.  We believe that everyone has an inalienable right to make an informed decision on whether to believe on His true name.  But understand that this is a compilation of good information from various scholarly sources, and most likely not one of those individual sources is in total agreement with everything in here.

 

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 related to #1961 hâyâ´h; 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 h 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.

 

What about “Jehovah”?

This name, Yāhwéh, which He told Moshéh was His name forever and His memorial for all generations, has been censored by “Yehuwthíy” scribes since the times of the Maccabees and substituted in their speech and in their writings, including their scripture transcriptions (e.g. the Masoretic Text) with “’Athonâ´y ’Elohíym” as it is documented in their Talmud and traditions to do.  The addition of vowel points into their Aramaic square script scriptures came after the inception this errant doctrine, and their method of enforcing it was by inserting the vowel points corresponding to ’Athonâ´y into YHWH if it were found written before ’Elohíym, or vice versa, inserting the vowel points corresponding to ’Elohíym into YHWH if it were found written after ’Athonâ´y, to have every reader read “’Athonâ´y ’Elohíym” instead of either “Yâ-hwéh ’Elohíym” or “’Athonâ´y Yâ-hwéh”.  They avoided the very short a vowel in this borrowing because it might have led the synagogue reader to make a mistake and pronounce the correct first syllable of the Pure Name, namely -yā.  The vocalized form one finds in the Hebrew Tenákh is usually Yehôwāh (the other being Yehôwīh), which evolved into the form Jehovah with the evolution of the “I” into a “J” and the changing of the Latin “V” letter from a “U” sound to a “V”Yehôwāh/Jehovah is nothing but an artificial ghost word; it was never used in antiquity.  The synagogue reader saw Yehôwāh in his text and read it adônai.  But Christian scholars of the Middle Ages (e.g. Galatinus) saw these scribal lies and fell for them, resulting in the false name Jehovah, fulfilling YirmYâ´huw 8: 8-9 –

 

“How can you say: “We are wise ones, for the Towrâ´h of Yâ-hwéh is with us!”  When look!  The lying pen of the scribes made it for the Lie?  The wise will be shamed, they will be dismayed, and they will be trapped, look!  Since they rejected the Word of Yâ-hwéh, what wisdom do they have?”

 

YâHuW/YâHu/Yâ(h)uW \ēŎ-hoo\ – why (YHW) or hy (YH) or wy (YW) in paleohebrew, appears as יהו (YHW) or יה (YH) or יו(YW), respectively, in the Aramaic square script.  All three of these actually are identical in pronunciation in every instance, and should be rendered יָהֻ (YâHu) or יָהוּ (YâHuW) in vowel-pointed Aramaic square script.  יו  (YW) should NOT be rendered י (Yô) as it appears in Masoretic texts, it should be rendered יָהוּ (YâHuW) as it is a northern Yisrâ’Ë´l degeneration of it.  Anson Rainey wrote the following regarding this:

 

“The theophoric component in Northern Israelite personal names, written –YW on epigraphic texts, was never pronounced -!  The final W did not come into use as a marker for a final ô vowel until the post-Exilic period.  In the eighth and seventh centuries when we have these personal names ending in –YW, the W was a consonant and the pronunciation was -yaw (or yau).  So anyone can see that the difference between northern -yaw and southern -yáhû is not so great, especially since the -h- in the southern form was fairly weak.”

 

These names of Yâ-hwéh appear as parts of personal names, called “theophoric components”, as prefixes and suffixes, but the יה appears only as a suffix.  Other times יה appears alone or preceding hwhy as a “praenomen” (forename), which identifies the Son specifically in Tenákh.  These theophoric components, pronounced YÂHU (i.e., -y­āhû, in such names as Hizqîyā[Hezekiah]), are the normal shortened imperfect form of a verb like yāhwéh, that is, the preterite or jussive short form of this Verb.  The short imperfect form has two functions: past tense (preterite), “He caused to exist,” or jussive (third person command), “May he cause to exist”; however don’t try to translate it within a personal name: e.g. Yâhuwtsâthâ´q should be translated “Yâ-hwéh’s righteousness”.    Please note that logically, since these theophoric components are all actually the same legitimate shortened form of the name of Yâ-hwéh, this explains why it always should sound the same, no matter how scribes degenerated its spelling or no matter whether it appeared at the beginning or at the ending of a name.  Another example of this short form/long form relationship is the verb “to do obeisance”, which in the imperfect is yiŝtahah, while the shortened imperfect form (for preterit or jussive) is yiŝtáhû.  In other words yiŝtáhû is to yiŝtahah as yáhû is to yāhwéh.  (Fig. 1)

 

 

Fig. 1

Hizqîyā

(ChizqiyYâ´huw)

 

miŝtahaweh

(mishttáchawéh)

 

yáhû          yāhwéh

(Yâ´huw)   (Yâ-hwéh)

 

 

What about “Yeho-” and “Yah”?  What about “Yô-”?

In accordance with Jewish tradition to censor His name, these short forms of His name also got adulterated by the censoring pen of the Masoretic scribes, and only got the proper vowel points in the Masoretic text when יָהוּ appears as the suffix theophoric component of personal names.  Otherwise, the vowel points for Elowāhh got inserted resulting in Yehow- (יְהוֹ) prefixes and the Yāhh (יָהּ) scribal lies.  They apparently reasoned that when reading aloud theophoric component prefixed names, a beginning reader might stop after reading YÂHU… and violate their tradition to “take the name in vain”.  It is documented in the Midrash on Psalms (Mid. Teh. Pss. 68:3, 113:3) that they knew this was a partial incomplete name, so therefore using it did not violate their human commandment to not say His name.  Nonetheless, the Murasu text written in Nippur in the fifth century BCE did write YÂHU- as being the prefix theophoric component of personal names.  Regarding “Yô-”, see above.

 

Yâhuwshúa` \ēŎ-hoo-shOO-ă\ – [vwhy in paleohebrew or יָהוּשֻׁעַ in vowel pointed Aramaic square script is the true name of the Son, the Lamb of the Power (’Ël), the Anointed.  Its prefix theophoric component is -יָהוּ which is pronounced YÂHU, as explained above, debunking the false versions “yahshua”, “yehoshua”, “yaohushua”, “yahuashua”, or “yahwehshua”.  It was in the post-exilic period that many names on this pattern were shortened, like the aforementioned errant “yehoshua” to “yeshua”.  Though this might have been acceptable by those societies that did it, it continues to be a corruption of the pure original names, and violates the third commandment (see what it originally said here) just as using the modern variations such as “Jesus” do.

 

Some scholars are not sure of what the second element שֻׁעַ- of the name Yâhuwshúa` means. They think it might mean noble, or help, or something like that.  It is the word שוע ShU` (shin, waw, ayin) [see Strong’s #7769-7774] and apparently not the root ותע WTh` (waw, tha-ayin), which is the original of the verbs “to save” [Strong’s #3467] Understand that in `Ivríyth, it is acceptable to spell certain names differently if it does not change the meaning or the pronunciation, thus sometimes, יהושע appears in scriptures as יהושוע, which meets these criteria.  This debunks the errant “yahuwsha” which means something different, and cannot be spelled this documented alternate way.  Sadly, the Strong’s Concordance errs on this specific point, thinking it is #3467.  Examining Strong’s entries 7769-7774, the meanings of Shúwa`, the word from which the element –shua` comes, are: a shout (halloo), opulence, riches, wealth, independent, noble, free, and generous.  Due to these, we understand the translation of Yâhuwshúa` to English to be “Yâ-hwéh is liberation (deliverance)/ wealth”, a message which incorporates the Glad Tidings and our hope, and which is in agreement with Romans 10: 12-13 –

 

¶ For about this, there is not a difference between a Yâhuwthíy or a Greek, for the same Yâ´hu[1], the Sovereign of all of them, is Shúa` (riches, deliverance) for all of those who invoke Him, since:

everyone who shall have called on the name of Yâ-hwéh, he shall be rescued!

 

Some have seen “-shúa`” defined in some lexicons as “prosperity”, and we would agree in the aspect of spiritual prosperity, but would not encourage changing to the New Age false glad tidings of a promise of material prosperity.

 

Understand also that a proper name is to be invoked in its language, not in its translation to our language as it says in Romans 15: 5-6, and Phílippos 20, so let us understand but not call out the meaning of His name as “Yâ-hwéh is wealth/freedom”.  Do not try to further translate the Yâ-hwéh within the translation because theophoric components of names are mentions of the name of Yâ-hwéh invocated, and one does not translate a proper name beyond that point.  The Glad Tidings of the Truth says that ones receiving the name (as a theophoric component) do so “according to the likeness into each one is to be made.”

 

We spoke with Anson Rainey a long time ago, and we asked him if Yâhuwshúa` could be translated as “Yâ´hu is wealth/freedom” and he answered ‘no, though it appears in the short form within names, when translating a name one always translates it as “Yâ-hwéh”’.

 

Yâhuwshúa` is the same name Moshéh named Howshë´a` the son of Núwn for this reason, that the people might listen to him like the Anointed One [Letter of Bar-Nâvíy 12: 8-9[2]].  Proof that this is the same name is found in the fact that whenever Yâhuwshúa` the son of Núwn is mentioned in the NT, his name also got distorted and evolved to “Jesus” in the KJV.  We also find this name as the name of the Branch foretold in ZkharYâ´hu 6: 11-12.  The Munster book of Hebrews reportedly also uses יהושע for the name of the Anointed One, and even the Strong’s Concordance in entry 3091 admits this is the Hebrew rendering for His name (Greek #2424).

 

The Kingdom is being offered to you

So now with all this linguistic and epigraphic and scriptural information as evidence, ignorance disappears and the decision becomes whether to go against the flow and believe on His true name, or to deny Him and go into rebellion.  Remember Yshá`Yâhuw 1:18-20 on what the consequences are of either way:

 

Let’s walk, now, and let us reason together,” says Yâ-hwéh, “Though your sins are like the scarlet insects, they shall be white as the snow; though they are red as the crimson worm, they shall become like the wool.  If you are consenting and you heed, you will eat the goodness of the Land; But if you refuse and you rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword, because the mouth of Yâ-hwéh has spoken it.

 

Our advice: Choose life!

 



[1] This name is evidently in the Aramaic translation here, and “of all of them” shows that the title “Sovereign” was also here.  As this verse is a play on the meaning of the name of the Anointed, this rendition of the name of Yâ-hwéh, which refers specifically to the Son, is used.

[2] What, again, does Moshéh say to Howshë´a` (“Joshua”) the son of Núwn, when he gave him this name, Yâhuwshúa`, as being the Predicator? With this purpose that all the people might give ear only to him alone, because the Father would manifest all things concerning His Son Yâhuwshúa` in Yâhuwshúa` the son of Núwn! So therefore this was the name Moshéh gave him when he sent him to spy out the land of Qná`an, and he said,” Take a scroll into your hands, and write what Yâ-hwéh declares: ‘that Yâhuwshúa` the Son of the Power shall in the last days cut off from the roots all the house of `Amâlë´q.’” [Exodus 17: 14]

Link to top