"Sillä me emme ole maailmaan mitään tuoneet, emme myös voi täältä mitään viedä; mutta kun meillä on elatus ja vaatteet, niin tyytykäämme niihin. Mutta ne, jotka rikastua tahtovat, lankeavat kiusaukseen ja paulaan ja moniin mielettömiin ja vahingollisiin himoihin, jotka upottavat ihmiset turmioon ja kadotukseen. Sillä rahan himo on kaiken pahan juuri; sitä haluten monet ovat eksyneet pois uskosta ja lävistäneet itsensä monella tuskalla. Mutta sinä, Jumalan ihminen, pakene semmoista, ja tavoita vanhurskautta, jumalisuutta, uskoa, rakkautta, kärsivällisyyttä, hiljaisuutta." - 1. kirje Timoteukselle 6:7-11 - Raamattu 1933/1938
Sorry to say The Name is not Yahweh...there is no w in hebrew...and Nehemia Gordon has found that the name is YeHoVaH...with the vowels in YHVH not YHWH...just saying...no offence...thanks so much for sharing these wonderful finds...shalom shalom
There's no offense in offering your or other people's opinions in a civil fashion, even if they're mistaken. I think you're right on the one point, there's not much evidence that the ancient pronunciation was 'Yahweh'. I've looked in2 Gordon's claims and he comes up short on convincing data. His sources are the Masoretic texts which come from Medieval Times, whereas there's evidence from actual Biblical times that makes clear the 6th letter of the Hebrew Alphabet was indeed Waw, equivalent to English W, just like its ancient Semitic counterparts. Mater Lectionis is the idea of using consonants as vowel-indicating letters. The older the Hebrew/Canaanite/Aramaic etc, the less you see letters like Y,H,W as Matres Lectiones. Why are these letters used 2 indicate vowels? Because Y is phonetically similar to long Ee sounds, H is a breathing sound, and W is phonetically akin to long Oo sounds. It's that simple, and super obvious. The phonetic pattern is obvious. Yet Gordon somehow thinks the ancients saw fit 2 break with that pattern of logic and inexplicably make a letter V denote long O and U sounds as with words like YOnathan, 'Or, 'Ulai, YOm, ShemU'el, all of which have that 6th Hebrew letter as indicated by the uppercase vowels? That doesn't make sense. It's why the 2nd Hebrew letter Beyt - which DOES become a V after long vowels - is never used as Mater Lectionis - there's nothing about it phonetically that resembles a vowels, unlike W. There's more to this issue than N Gordon explains, and he's not someone I'd consider a good source of information on the issue. His break with clear logic is - to someone who's somewhat knowledgeable about ancient Semitic languages - very evident.
Wasn't there already a peer review done by a number of major Israeli archaeologists and renowned epigrapher Christopher Rolston? They basically said there's nothing there, not one letter. So why is this back in the media again? One doesn't even listen to reputable scholarship and their circumspect in this matter. You know if this was bigger much bigger you might have a paperweight.😅
@@georgesparks7833 That sounds like an extremely disingenuous interpretation. Because there's no questioning of where it was found, or what the artifact is. And we know those artifacts always have something written on them as per their function. It would be one thing if they were trying to claim some of the acclaimed letters weren't there, or were trying to suggest it should actually read something else, but to suggest there's no writting, not a single human made writting character on it? You don't need to be a professional to know that take is bunk af.
@@BimfirestarterIf we are going to doubt the Masoretic vowel pronunciation as correct, then anything goes with the pronunciation of everything in the Tanak. Please look at the word גב (back), you will find that is also written as גו, and last I remember no one doubts the "b" sound of ב.
![Lord of Spirits - A Land of Giants [Ep. 7]](/img/1.gif)
Thanks be to yahweh for His blessings 🙌 🙏 ❤️
"Sillä me emme ole maailmaan mitään tuoneet, emme myös voi täältä mitään viedä; mutta kun meillä on elatus ja vaatteet, niin tyytykäämme niihin. Mutta ne, jotka rikastua tahtovat, lankeavat kiusaukseen ja paulaan ja moniin mielettömiin ja vahingollisiin himoihin, jotka upottavat ihmiset turmioon ja kadotukseen. Sillä rahan himo on kaiken pahan juuri; sitä haluten monet ovat eksyneet pois uskosta ja lävistäneet itsensä monella tuskalla. Mutta sinä, Jumalan ihminen, pakene semmoista, ja tavoita vanhurskautta, jumalisuutta, uskoa, rakkautta, kärsivällisyyttä, hiljaisuutta." - 1. kirje Timoteukselle 6:7-11 - Raamattu 1933/1938
5:54 WoT?! This is the 1st I'm hearing of Proto-Sinaitic showing up at ancient Avaris!
????
@@georgesparks7833 There is no Yehovah its mistake
Sorry to say The Name is not Yahweh...there is no w in hebrew...and Nehemia Gordon has found that the name is YeHoVaH...with the vowels in YHVH not YHWH...just saying...no offence...thanks so much for sharing these wonderful finds...shalom shalom
There's no offense in offering your or other people's opinions in a civil fashion, even if they're mistaken. I think you're right on the one point, there's not much evidence that the ancient pronunciation was 'Yahweh'.
I've looked in2 Gordon's claims and he comes up short on convincing data. His sources are the Masoretic texts which come from Medieval Times, whereas there's evidence from actual Biblical times that makes clear the 6th letter of the Hebrew Alphabet was indeed Waw, equivalent to English W, just like its ancient Semitic counterparts.
Mater Lectionis is the idea of using consonants as vowel-indicating letters. The older the Hebrew/Canaanite/Aramaic etc, the less you see letters like Y,H,W as Matres Lectiones.
Why are these letters used 2 indicate vowels?
Because Y is phonetically similar to long Ee sounds, H is a breathing sound, and W is phonetically akin to long Oo sounds. It's that simple, and super obvious. The phonetic pattern is obvious. Yet Gordon somehow thinks the ancients saw fit 2 break with that pattern of logic and inexplicably make a letter V denote long O and U sounds as with words like YOnathan, 'Or, 'Ulai, YOm, ShemU'el, all of which have that 6th Hebrew letter as indicated by the uppercase vowels?
That doesn't make sense. It's why the 2nd Hebrew letter Beyt - which DOES become a V after long vowels - is never used as Mater Lectionis - there's nothing about it phonetically that resembles a vowels, unlike W.
There's more to this issue than N Gordon explains, and he's not someone I'd consider a good source of information on the issue. His break with clear logic is - to someone who's somewhat knowledgeable about ancient Semitic languages - very evident.
Wasn't there already a peer review done by a number of major Israeli archaeologists and renowned epigrapher Christopher Rolston? They basically said there's nothing there, not one letter.
So why is this back in the media again? One doesn't even listen to reputable scholarship and their circumspect in this matter. You know if this was bigger much bigger you might have a paperweight.😅
@@georgesparks7833
That sounds like an extremely disingenuous interpretation.
Because there's no questioning of where it was found, or what the artifact is. And we know those artifacts always have something written on them as per their function.
It would be one thing if they were trying to claim some of the acclaimed letters weren't there, or were trying to suggest it should actually read something else, but to suggest there's no writting, not a single human made writting character on it?
You don't need to be a professional to know that take is bunk af.
@@BimfirestarterIf we are going to doubt the Masoretic vowel pronunciation as correct, then anything goes with the pronunciation of everything in the Tanak. Please look at the word גב (back), you will find that is also written as גו, and last I remember no one doubts the "b" sound of ב.
Wouldn't it be the way it sounded in Egyptian? Moses didn't speak Hebrew at the burning bush at Horeb.
0:23 Again with that harsh 'H' in Yahu! The scholar doesn't yet know it's just a normal H?? 🤦♂️