What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Yeshua or Jesus?

jocor said:
Wow Reba, you really read a lot into my words. I never said we cannot call on the Lord unless we use his true name. Nor did I say we get heard better if we use his true name. Also, the KJ English is merely a translation. That is a far cry from the name the Almighty commanded His Son to be named.

Where do we draw the line against embracing truth? When the light of truth shines, are we supposed to turn away from it or embrace it? If one shines a candle in the dark, are we supposed to cover it with a bushel basket and remain in darkness? The answers are obvious to me. The real question is, "Is the name "Jesus" our Savior's true name"? If not, then what is it? Once you answer the latter question, then you have a choice to make; do I continue using a false name or do I use what I have found to be his true name? I can understand a person's desire to continue using "Jesus" because they are unsure of what his true name is, but I cannot understand a person's desire to continue in error when they know the truth.
Click to expand...
Sorta one of those if the shoe fits things... :)
 
Oh sorry. I intended never to post in this forum. It's sometimes hard to keep up with where you are reading.
 
Last edited:
when the bible was put together the ancient Hebrew wasn't the same as it is now nor even in the days of jesus.

Hebrew is the kin of Aramaic and its older forms it closer to aramiac. I have read up on the evolution of proto-Hebrew alpha bet in the picto graphic forms until the present.
 
jasonc said:
when the bible was put together the ancient Hebrew wasn't the same as it is now nor even in the days of jesus.

Hebrew is the kin of Aramaic and its older forms it closer to aramiac. I have read up on the evolution of proto-Hebrew alpha bet in the picto graphic forms until the present.
Click to expand...
I am currently home studying Hebrew Grammar Up for tutoring a total Noob?
 
jasonc said:
when the bible was put together the ancient Hebrew wasn't the same as it is now nor even in the days of jesus.

Hebrew is the kin of Aramaic and its older forms it closer to aramiac. I have read up on the evolution of proto-Hebrew alpha bet in the picto graphic forms until the present.
Click to expand...

You are missing the entire point I am making. It is abundantly obvious that attempts were made to transliterate names from Hebrew to Greek and/or English and from Greek to English. That is how names are dealt with. That is how the Messiah's Hebrew name was dealt with. However, the attempted transliteration fell short in Greek since they lacked the "sh" sound in their alphabet. The Latin then built upon that faulty transliteration (Iesous)) to get "Iesus". That carried over into the 1611 KJV as "Iesus" until the letter "J" was invented. Then it became "Jesus".

If a new letter is invented next year and added to our alphabet and it changed the first letter of "Jesus" to, for example, "Mesus", would you start calling "Jesus" "Mesus"? Probably not, but that is what happened in Christianity when the letter "J" was invented. Once "Jesus" came out in printed Bibles, everyone began using "Jeezus" instead of "Yayzoos". Error on top of error. Utter nonsense (no pun intended). If you all are content with that, so be it. I am not and will endeavor to restore the correct pronunciation of our Savior's name.
 
jocor said:
You are missing the entire point I am making. It is abundantly obvious that attempts were made to transliterate names from Hebrew to Greek and/or English and from Greek to English. That is how names are dealt with. That is how the Messiah's Hebrew name was dealt with. However, the attempted transliteration fell short in Greek since they lacked the "sh" sound in their alphabet. The Latin then built upon that faulty transliteration (Iesous)) to get "Iesus". That carried over into the 1611 KJV as "Iesus" until the letter "J" was invented. Then it became "Jesus".

If a new letter is invented next year and added to our alphabet and it changed the first letter of "Jesus" to, for example, "Mesus", would you start calling "Jesus" "Mesus"? Probably not, but that is what happened in Christianity when the letter "J" was invented. Once "Jesus" came out in printed Bibles, everyone began using "Jeezus" instead of "Yayzoos". Error on top of error. Utter nonsense (no pun intended). If you all are content with that, so be it. I am not and will endeavor to restore the correct pronunciation of our Savior's name.
Click to expand...
English has had the j sound as it is now long before KJV. it hasn't used the Germanic sounds in ages. ie the u and v and such like. you also forget that the Spanish still say jesus as Hsounding J. the portuguse is the J sound we use.

sounds don't matter but spell it write? ok that makes no sense.
 
Tyndale, not the KJV 1611 which isn't even used today(1768 edition is what we use), is the first English bible.
 
Mat 26:73 - And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

Mar 14:70 - And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.​

We also have the complication of regional dialects affecting pronunciation such that Peter was exposed as Galilean rather than Judean because of his accent. The truth is that even if we want to insist on a particular language with a particular spelling, there would still have been more than one way to pronounce His name even in His time.
 
Sinthesis said:
Mat 26:73

And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
Mar 14:70

And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

We also have the complication of regional dialects affecting pronunciation such that Peter was exposed as Galilean rather than Judean because of his accent. The truth is that even if we want to insist on a particular language with a particular spelling, there would still have been more than one way to pronounce His name even in His time.
Click to expand...
yes, modern Hebrew has the three large dialiects. Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Yemeni.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top