Jump to content

Talk:Yahweh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.249.252.238 (talk) at 13:42, 4 November 2014 (→Tetragrammaton YHWH = Yehowah based on English Gematria and GOD=7_4 algorithm/code: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points— including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

In Phoenician

According to Princeton.edu and the Online Phoenician Dictionary the word 𐤀𐤋 is related to El, not Yahweh. I will remove it from the lead section. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on replacement of Yahweh with YHWH

At Talk:Israelites#RFC: :Should "God" and "Yahweh" be replaced by "YHWH"? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Editor who created the problem topic banned. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh the volcano god

Let's just let this lie dormant

I didn't know you weren't supposed to sign in the articles. Sorry. I swear to god I shall not do it again. Why is it that the section cannot be entitled 'Yahweh as a volcano god' seeing as the only subject within the section is about Yahweh being a volcano god? It appears writing Yahweh and volcano in the same space is upsetting for some people. I started this section purely to cover the subject of Yahweh being a volcano god so why is it entitled 'Fringe'. That is blatant prejudice, sanitization and censorship. It is a section purely for volcano god ideas so it should have a title that fits. Also, why is it that the person who edited my contribution twisted the facts around so that the con was before the pro? Isn't it correct to start an argument with the pro and follow it with the con? If it is twisted around then that is because the person who made that edit doesn't believe in this idea and wants his idea to be first followed by my idea, which is contrary to normal procedure. Why has Professor Colin Humphries been edited out? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)) Ian.Thomson has accused me of putting my personal opinions into the article when I have done no such thing. I have added quotes and titles of books and a paper. Where was the personal opinion? Please don't shoot the messenger. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You are new here and don't understand how Wikipedia place works. Starting out by attacking other editors is unwise. Please delete the attacks on other editors from your remarks. I for one am not going to reply to the substance of what you are saying as long as those accusations are mixed in. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You added material that did not outright discuss the role of Yahweh as a volcano god. If a source doesn't say something, the source does not justify a statement. Assume good faith from other editors, or we'll have to assume that you're here with an axe to grind (which, given your name and singular focus...). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Ian.thomson from my talk page "If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yahweh, you may be blocked from editing. Also, quit signing in article space, it's just plain trashy. Your contributions will be noted in the article history. And finally, you've been reverted by multiple editors, please justify your differences on the article's talk page." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC) He's telling me to take the discussion to this page so here we I am discussing it. He's accused me of 'adding personal analysis' when I've done no such thing. I would be grateful if someone would quote me on that. I don't have an axe to grind but a point to make and I believe Wikipedia is not censored and therefore my point should have a place here given it is backed up by several sources. Neither of you have answered my questions regarding the unfit title of the section and the reversal of points from pro-con to con-pro. I would like to assume good faith but as these things are unfair it is very hard to do so. Shall I correct that title and put the points in order because right now the order is twisting the section to fit a prejudicial view and the title is blatant censorship? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I will say just one more time. You appear to be new and not to understand how things work. Instead of trying to learn, you are making accusations about things you do not understand. Again, please strike your comments, and please ask some questions about why people are objecting to your edits, so you can understand what the problems are. You are treating this as though it is personal, and that is not what is going on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strike what comments? What have I said that is untrue? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Things are most productive when we talk about content, not each other. Please strike the following from your remarks above.
  1. "It appears writing Yahweh and volcano in the same space is upsetting for some people. "
  2. "That is blatant prejudice, sanitization and censorship"
  3. and now we can add "Shall I correct that title and put the points in order because right now the order is twisting the section to fit a prejudicial view and the title is blatant censorship? "
Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think this is a little silly? I added a section for ideas on Yahweh being a volcano. Someone changes the title to 'Alternative Theories'. That is censorship as it eliminates 'Yahweh - volcano god'. I do not have to apologise for pointing that out. It's a fact. It was censored. I want the section on Yahweh being a volcano god to have the title 'Yahweh as a volcano god'. Why is that a problem? Why does this section deserve the title 'alternative'? Using that term is derogatory. You might as well call it 'The Bin'. I might be new around here but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia articles should not show preferential treatment or, conversely, discriminatory treatment dependent on the popularity of ideas. Is that not correct? Is Wikipedia a popularity contest? The most popular views get placed at the top of articles and the least popular views get incorrectly titled and shoved at the bottom in a very abbreviated way? That is what has happened to my section. Hacked to bits, shoved at the back and labeled wrongly. That is unfair. I would like you to stop being so petty and be honest about this. The section deserves to be titled correctly and it deserves to have the pros before the cons. Does that sound fair to you? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - this is a fairly major article. Oh My Volcano, on the basis of your edits so far suggest you make no further edits to it. If you have WP:RS which say something which you want in the article then present them, with full text and ISBN, and other editors will decide whether it is a beneficial addition. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean is this is a heavily loaded article and this section could upset the apple cart. That is one of the reasons why things are censored...to avoid upset. Are you happy to have a section incorrectly titled and for the pros to go after the cons? Is that acceptable at Wikipedia? Where does it say in the rules that fringe theories should be incorrectly titled? Where does it condone the twisting of points to present a different impression despite doing so leaving the points in a back-to-front order? Me upsetting you all with my insistence should have absolutely nothing to do with what is written in the article. Likewise, what impact the section has on the public should not come into the equation. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Volcano, you persist in being argumentative but you don't know what you are doing or how this place works. It is not about "pettiness" on my part; it is about you showing cluefulness. I gave you a chance to reset and you didn't take it. I am not dealing with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)I might be new around here Jydog but I know a witch-hunt when I see one. I am persistent. Every new idea needs a persistent person to protect it and push in into the public consciousness otherwise they would be beaten up and buried alive before they were ever seen. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
You ask to have someone blocked because they believe a section has been incorrectly titled and the points moved back to front? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC))It's titled 'Alternative Theories' when there's only one theory in it....the volcano theory. Why can't it be a specific section? There are lots of people who have said Yahweh was a volcano god...[reply]

In the NIV Achaeological Study Bible, Mount Sinai is said to be a volcano.

On page 96 of The Urantia Book Yahweh is said to be just one of hundreds of nature gods but with a volcano as its deity.

In 'Moses and Monotheism' by Sigmund Freud, Yahweh is said to be a volcano god.

In 'Mount Sinai a Volcano' by Charles Beke, Mount Sinai is said to be a volcano.

In 'The Invention of God' by Bill Lauritzen, the role of volcanoes is highlighted in the establishment of 'god'.

In 'Mythology's Last Gods', William R. Harwood describes Yahweh as a volcano god.

In 'The Christ Conspiracy', Acharya S describes Yahweh as a volcano god.

In 'The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara Walker, Yahweh is said to have been a volcano god.

In 'The Masks of God Volume 3 Occidental Mythology' by Joseph Campell, Yahweh is described as an Arabian volcano god.

In 'The Jews: Story of a People' by Howard Fast, Yahweh was described as a volcano.

In 'Mass Psychology', Sigmund Freud says Yahwey was a volcano god.

In 'Atheism in Christianity' by Ernst Block, Yahweh was said to be a volcano god.

In 'The Oxford Companion to the Bible' by M. Coogan and B. Metzger, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'Psychoanalysis and Religios Experience' by W. W. Meissner, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'All About Adam and Eve' by Robert Gillooly, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'The Genesis of Misconception' by Paul John, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'The Autobiography of God' by William Harwood, Yahweh is described as an extinct volcano god.

In 'Adieu to God' by Michael Power, Yahweh is described as originating from a volcano god.

In 'Freud and Moses' by Emanuel Rice, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'Moses the Egyptian' by Jan Assman, Yahweh is described as a volcanic demon.

In 'Eschatology in the old Testament' by Donald E. Gowan, Yahweh is described as a volcano or storm god.

In 'Water for a thirsty land' by H. Gunkel and K. C. Hanson, Yahweh is described as a volcanic deity.

In 'The Divine Invasion' by Philip Dick, Yahweh is described as probably a volcanic deity.

and many other too. Please give it its own section and please put the pros before the cons. That is only fair. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Here is the first of three pages of books which include statements or references of Yahweh being a volcano god...http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=yahweh+volcano+god&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ayahweh+volcano+god.

Here is another book I've just found which links geological phenomenon with religion, which is now called Geomythology...http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acts-God-Weighing-Biblical-Natural-ebook/dp/B00KBW7MQ2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=bible+volcano+god

This is a growing subject and deserves its own section without ridicule. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I think we're all aware of Freud's idea and that is relevant for a Freud article. Otherwise, permit me to blue-link those authors so we can click through to see if any articles on some of the less recognisable names there. Now, can you please give the page number and edition year in 'The Oxford Companion to the Bible, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page 235 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+the+Bible+yahweh+volcano&source=bl&ots=ofgQVn7_w6&sig=KJjHmHzqsaaDEzoMuO9rZ8AvzD0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mgz4U8uWCYvxaK6TgtAL&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Companion%20to%20the%20Bible%20yahweh%20volcano&f=false Page 252 is also interesting http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+the+Bible+volcano&source=bl&ots=ofgQVn71p7&sig=1uG3DOkf-9sLAAhJ30KVKPn-nZs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gA34U5O0N8jkaML0gogP&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Companion%20to%20the%20Bible%20volcano&f=false(Oh My Volcano (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Also page 173 (Oh My Volcano (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict)

Thanks, I already found it actually but good to confirm you're looking at the same article by William Meissner on Freud and the Bible saying Freud's ideas on Moses were "fantasy", and you are not able to distinguish between a scholar saying those ideas are "fantasy", and an actual modern Biblical scholar presenting ideas in favor of such ideas. At this point I see no alternative to requesting a block. Even if you'd agree to not actually edit related articles the above Talk is still time wasting for serious editors. There's enough disruption already to this and similar pages without this extra activity on the Watchlist. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms by Othmar Keel (ISBN: 9781575060149) page 218 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fy4B1iMg33YC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=book+yahweh+volcano&source=bl&ots=YicgUbMXCs&sig=327KZHI2XvZDpRfwZYB7TV7dYdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6xD4U57NAZXhaqiAgbgP&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=book%20yahweh%20volcano&f=false (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

  • The NIV study noting that Sinai might have been a volcano is not the same as them saying that Yahweh was a volcano god.
  • The Urantia Book is not an academic source.
  • Freud's area of expertise is sleeping with one's mother, not history.
  • Beke later recanted his ideas, even in the very source you cited! To continue to bring that up as if it's proof that your pet theory is WP:THETRUTH is either dishonest or incompetent.
  • Lauritzen fails WP:RS for being self published. Additionally, he makes the downright stupid claim that Java derives from Jehovah, nevermind the Javanese is an Austronesian language, not an Afro-Asiatic one.
  • Harwood is a polemicist, not a historian.
  • Acharya S is a conspiracy theorist whose career is based on (even other proponents of the Christ Myth theory think that Acharya S is hardly academic).
  • Walker's encyclopedia opens with a polemic about Goddess worship, and is more a work of Misandry than scholarship. It is WP:FRINGE and fails WP:RS for anything other than its own views.
  • Campbell is interesting for his ideas on storytelling, but not on ancient history. Still, he describes Yahweh in a variety of ways, mainly as a serpent slayer. Starting on page 125 of my copy, Campbell begins to describe Freud's view, rather than saying that Yahweh was definitely historically a volcano god. He notes "Freud's theory" (in totum) "has, of course, been attacked from every side, both with learning and without." He goes on to say that he is not going to defend the views of Freud, and merely notes the previous history to comment on other topics completely unrelated to volcanos.
  • Howard Fast is a TV writer, not a scholar.
  • Ernst Bloch's Atheism in Christianity is a politico-theological work, not a historical work.
  • The Oxford Companion to the Bible by Michael Coogan and Bruce M. Metzger does not say that Yahweh was a volcano god, it merely summarizes Freud's views in the article about his views. That is not an endoresment, that's merely describing his views for what they were.
  • Gillooly is another polemicist, and repeating Freud.
  • Paul John's work is self-published through Trafford Publishing, and fails WP:RS.
  • Harwood is also self-published, and pushes for the Ancient astronaut hypothesis.
  • Power's work is a polemic on psychology, not a history book, and appears to be deriving its single, half sentence, in passing claim regarding volcanos from Freud.
  • Rice's "Freud and Moses" is obviously just repeating Freud, and the least bit of investigation reveals that it's not even advocating his views, merely documenting them.
  • When I Assman's work, I couldn't find any mention of the world searched "volcano", but did find the exact phrase 'Neither is he a "volcanic demon," indicating that your quote is either dishonestly or incompetently taking things out of context. Looking at the only other time he the words volcanic demon appear, he is describing Freud's claims, though with the earlier quote it's quite clear that he is doing no more than describing.
  • Gowan's Eschatology in the Old Testament does not say that Yahweh was a volcano god, but rather notes that volcanic eruptions were considered a theophany, a temporary and almost illusionary form taken by a deity to amaze their worshippers (not the deity in itself). That is not the same as saying that Yahweh was a volcano god.
  • If Gunkel had advocated that idea, I'd definitely be finding something on it, and yet there isn't. Given the absolute failure of the rest of the citations so far, it's safer to assume that Gunkel merely described Freud's views, and (given that his stuff is published by Fortress Press) probably dismissed it.
  • I love Philip K Dick, which is why I can generally tell which of his writings were fiction, non-fiction, and hallucinatory non-fiction. The Divine Invasion is fiction. Furthermore, Dick doesn't claim that at all, it's a fictional character's unstudied claim.

@Oh My Volcano:, you need to drop the singular and fanatical focus. Learn what qualifies as a reliable source, and stick to summarizing and paraphrasing them with no addition or interpretation, and do it because you found something interesting, not because you want to preach about your downright religious belief that Yahweh had to absolutely be a volcano god. That you just look for a book that has both the words "volcano" and "Yahweh" in there and assume it proves you right is so incompetent it borders on superstitious. Last warning before I take it to the admins, knock it off. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of the Earth by Vitaliano 1973.....Geomythology....linking geological phenomenon with mythology http://books.google.es/books/about/Legends_of_the_Earth.html?id=FwjgAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

If NIV is correct and Mount Sinai was a volcano, how can Yahweh be anything other than a volcano god? What other type of god lives on a volcano other than a volcano god? If Yahweh was a real god who happened to live on a volcano, does that means Pele was also a real god but who just happened to live on a volcano? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) You cannot, in all sensible honesty, seperate the two. If Mount Sinai was a volcano then Yahweh was a volcano god. There is not other sensible conclusion. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

  • Block [on next article space edit] - this User isn't listening and seems incapable of (a) distinguishing WP:RS, (b) when they find a WP:RS reading what WP:RS academic sources actually say. Enough time wasted already. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
actually Volcano has stopped editing the article; posting walls of text on Talk is not blockable (I think). WP:SHUN is perhaps more appropriate... Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if the Talk page keeps beeping on the Watchlist that is not much better. I think at this point you're right that WP:SHUN / Wikipedia:Deny recognition is worth trying. The link to Othmar Keel might justify a single mention of volcanic imagery in the Psalms, but the copyedit would need to be done by an editor who can keep things in perspective. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible ed. James D. G. Dunn p379, would be a better source than Keel for Psalm 18:7-8,15 resembling Exodus 19:16-18. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have no problem with including a section on Yahwist theophanies with a bit focused on volcanoes (IIRC, J theophanies also include the Burning bush, and God going around in some unspecified anthropomorphic form, such as when He - seemingly drunk - barged in on Moses and beat him up until someone tossed a foreskin at Him) (The Yahwist parts are so damn fun to read), and wouldn't mind due weight toward the totality of Freud's views (Campbell is the best citation I have near immediate access to, Rice's "Freud and Moses" would probably be better). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson:, would you mind just taking a look at Talk:Moses_and_Monotheism#reception_and_significance. Is it the IP the same user? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I knew we had this problem years ago, and I looked it up. Is this the same guy as in Talk:Yahweh/Archive 5#Yahweh the Volcano God? He didn't make any article edits at that time. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. If he pops up again let's SPI him. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asherah as Yahweh's consort

I'm finding some bias here. There are portions of the article that discuss the wide range of opinions of various scholars, yet some portions of the article appear to be definitive in conclusion.

E.g. "and Asherah (who is thought by some scholars to have been his consort)" [2nd Paragraph], which is later followed by a conclusive "El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, with Asherah as his consort and Baal and other deities making up the pantheon". Is Asherah supposed to be the consort of El or Yahweh?

The original statement states 'some scholars' whereas the reference for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is only one source and one 'scholar' - Mark S. Smith(footnote reference). This appears to be biased or a generalization based one one source. Also, the article does not deal with the issue of the early historicity of Shema[1] (Deut. 6:4) and the singular reference to God in Job (1:6). Job is thought by some to be the earliest book written in the Biblical canon.

The article also doesn't deal with the criticism or scholarly debate regarding the historicity or veracity of the Asherah consort claims. It remains to be seen whether Asherah was actually the consort of Yahweh, or simply practised by those in deviancy from the Jewish norm.

"Yahweh and Baal at first co-existed and later competed within the popular religion." This appears to be in debate. And it is best to present both points of view in order to avoid bias.

Since the account of Job(1:6,2:1) clearly discusses a one God paradigm, this could suggest that the Asherah figures were late deviations from the original religion practised by the early Israelites. It's evident in Job's account that Yahweh is God rather than one of the gods(1:6,2:1). In this view, the one God hypothesis could well predate the scribes of Isaiah. Isaiah 43-44 discuss the difficulty of Yahweh co-existing with any other God, and the estimates for Isaiah's composition are 8th BCE [2]. Yet early in the Biblical account, Rachel safeguards idols or household gods (Genesis 31:19,34-35 cf. 35:1-4) and yet Jacob obeys Yahweh soon thereafter buries the idols. It appears that from the beginning Yahweh did not tolerate the worship of other competitors.

If Asherah is to be considered as Yahweh's consort, there must be historical evidence to support this pattern as normative rather than a syncretistical religion practised by sectors of Judaistic religion. Also, there appears to be an absence of multiple scholars who can confirm this was practised by early Judaists rather than a late(8th or 9th Century BCE - Gilmour, p.90) corruption of the religion.

Lastly, another scholar disputes the interpretation of the significant find "Kuntillet ‘Ajrud"[3] find as representative of Yahweh and Asherah. Rather, the reference could be to the Egyptian God 'Bes' or other deities.

References. Hadley, Judith M. (June 2000). The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. pp. 26–27.

Gilmour, Garth (July 2009). "An Iron Age II pictorial inscription from Jerusalem illustrating Yahweh and Asherah". Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 141 (2): 87–103.

Meshel, Ze'ev. "Kuntillet 'Ajrud: An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border". Retrieved 29 September 2014.

As this is my first talk, if there are formatting errors, please let me know. JohnRajendra (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud
Read WP:OR. You don't make the call, reputed scholars do.

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— prof. Herbert Niehr, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Omri#More prominent Omride theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tetragrammaton YHWH = Yehowah based on English Gematria and GOD=7_4 algorithm/code

The most popular spelling of the tetragrammaton - YHWH - is Yahweh by Jews and Jehovah by Jehovah Witness. Both of these are based on Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) but neither is correct. Based on the GOD=7_4 algorithm/code*, YHWH(4 letters) = Jehovah(7) satisfies the equation, but so does YHWH(4)=Yehowah(7). Jehovah=J10+E5+H8+O(15)+V22+A1+H8=54/69 which are NOT significant Biblical numbers. Yahweh as 6 letters doesn't fulfill the GOD=7_4 requirement, but Yahweh=70=Y25+A1+H8+W23+E5+H8 does reflect the important Biblical number 70! It was Moses, Aaron and his two sons, and the 70 elders of Israel - 74 altogether - who went atop Mt. Sinai - Exodus 24:9. 70 years (72) of Babylonian captivity. Jesus said, "70 x 7". It was 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed and the Jewish diaspora began. The Greek Septuagint means '70' and 70 (72) experts compiled it. But Yehowah=70/85=Y25+E5+H8+O(15)+W23+A1+H8. *http://GOD704.wikia.com - Albert Einstein 98.249.252.238 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yahweh&oldid=632416735"