In Hebrew, the letter "J" does not exist, nor any letter that makes the "J" sound as pronounced in English. "J" was exchanged with "Y" because "Y" and "I" are interchangeable in Hebrew ["Y" alone can even be representative of both letters at the same time, such as an "iy" combination] and, in some languages, [like Spanish] "I" is interchangeable with "J". In these languages the "J" makes the "Y" or "Ya" sound presumed to be made in the actual pronunciation of the Name of God in the Hebrew language. And, so, it has for centuries been considered an appropriate syllable exchange/prefix for use in the given Name of God in English. [In spite of the fact that "J" is a twice removed substitution] Some would argue that because the actual Name of God cannot be known by a "gentile", that a name depicting the "flavor" of our best guess at the origional Hebrew Name is acceptable. However; this is not an opinion shared by God anywhere in the Bible and falls under the heading of "mans wisdom"/assumption. {What we do not know we assume based on what we "reasonably think" thus, putting words into Gods mouth, thereby; encompassing the very definition of private interpretation and labeling it "applied knowledge". He is suppose to be putting words into our mouths-not the other way around} Throughout the Bible, God stresses the importance of names vehemenantly. More specifically, the importance of HIS NAME and a "GOOD" name. His Name appeared in the Bible over 7,000 times stressing the importance of our knowing and using His Name. It is only His ACTUAL name that has power!!! In the Book of Genesis alone we see better than a hundred examples where God has defined the names of His people [In some cases He renamed them and gave them a 'better' name. How was it better? By DEFINITION!!] based on the literal meanings of both the prefix and the suffix of thier names put together so that they form sentences. In Hebrew, each letter has a meaning as do all grammarically correct groupings of letters, prefixes and suffixes.[However you will be unable to research this based on the transliterated names found in the Bible{s}.You must use the origional or first transliteration of these names and properly convert them back to Hebrew. It is the sounds used in the transliterated pronunciation of the Name that determine what grouping of letters should be used to transliterate the Name back into Hebrew. Change even one vowel/sound and the conversion back to Hebrew will be wrong. Most of the names found in the Bible{s} have been translitered twice [or more] and it is these forms that appear. If we look at the Lexicon{s} and research the prefixes and suffixes we find that in ALL cases God has given us an accurate, direct, and literal translation of each name He has defined. And, in ALL cases the meanings were very specific to the function or character of the person individually. If they were to be transliterated {converted into another language with a letter- by- letter consonant cross according to sound with the appropriate vowels added for accurate phonics true to the word's origional Hebrew pronunciation,} or, twice transliterated such as in the case of "Isaac"=Yischaq # 3446 in Strongs, they by default lose thier origional meaning. Sometimes, they will take on a whole new meaning entirely-if they retain any meaning at all. And, so it is with the assumed Name[s] chosen for God. {see II Timothy 2:15 for "dividing the word"]
The name Jehovah has been "attributed" with the same definition as the tetragramatin. Even in the Lexicons it says "believed" to be the name of God. The active word here being "believed". Who would have to "believe" it to be the Name? Answer? Anyone who didn't know. Some of the Jewish Heirarchy/Preists and scholors that aided in the preparation of the Lexicons for the 'benefit' of all non-Jews KNOW the name and have gone to great lengths to HIDE it.They are devout in thier belief that no gentile,or 'apostate' Jew is worthy of the Name and they do not believe that the average 'devout' Jew would protect the name from blasphemy or safely conceal it from the "gentiles". The Jewish scholors not privy to the name are as blind we are! They rely on the word of thier higher clergy/scholors as much as we do, and, yet, some of them actually thought they were 'educated' enough to contribute to and assist in the preparing of translative reference manuals {such as some of the Lexicons} that tout 'Jehovah' as the "actual" transliterated name!!!!! [Remember that the same people who are endorsing the name "Jehovah" are the same people who have put themselves in charge of hiding it!!!] Thus, you will not find the "actual" Name, or, any accurate phonetic transliteration of the Name of God in ANY Hebrew translative text in ANY form! Although; I believe it is possible to know the actual name. How? Remember the importance that God repetetively puts on the meanings of names throughout the Bible? He knew that the Jewish Priests would conceal His name. In his infinite wisdom he gave us the meanings of His name, and gave meanings to all Hebrew letters, groupings of letters, prefixes, and suffixes used in the Hebrew language. Using the tetragramatin as a guide, the literal translation of each letter, as well as the literal translation of all valid groupings of letters, combined with the direct meanings of valid Hebrew prefixes and suffixes formed [by default] when these letters/groups of letters are combined to form a word, does in fact, give you a word/name that means what God has proclaimed His name would mean!!!! There are two name/words that are "close" to the affore-mentioned Name that are listed in the Lexicons. However; while this meaning- appropriate name/word that I am referring to is technically [by the rules of Jewish grammar] a valid Hebrew word, you will not find a word/name with this exact spelling in any Hebrew reference book. The best you will find is two "near" names/words with one vowel missing or transliterally substituted in favor of another vowel , which, can be gotten away with because the vowel being substituted is grammarically interchangeable with the the vowel replacing it and could technically be either. While either are technically correct, only one is correct according to the legitimate and valid Hebrew letter groupings that have the correct definition of the Name and the criteria we are looking for. {NOT SURPRISING} As a matter of fact, on an electronic search of the Lexicons online, the words that are even close to it will not be produced on a word search unless you have their actual number!!! {Find that ODD?} Even then, there have been more than a few occasions where the search engine did not respond to the search command by number in relation to some of these "near" spelled words. These near-spelled affore-mentioned word/names are VERY close to fitting all the meanings that God has given for His Name in the Bible and when broken down form a sentence that matches Mathew 1:21. {Hebrew Strongs numbers, #50, #3444,/Add or substitute one letter, title or prefix and you're there. See also Strongs #376 and #377 as prefix }. However, the absence of that one letter [see "minus one" below] {supposedly} makes these "near" words feminine in form and probably accounts for them being overlooked. [God invented language, and, ALL words are His. So how could ANY words truly be feminine in ANY form? This concept was generated from mans wisdom, perhaps because of the gender personifications in the Bible-for example "wisdom". His Name in His pre-human existance was {still is?} The Word.[ Soon, we will have a discussion about what "feminine" actually is in another piece on "Adam and Eve".] But, if you'd like to buy into this "feminine" form buisness, adding that one letter does in fact cause this word/name to be masculine. And, if the name described above is not the actual Name {and I believe it is}, it would still definately be a more proper title { we will discuss the origions of other titles given for Him later in another piece } that is respectful, affectionate, and does not insult him.
But what about the name "Jehovah"? Is it an acceptable transliteration of the name? Would God think it was "GOOD" enough as most people who ascribe to the use of this name believe it is? Lets discuss. First, there are 4 characters in the Hebrew [the tetragrammitin] that represent the Name of God. These characters on a direct "cross transliteration"{letter for letter} are Y{or I or BOTH} H W H. {The W often inappropriately represented as a V because it has been assumed that "W" as used in the Name is a consonant. When used as a consonant, it does in fact make the "V" sound {currently}, but I have found research that indicates that the actual "V" sound did not exist in the ancient Hebrew language as it is used in words today. And; when used as a consonant it does not belong to a valid grouping of letters in Hebrew with a meaning attatched to it. When used as a vowel however; it then becomes a member of a valid grouping of transliteratable letters consistant with the tetragramitin and with a meaning in agreement with the definitions given by God concerning His Name. It may be that the 'V' sound was assumed because of the current sound of the name of the letter "W" in Hebrew, "VaV". {Likely derived from Yiddish.} Or, because the Jewish scholors endorse it as a consonant and favor the "V"/sound for transliteration. {Which given thier obvious motives should be enough to make this suspect.} Then, other vowels are taken {assumed} from "Adonai" or "Elohim" , giving you a "guesstimate" of YAHWEH { which Jewish Scholors admit is incorrect when they concede that Gods' Name "probably" has 3 syllables and NOT 2} or YAHOWAH. {YAHOVAH} It is then rewritten/retransliterated yet again to 'Jehovah', supposedly for phonetic purposes? [Or is it?] "J" makes a "G" sound in the English Language and already we have a mispronunciation made by default that need not be since the letter "Y" exists in English and makes the appropriate "Ya" sound from the Hebrew. So, what we have then is a transliteration of a transliteration of the four origional Hebrew characters, [unless the "Y" is actually more appropriately an "I" or an "iy" or 'yi' combination ] with "guesstimated" vowels taken from some titles of God.{?} [ I found some evidence that suggests that these two titles of God are actually the transliterated titles of the ancient pagan gods of Egypt and Babylon or, origionally stolen from God and given to them. Might be why God stresses the use of HIS NAME-He knew this would happen.] This was done for phonetic purposes? Remember, phonetics refers to the sound something makes. And, let's not forget that the letter "J" did not exist in any language until the 14th century. [1400 years after Christ] We then finally come up with the "decided", twice transliterated name of "Jehovah". And if that's not far enough removed to convince you, let's just follow Gods' example in Genesis and check the LITERAL translation of this name by prefix, suffix, and root.
In spite of what is in the Lexicons {remember who was involved in the preparation of these translating texts} concerning the transliteration of "Ya" to "Je" we know factually that this is not possible. So, if it does not exist in the Hebrew, what language/s does it exist in?
Searching the multi-lingual dictionaries............
"Je" in German = Ever
"Je" in French = I
"Je" {or "J"} in Roman = I
"Je" in Deutch = Ever
"Je" in Esparanto = At, By, On, Apon
"Je" in Chinese = A unit of heat
"J" is also:
A symbol for a bionary language. Specifically Java Script.
A symbol for angular momentum.{Apposed to straight or upright}
An imaginary unit. [ Sounds like an atheistic position]
- 1 Unit of energy {Notice the minus...? Consider the minus one letter in Gods name referenced above and
then consider Hebrews 2:6}
A quantum number where the higher the believed value the lower
the energy.[ Sounds like a definition for vanity!]
So now we have seen the definitions of the prefix, but what about the suffix? "Hovah" only exists in ONE language as a word, prefix, or suffix - Hebrew. So what does it mean? It is the number #1942 & 1943 in the Strongs Hebrew Concordance and it means: RUIN, MISCHIEF, and INIQUITY!!!!!!
Even if we accept that "Je" is an acceptable substitution {and it isn't} for "Yahh" or "Iah",{Another double transliteration-Strongs number #3050. There is no such transliteration of the nickname "Yah" with only one "h" in the reference manuals like Strongs. And, the "Y" is more appropriately an "I" making "Yah" actually 'ee-ah' causing the 'y' sound by default. } the name would then mean God of RUIN, MISCHIEF, and INIQUITY!!!! Otherwise, just replace God with I, ever, on, apon, by, or at and then read it again!!! It's not any better. How are they getting away with this? Well, for one thing nobody is checking. Most people just accept what thier Church tells them as Gospel Truth. Clergy as well as followers are not encouraged to study anything not 'Church' approved [or to discount whatever disagrees with what they are being told]. Second, there is in fact a word that is spelled almost identical to the actual root of 'hovah' [ Strongs #1942&1943.] This distant relative, [ -1 "v"] being "Havah", [Strongs #1933] has a completely different and inconsistant meaning than ALL other forms of this word! And, the Strongs definition begins with "suppose to mean". Hmmmm... curious. However; when questioned, clergy will often direct you to this word form claiming it is "Hovahs" actual root. Some will even try to point out that Havah with one "V" is closer to "Hovah" and therefore a "better match". However; IT IS NOT THE ROOT OF THIS WORD! {Not even close} And, even if you reluctantly dry swallow that explaination, the definition given there negates the acceptance of such a ridiculous assumption by blatantly telling you that the meaning written there is suspect!! By writing "suppose to mean" in front of the given definition it isn't 'actually' a lie........[Satan said to Eve "is it true".....?] "Suppose to mean"... according to WHOM/WHAT? Certainly not ALL other forms of this word! [Check the definitions of all forms] In Hebrew when words or portions of words are added to other prefixes and suffixes to form new ones, as with most languages, they retain thier origional meaning and contribute to or blend with the overall meaning of the newly formed word. [Not that you could readily observe this looking at the transliterated forms. I only discovered this when I tried converting the transliterated words back into thier origional Hebrew.] The root does NOT change and its meaning is certainly NOT OPPOSITE! [Although, as with all languages, a certain amount of 'molting' occurs depending on what is being added or subtracted to form the 'new word'.] Lastly, another possible reason people don't know is because they will usually approach the clergy or elders in thier Church to enquire about anything they don't understand. If the clergy is aware of it they won't admit to lying and decieving! The truth is not popular or lucrative.They will simply explain it away-probably tell you to look at Strongs #1933 and drop it. If you persist you will be labeled appostate and blasphemous/ maybe even tossed out! The ones that don't know trust thier superiors and so on and so forth.... Many Churches even imply that to question church heirarchy is the same as questioning God!!!{Since they are supposedly appointed/annointed by God. Keep in mind thier "calling" is self- proclaimed. Becoming the head of a church can be as simple as a mail-order degree.} They have dietized themselves and put themselves above scrutiny! Necessary only if your hiding something, greedy, or vain/egotistical. The Bible says 'prove all things'. [ 1Thesselonians 5:21.] To whom are we listening, worshipping, and obeying when we blindly follow without question? You won't like the answer. Look up # 1180 [and it's root #1166 and #1167] in Strongs Hebrew section. Then see # 1171, 1170, 1168, 1078, 1176, 1174, 1177, 1182, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1193 [ just to name a few]
Why is the Name so important? Isn't this just a "mincing" of words? First, because God says it is {and that's good enough for true believers} but, also because you have to be Baptised in the Name in order to recieve the Holy Ghost!!!!!! Think a hybrid [Mediteranean] French/Hebrew name like 'Jehovah' will do it? [You can't be annointed if you are not Baptized in the ORIGIONAL Name and anyone claiming to be annointed under {this} or ANY transliterated name is at best dangerously mistaken! NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN!!! [Acts,4:12] The Bible tells us not to 'profane' His name.[Ez,36:23, Lev, 19:12] According to the Hyper-Dictionary {online via internet} 'profane' [aside from the obvious] has some lesser-known but rather interesting meanings which include: worldly, alter, CHANGE,[Like from one language to another?] earthly, temporal={concerned with secular rather than sacred, of the material world, related to the temples, alongside the eyes or mental} misdirect, infect, poison, unconsecrate, unhallow,={render unholy}, unsanctify, bastardize, carnalize, corrupt, lead astray, secularize={arranged, assembled, placed down in favor of another, or 'rigged'} and subvert.={RUIN} [Remember the definition for "Hovah"? RUIN, Mischief, and Iniquity!!!] Think any of these could be referring to transliteration? And remember, God speaks all languages-he invented them. He knows what this name means and where it came from. And now, so do you. {Exodus 23:13}
The real Name? Well, God says to 'prove all things'. 'Seek and ye shall find'. God commands it. So, ask Him to show you and look. If your heart is sincere, He'll see to it the Holy Spirit guides you there. [ I gave hints as to what I found, but, I would still recommend that you humbly ask Him to show you and then look for yourself. Hopefully I was able to give you someplace to start] I choose to follow Mathew 6:9 during prayer and just call him 'Father' or "Abiy". I know that he would like it if all of His children did too. {Mathew 23:9} He loves us.
Oh, and by the way, aside from the obvious 'zeus' [ 'sus' said 'soos'] connection, and, that it may have actually been the first name of the murderer "Barabas" released on calvary instead of our savior, take a trip to Encyclopedia.com on the internet and research "SUS" from the name "Je-sus" [ We already know what "Je" means, but what about "sus"?] I came up with "SWINE" {and European swine at that /genus: Suidae}" I or EVER SWINE???" And 'Christ' {Krist} literally means blood or kindred and, figuratively means "the juice of grapes". So, "Jesus Christ" would literally translate "I swine blood" or "Ever Swine Blood"!!! Remember the evil spirits [demons] that Christ cast out of that woman into the "swine"? {Mark 5:12} [ See Leviticus 17:11and 17:14 to see where all Spirit lives in the body-even invading ones. ] Also, there just happens to be a city called "SUSA" within driving distance of Babylon. { Just an observation, probably doesn't mean anything????} I think you get it. By the way "Christ" {Krist } is an appropriate title for Him-but only as pronounced in Greek. [ Kr-ee-st]
Footnote: You might want to take note that most of the languages/countries that "J" origionally belonged to [before it was 'adopted' by almost every language] are also countries that coincidently have all had world conquerors or belonged territorally to an historical world empire such as Hitler/Germany and Rome and all either displaced, persecuted, killed or enslaved the Jewish people. They also seem to be indicated in the Bible as the countries that may be allied together in the One World Church [ European Union]. Just an observation.
Additional meanings for "Je" found after this piece was written:
Croation/ "Je"= is, is to be, she
Czech/ "Je" = is, it is, she is, them
Dutch/ "Je" = one, you, they, your
Menonite Low German/ "Je" = truly, indeed, certainly, by all means, of course, or adds EMPHASIS to the suffix {second part of the word, so 'ruin' would become RUIN!!!!!}
English Thesauras/ "J" = 1 mistake or error
Purpose of transliteration; Every written language has an alphabet. Every letter of each alphabet has it's own sound{s}. Depending on how it is used in a word, those sounds may differ relative to the other letters {or vowels} it may be paired or grouped with. Most alphabets of any language have either letters or sounds in common with letters or sounds of other languages. In transliteration, the purpose is not to match the origional word definition for definition, but sound for sound. The letter exchange is based on the actual pronunciation/sound of the letter as used in the word of it's own language. For instance, the word "Yes" in English would transliterate to "Jes" in Spanish if you wanted a Spanish-speaking person to pronounce it correctly in English. It does not share the same definition, {it may not even be a real or complete word} but it is phonetically correct for speach and pronunciation true to its' origional language. In a "translation" whole words are exchanged from one language to another, not on the basis of accurate pronunciation or native sound, but based on the definition. For instance, in English, the word "one" means the same thing as "uno" in Spanish. These two words sound nothing alike, but, instead share common definitions. "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are advertised as "transliterations" [sound alikes] of the origional Hebrew Names. Think that is true? And if not, and they are actually "translations" they, by rule, have to have definitions in common with the origional names. [ I would again refer you to # 1180 in Hebrew Strongs concerning 'Jehovah' {and it's roots #1167 and #1166}] "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are actually "morphed" names invented through the 'passing around' of the 'guestimated' names from one language to another until they became so far removed as to be unrecognizeable. Not all words with definitions have a prefix and a suffix. The word "Yes" would be a good example. But of those that do, most are "put together" based on the individual definitions of thier prefix and suffix for thier designated use [meaning]. And, most English words that were "born" in this way have thier roots in European or Mediteranean languages. Both of these names have a prefix and a suffix. Both the prefixes and the suffixes in these names are actual whole words in European/Mediteranian languages. Each has an individual definition that when combined to form {what ends up being} a compound word {since prefixes and suffixes do not stand on thier own,} come together to form a sentence-much like the Hebrew prefix/suffix/compound-word names found in Genesis. I'll let you decide if it's a coincindence or not.
Note: Hebrew Strongs # 3444 claims that it is the contraction for "Yeshuw'ah." In entomology "I" can be exchanged [is = to] with "Y", "E", "J", or "G". So, The "E" in "Yeshuw'ah" is interchanged with any of these letters.
Hosea 2:16,17 ............shall call me "Ishi" [ " Ishi" mispelled/ "Iysh" means husband/ Strongs #376] and not "Baali" [ means "Jehovah"-Strongs # 1180 -roots #'s 1166 and 1167 "Baal"]
I do not believe that I figured this out on my own, or through some superior intelligence or wit. Nor do I believe that I have an exclusive relationship with God superior to anyone else, or that I am favorized. I believe that I sincerely and humbly asked Him for attention, affection, knowledge, wisdom, guidance, comfort, and the opportunity to love Him better and be close to Him. I believe that He said "Yes", and, I freely and openly thank Him for the undeserved love, kindness, and attention He shows me every day. As proof of my gratitude and growing love for Him I gladly risk the rejection of others in the hope that even one person might share in the blessings imparted to me by our Father and be drawn even closer to Him. I am happiest when He lets me help Him make the cookies.
What Does Our Creator Say His Name Is?
Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up to heaven or hath descended? Who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name and what is His Son's name, if thou canst tell.
The word "and" being a conjunction is listed in the Lexicons with a host of other conjunctions like "therefore", "hence", and "also" to choose from for translation. Conjunctions can be used alone, or, they can be used together as compound pairs or multiples-whatever would be most suitable gramaricly. The very people who are in charge of protecting the Name are the ones who choose which conjunctions are appropriate for the translation. Hmmmmm... "Tell" in this verse is Hebrew Strong's #3045. Aside from 'tell' it is listed as meaning: know, perceive, find out, discern, recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess, or to be wise or skillfull in knowledge. So,the last line of this verse could just as conceivably read "What is His Name and therefore or hence also or and also what is His Son's Name, if thou canst find out."
Psalms 83:16 seek His Name................
Hosea 2:16 "And it shall be at that day", saith the Lord [YHWH], that thou shalt call me "Ishi" [that is, my husband] and shalt no more call me "Baali"[that is, my Lord].
The word "ishi" as spelled in the verse above does not exist in the Strongs Hebrew Concordance [or any translative text I can find]. The spelling provided for this word in the Concordance is "Yish'iy" #3469.As you can see above, God has provided us with the definition of the word that should be there. The definition listed for #3469 is simply 'saving'-and not 'my husband'. In the Hebrew Strong's, #376 "Iysh" is the word which means "my husband".
The name "Baali" in the Hebrew Concordance #1180 does not mean "My YHWH." [Remember God's name was replaced with titles.] The definition listed is 'another name for Jehovah'. The roots listed in the Concordance for #1180 "Baali" are #'s 1167, 1166, and 1168. "Baal". It is also listed as meaning "my lord" but this lord is obviously NOT YHWH. So, this verse should properly read:
Hosea 2:16 "And it shall be in that day, saith YHWH, that thou shalt call me "Iyshiy" [that is, my husband] and shalt no more call me "Jehovah" [that is,my lord Baal] [A Phonecian pagan diety]
Titles were never supposed to be used in place of God's Name. He stresses the use of His NAME-not titles. There is no power in titles! The only title authorised by God is "Father" in Mathew 6-the Lord's Prayer.[Strongs Hebrew Concordance #'s 1 and 2] All other descriptive phrases mentioned in the Bible are just that-descriptive phrases. Praise. Honorable things people said about Him to others. Their witness of Him. But, they still had to identify WHO they were talking about by Name! So the question, Is Iysh a title, or [part of] His Name? It should be noted that EVERY place in the Bible where there is a definition given in parenthesis, it is the definition or meaning of an ACTUAL NAME and not a title or adjective. So would this be the ONLY exception? First, let's look at the definition of "Iysh" in it's entirety.
Hebrew Strong's #376 / "Iysh" from an unused root meaning to be "extant", a man as an individual or male person, often used as an adjunct to a more definite term [and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation]-- also, another, any [man], a certain man, champion, consent, each, every [one],fellow, footman, husband, man [-kind],good, great, or mighty man, He, High degree, Him that is,+ none, ONE, people, person, + steward, what man soever, whosoever, worthy.
WHO does this describe? Could this word be used to describe ANY human being other than Christ and be accurate?
Now, I would like to compare these descriptions to what the Bible says of Him and give a few dictionary definitions.
Websters dictionary / Extant =Still in existence; to exist, not destroyed, lost, or extinct. standing out, extant manuscripts, to stand out or forth, publicly known.
Websters dictionary/ footman=servant
Websters dictionary / adjunct= Something attached to another in a dependant or subordinate position,[synonym-appendage] a person associated with another in a subordinate or auxilary capacity [giving assisstance or support such as acting on behalf of], a clause or phrase added to a sentence that while not essential to the sentence's structure, amplifies it's meaning.[like a definition, adjective or descriptive phrase] a person associated with or assissting another in some duty or service.
wonderful=great and high degree [Strong's Hebrew #'s 6382, 6381]
councelor =given,[John 3:16] advertise [John 14:13]
fellow / Psalms 45:7, Mathew 12:24
husband / Isaiah 62:5
good /John 10:14
one / John 8:18
He / John 1:27, 1:30, John 4:26
Steward / Luke 12:42
Worthy / Who was the first one counted worthy of resurrection? Revelations 5:12
Mighty / Isaiah 9:6
Him that is / Revelations 1:18 [ also = "I am" Revelations 22:13]
Everlasting Father / Hebrew Strongs #1 "Ab"
Let's look at Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the Government shall be upon His shoulder. And His name shall be called wonderful, councelor, the mighty god, the everlasting father, the prince of peace.
Notice that in this verse it says His Name shall be called these things and not "He" shall be called. "Iysh" by itself [if only a part of the name] encompasses most of these descriptive phrases in it's definition!
In Hebrew "I" and "Y" are interchangeable and are considered the same letter. Each one can represent the other, or, one of them alone can represent both of them used in combination in either order. "IY" or "YI". So, "Iysh" and "Yish" are the same prefix. "Iyshiy" above is also correctly "Yishiy". However; the definition given for "Yishiy" does not reflect this and is deceiving. {Wonder why?} Both would hold the same definitions. It appears that the definitions have been "divided" between them. The "Y" appears first when used to begin a word with the "I" following. The "I" appears first when the combination appears somewhere within a word. "Iysh" also means "He" or "He will" [see above]
"Yish" = "He will" [compare Hebrew Strongs #'s 3431, 3435, 3438, 3449, 3458....etc]
Now, Let's look at Mathew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name Yishuw'ah, for He shall save his people from their sins.
Websters Dictionary / "Shall" = "will"
We now have "He will" from "Yish"and "Iysh". But what about "save"?
Strong's Hebrew # 3444 "Y'shuw'ah" means "something saved". As a contraction it is feminine in form, but when "I" is added in place of the contraction mark the word is now masculine. "Yishuw'ah" means literally "He will save"!!!!!
So, let's look at "huw" Strongs Hebrew #1931 = "the same" [John 1:2]
"Ah" represents/symbolizes/ and is conceptually understood to symbolize Spirit or Breath in Hebrew.
Mathew 28:19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [spirit].
Notice that this verse says Name and NOT Names !
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.
Name. NOT Names. One name representing all three.
But how could this be if the Father and Son have 2 different Names?
Father /Hebrew Strongs #'s 1 and 2 "Ab"
Son / ="Yishuw'ah"
Holy Spirit/Ghost ="Ah"
Abiyshuw'ah Father
Abiyshuw'ah Son
Abiyshuw'ah Holy Spirit
ONE Name that represents all three. Notice that this Name contains the tetragramitin! The "Ah" representative of the breath is part of and contained within both Names and is not a word or a name alone by itself. The Holy Spirit/breath is part of and contained within both the Father and the Son and is not a separate entity in and of itself. Each of the other two can exist separately, or, together as ONE WORD. [I have noticed that our Father likes "puns"] The Father and Son can physically exist separatly as two bodies or combine together as one celestial spirit body. Just like water, [John 7:38] Each still retaining their own separate consciousnesses. We also will be "one" with the Father, but will retain our own individuality/consciousness.
The Son is the Father's 'name sake'. This is why both names were tampered with. They are the same name! That, the miricles, and the fulfillment of prophesy concerning his coming is how the priests knew who He was. The Name had already been concealed from the Israelites and was recognized only by the priests.
One more note on the definition of this name.
Abiys =Fathers of
Huw = the same [#1931 Hebrew Strongs, "Huw" can also transliterate "hiyw" but additionally means "He" under that version of the spelling.This would make the Spelling "Yishiyw'ah and would also be in complete agreement with Hosea 2:16-and the pronunciation stays the same as 'huw'.]
Ah = representative of spirit or breath
Fathers of the same breath. {Compare to John 20:22, and John 5:21}
also:
"Father Yishuw'ah" or "Father of Yishuw'ah" or "Father of His breath" depending on how you divide the letter groupings.
I Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The letter "U" appearing in the center of the Name comes up "divide" in Aramaic on an electronic search/ Hebrew Strong's #6537. Also I would mention again the division of "Iysh" and "Yish" definitions. As was illustrated above, the name can be divided into different letter groupings each possessing it's own definition to read as different sentences-all in agreement and clearly recognizeable by other verses describing Him in the Bible.
The most widely accepted transliterated spelling for this name is "Yeshuw'ah". However; this is accepted only because "E" can be used in place of "I" in entomology. It is neither acceptable for the correct pronunciation of the Name in it's origional Hebrew nor for the written conversion back into Hebrew. The pronunciation as well as the conversion under this spelling are wrong, and according to Yishuw'ah-it does matter.
GUEST BOOK NOTE: You have the option of viewing and signing my Bravenet guest book which a has a questionaire or viewing and signing my Dreambook guest book or both.
