Yahweh Is the Holy One of Israel

Addressing Heresies / By Eli James

Or

Apologia in Defense of the Sacred Names: Yahweh and Yahshua

Or

Yahweh Versus Chutzpah

By Pastor Eli James

(eurofolkradio.com, anglo-saxonisrael.com)

2 Peter 1:19 – “Let everyone that nameth the name of God depart from iniquity.”

Exodus 9:16 – And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Hebrews 2:12 – Saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the assembly will I sing praise unto thee.

Psalms 34:3 – O magnify Yahweh with me, and let us exalt his name together.

Psalms 86:9 – All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Yahweh; and shall glorify thy name.

Psalms 86:12 – I will praise thee, O Yahweh my Elohim, with all my heart: and I will glorify thy name for evermore.

Introduction: Topsy-Turvyism

What is happening to Christianity in these End Times is very interesting. Justified mistrust of the so-called “Judeo-Christian tradition” is leading former denominational Christians into a rejection of denominationalism. In the teen years of this millennium, membership in denominational churches has dropped up to 40% This is a good thing; but it leads to extremes. For example, here is how CM Hegg describes the situation:

In our modern times there is a growing movement of believers coming out of the Church and into a new understanding of biblical truth. The rise of Christians turning to the Torah as a means for the believer’s sanctification seems to be growing rapidly. Those coming out of the Church are usually struck at some point with the realization that they should be keeping the Sabbath, or that the Torah as a whole is something God wants them to be doing. Those who awaken to this new found understanding often feel an overwhelming clarity in re-reading their Bibles, but many tend to fall into what I will call the “Christian Lies” syndrome. Many believers find their pastor’s lack of understanding when it comes to Torah keeping, not only disconcerting, but a blatant disregard for the truth of the Word. They feel lied to, and begin to have suspicions about many things “Christian.” This is almost a natural instinct, as so many things begin to change at once. Sunday gatherings are now on Saturday. Christmas and Easter are replaced with the appointed times of the Lord. Titles like “Christian” are replaced with “Hebrew Roots,” “Messianic,” and the list goes on.

Within this change many things become suspect. And with no lack of self-made internet scholars to guide the newly awakened believer down the path of ignorance, many missteps are made. Recently I saw some comments on a Facebook post that claimed several points. First, the term Christian was never used by first century believers, and second, the name Jesus was a pagan name. When I searched a bit further in this post, I found a common belief within the Hebrew Roots movement that goes something like this.

1) Yeshua is the name of the Messiah. The name “Jesus” is an invention of Satan, put in place through the Church in order to take us away from the true Messiah. The name “Jesus” is really a code for “Hail Zeus” and when used, is invoking a pagan deity. The English letter “J” didn’t come around until the 16th century. How could this have anything to do with the real name of Yeshua?!?

2) The Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) were written in Hebrew or Aramaic and therefore the term “Christian” is a translation of what would really be a semitic word translated into English as “Messianic.” The label “Christian” is Greek and would only be used by pagans. Therefore, the term “Christian” or even the title “Christ” is pagan in origin. {Source: Is the Name “Jesus” Pagan? – TorahResource }

This statement shows that some Christians swing too far away from the Word after they have realized that their Judeo-Churchian pastors have been lying to them about various historical and biblical truths. The fact is that Judeo-Christianity is dying on the vine; but the tendency is to overreact and discard too much. At the same time, there are those “teachers” who have crept into the fold pretending to be experts on this or that, like the Sacred Names. The Hebrew Roots people reject the name ‘Jesus’ for the reasons stated above; but there is also a movement to reject the name, Yahweh. This movement goes to the opposite extreme by suggesting that ‘Yahweh’ is an illegitimate name and should be ‘Jesus’ instead.

We are indeed living in strange times; but that is a direct result of the fact that we are living in the Age of Global Deceit, the Age of Laodicea, the lukewarm church. Confusion reigns and few people see the true source of the confusion. In my opinion, both extremes are wrong for historical and linguistic reasons.

Part of this latter deception is the claim that Jesus, not Yahweh, IS the Father; but this cannot be. Taking Yahshua’s own words into consideration:

Joh 5:36-43.  But I have greater witness than that of John [the Baptist- Eli]: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.  And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape…I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

 

This quotation proves conclusively that Yahshua and the Father cannot be the same person, otherwise He would have said “I come in my own Name.” Moreover, Yahshua also said “The Father is greater than I.” If Jesus is the Father, then who is it that is greater than He? The works that the Father sent Him to finish are not yet complete. It is important to know their true names and who they are in relation to each other. In the Garden of Gethsemane, He prayed to the Father, “Take this cup (burden) from Me.” (Matt. 26:39.) If He and the Father are the same Person, He would have removed the burden Himself.

 

In this critique, I will expose the various contradictions and false statements that impugn the Father, Yahweh.

Deception and Confusion in These End Times

2Th 2:3-4, 9-12:  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God… Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

Thus spake Paul in II Thessalonians 2.

This critique of the “Isawthelight” Sacred Names article concerns linguistic integrity versus linguistic treachery. The treachery will be thoroughly documented herein.

What is this lie, by which the antichrist deceiveth the whole world? (Rev. 12:9)

There is abroad in these Last Days the false idea, proposed by a small number of independent Bible critics, some of whom are undoubtedly agents of the Beast system, that Yahweh, the God (Elohim) of True Israel (not the Jews, who are impostors), is a false god. Variations of this premise maintain that Yahweh is not His Name, that He is actually a “demon” or a Canaanite god that Israel borrowed from the Canaanites, etc. The most extreme attack on His Holy Name is that Yahweh is actually Satan in disguise. The first time I heard this claim, I laughed out loud, and for good reason. The claim is based on multiple misunderstandings of both Scripture and biblical history, plus mistaken views, primarily of secular and Jewish origin, of the proper antiquity of paleo-Hebrew, proto-Canaanite and Phoenician.

Even without some of the outrageous claims cited above, the Bible has always been the battle ground of Christians versus Jews, secular versus Christian archeologists, secular versus Christian linguists, and, more recently, attacks upon Israel Identity theology by Jews, Judeo-Christians, non-Whites, and an ever-increasing motley assortment of self-proclaimed Bible “experts” who are crawling out of the woodwork in order to compound the confusion. Yahweh IS NOT the author of confusion. These self-proclaimed Laodicean “experts” are the ones creating confusion.

This apologia is an examination of one such anti-Yahweh movement. It is evident to me that these false accusations and smear tactics are primarily aimed at Identity theology, which has been responsible for the resurgence of the Sacred Names. Identity has been around since the 1920’s and earlier in the British Israel doctrine, which emerged in the 18^th and 19^th centuries from a comparison of European history and the biblically prophesied migrations of the Twelve Tribes into Europe. It is precisely because Identity is gaining more and more adherents that Judaism and Judeo-Christianity feel threatened by our historical, linguistic and migrational approach to Scripture. This, plus the fact that we have proven, beyond any shadow of doubt, that only the Anglo-Saxon, Caucasian people have fulfilled ANY of the hundreds of prophecies of the future exploits of the Israel people. This includes the prophecy that True Israel would forget their identity (Psa. 83:3; Isa. 49:2; Matthew 13:44) only to regain it in the latter days (Ezekiel 39:7, 22-28; Hos. 3:5), while the Jews pose as Israel until the Judgment Day (Matt 13: 24-30).

Being an ardent conspiratologist, I smell an agenda – a Jewish agenda, a Talmudic agenda, which is designed to muddy the waters via a 2100-year campaign of dissimulation by the Pharisaic descendants of Cain, Edom and Ashkenaz. But Yahshua (the name of Jesus Christ in the Hebrew) told us to beware: 

And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:5-6)

Unfortunately, these warnings about deception by wolves in sheep’s clothing are no longer preached from the pulpits of Judeo-Christianity because most of the pulpiteers are no longer Covenant Christians but the very apostates that Paul warned us about in II Thessalonians. Most, if not all, of these wolves in sheep’s clothing have been trained in the art of deception by the combination of Talmudic deceit and “Judeo-Christian” apostasy. This latter development is the result of 110 years of Jewish intrigue and infiltration of Christian churches and seminaries, beginning with the promulgation of the Scofield Reference Bible around the year 1910. Scofield was a charlatan, par excellence, who promoted various heresies, such as the Rapture doctrine, the “Jews are Israel” doctrine, dispensationalism, antinomianism, Zionism, etc.

Scofield abandoned his wife and children and never even attempted to support them, even after being handsomely paid by the Rothschilds, via Samuel Untermeyer, then the chief operative of the Rothschilds in America. In short, Untermeyer was Scofield’s handler, just as Edward Mandel House was Woodrow Wilson’s handler, as Bernard Baruch was FDR’s handler, Kissinger was Nixon’s handler, Soros is Biden’s handler, etc. The story of CI Scofield is easily available online. This bit of suppressed history is crucial to understanding how true Christianity gradually morphed into “Judeo-Christianity.”

Yahweh Versus Satan

These facts are important to know because those who teach that “Yahweh is not the God of Israel” are unaware of much of this skullduggery. Or, they are a part of this skullduggery. They seem to be unaware that Judaism is but Talmudic deception masquerading as Mosaism (or Yahwism). They falsely believe and/or teach that the Old Testament is a “Jewish book.” Given that this theological program of dissimulation must be firmly established before we proceed — because many people will be shocked and even angered by these revelations – let’s get a few Jewish admissions on the record, so that the reader will not summarily dismiss the facts of how Judaism is the primary source of deception in this world.

The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Chief Rabbi of the United States, said: `THE RETURN FROM BABYLON, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD MARKS THE END OF HEBREWISM, AND THE BEGINNING OF JUDAISM.‘”

From a work entitled History and Destiny of the Jews by Dr. Josef Kastein, Kastein says, “`Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees: the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view…Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and the thought of the Jew for all the future…It makes `separatism’ its chief characteristic.‘” – p. 69.

Rabbi Louis Finkelstein of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, sums it up this way in his The Pharisees, the Sociological Background of Their Faith: “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism…throughout these changes in name…the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered...” – p. 21

Bernard J. Bamberger, Jewish author of “The Story of Judaism:” The Judaism of the Rabbis is also called `Talmudic’ because the Talmud is the creation of this period and the chief source of our information about it. We shall deal with this epoch in considerable fullness, and this for several reasons. First, Talmudic Judaism possesses in itself great interest and merit, which have too often been obscured by ignorance and misrepresentation. Second, traditional Judaism, especially on the side of observance, remains to this day very much as the Rabbis of the Talmud left it. Third, the Talmud has been the chief authority in Jewish life. True, the Bible was theoretically the ultimate authority, but the Bible was understood as the Talmud interpreted it. On the other hand, later codes were accepted only insofar as their decisions were in accord with the Talmud. – pp. 107, 108. [Emphasis provided.]

Jacob Neusner, a Jew, published an essay in the March, 1985 issue of Midstream entitled “Why the Talmud of Babylon Won.” In describing the Mishnah, which was pre-Talmudic tradition, he states:

“So a book was holy because in style, in authorship, or in (alleged) origin, it continued Scripture, finding a place therefore (at least in the author’s mind) within the canon, or because it provided an exposition on Scripture’s meaning.”

“But the Mishnah made no such claim. It entirely ignored the style of biblical Hebrew, speaking in quite a different kind of Hebrew altogether. It is silent on its authorship through 62 of the 63 tractates (the claims of Abot, a generation later than the rest, pose a special problem). In any event, nowhere does the Mishnah contain the claim that God had inspired the authors of the document…Above all, the Mishnah contains scarcely a handful of exegeses of Scripture. Those, where they occur, ordinarily play a trivial and tangential role.”

“…But the Mishnah was (and is) law for Israel [sic]. It entered the government and the courts of the Jewish people, both in the motherland and also overseas, as the authoritative constitution of the courts of Judaism. The advent of the Mishnah therefore marked a turning in the life of the nation-religion…But as soon as one dealt with the Jewish government in charge of everyday life – went to court over the damages done to a crop by a neighbor’s ox, for instance – one came up against a law in addition to the law of Scripture, a document the principles of which governed and settled all matters. So the Mishnah rapidly came to confront the life of Israel. [Sic, Jews. There was never any such thing as a “Mishnah” for the Israelites of the Bible. – Eli] The people who knew the Mishnah, the rabbis or sages, came to dominate that life. And their claim, in accord with the Mishnah, to exercise authority and the right to impose heavenly sanction came to perplex. Here the crisis is fully exposed.”

“The Mishnah therefore made necessary the formation of the Talmuds, its exegetical companions.”

This statement by Neusner confirms the prediction by Paul that a certain entity would “in all deceivableness” assume the position of God by pretending to have authority over God and the Scriptures. (II Thess. 2 above.)

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1967, p. 59: “This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians – that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression…Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.”

And finally, according to “The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol VIII” (1942), p. 474:

The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature.”

From a couple of Christian commentators, summarizing all of the above:

David Chilton, in an article entitled “The Beast and the False Prophet (Revelation 13), “It is important to remember that Judaism is not Old Testament religion, but rather a rejection of the biblical faith altogether in favor of the Pharisaical, Talmudic heresy. Like many modern cults, it claims to be based on the Bible; but its actual authority comes from the traditions of men. Jesus was quite clear: Judaism denies Christ because it denies Moses…(see Matt. 5:17-20; 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47; 8:42-47). -June 1985 issue of the Foundation Commentator, p. 4.

Ernest L. Martin, in the October, 1984 issue of “The Foundation Commentator“, tells us about the Pharisees in relation to the Mosaic Law: “…Pharisaical beliefs were annulling many of the commandments of Moses…So many new and contradictory teachings had entered the mainstream of Judaic belief that even top Jewish scholars today are honest enough to admit that the Judaism of the Second Temple period had drifted far from observing the written commandments of the Old Testament. Their traditions had made void much of the Word of God. This fact is echoed clearly in the statements of Christ and the apostles.” – p. 3.

And from the Gospel of Luke: Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

(Luke 12:1)

Disclaimer

I make the statements in the above Introduction in order to warn people that any biblical commentator who is not aware of Judaism’s imposture as Israel can only be the victim of Jewish deceit. Hence, his or her comments must be understood as proceeding from great ignorance concerning the true identity of the Jewish people and their “expertise” about the Bible.

We will now begin to critique an article which has influenced a few people, even in Identity circles, concerning the true Name of God, Yahweh, and His son, Yahshua. Having thoroughly perused the article on the “ISawtheLight” website, it became immediately obvious that the author is NOT of the Israel Identity persuasion, although he pays it lip service. Furthermore, he takes rabbinical claims about the Bible seriously. This means that he is likely to be either a Jew or a Judeo-Christian who believes that the Old Testament is a Jewish book. I would not have held this against him, as there are many Christian theologians who do not understand that Judaism is Talmudism and, as such, as shown above, cannot be considered to represent the true teachings of the Old Testament. However, I have discovered that the author is, in fact, a crypto-Jew, and the evidence will be provided below.

Unless a given critic or commentator is aware of the true nature of Judaism and its pretense of being the religion of the Bible, their commentary and analysis are useless. It’s like an auto mechanic lecturing on nuclear physics, or vice versa. Unless you are an expert at both, only false and nonsensical statements can result. As I like to say, there are three things you need to understand: 1. Jesus was not a Jew. 2. The Bible is NOT a Jewish book. 3. The Jews are not Israelites. Unless one understands these three basic premises, only confusion and error can result.

So, with this basic understanding in mind, let us proceed to diagnose this strange idea that Yahweh is NOT the true Name of the creator – and the even more bizarre claim that Yahweh is actually Satan in disguise!!!

“I Saw the Light”

Which light? The light of Lucifer or the light of Yahweh? When I first heard about these claims, I asked, “Where did you get these ideas from?” This is the website that I was directed to:

https://www.isawthelightministries.com/sacrednames.html

We will now analyze the argument contained therein. The web page above is given so that the reader can access its complete form. Given that this critique is over 60 pages long, I will comment only on the most salient points, so as to keep this document as brief as possible. My comments will be contained in [brackets] and italics. For my longer discussions of the text, and to avoid confusion, longer sections will be preceded by the word ‘COMMENT’ in all caps. The quotations provided by myself as evidence against this anti-Yahweh thesis will be italicized but in a smaller type face, so that they stand out. Also, longer quotations adduced by myself within my comments will be enclosed in {braces}.

Interjection

The initial starting point of this critique was to begin here. However, while in the process of wading through the “Isawthelight” website, I was alerted by a colleague to these two very important facts.

#1: The creator of the website and author of the article is, in fact, a Jew. There is no indication of the author’s Jewishness within the article. Here is the link to a part of that website, dated 2021-02-16, which appears to have been since removed from that website. The author states:

Curses for Disobedience: Biblical Reasons For The Judgment Of The Jewish, African & Native American Peoples.

First: Please realize that I am part Jewish Race and Part Native American. I love Israel. I love the Jewish, African and Native American peoples. My very best friends which I consider as part of my real (spiritual) family are black people, Mexicans, Asians, etc. In no way shape or form is this article being written in the heart of hate or prejudice. But rather, the purpose of this article is to share what The Holy Spirit has revealed to me. This is the suppressed Truth. Whether you accept or deny, I ask that you pray before and after reading this article. Let us not be led by personal feelings, emotions, tradition or political correctness. But let’s truly examine the real history of what really happened and why, as God sees it.

So, here we see that the author admits to being at least half-Jewish. He therefore cannot be an Israelite. He also expresses “love” for non-Whites; but he omits any mention of his feelings for Whites. I can only take this as typical Jewish false piety. It must be understood that the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of Truth.” (John 14:17.) This means that if the author is lying, he obviously does not have the Holy Spirit. At the bottom of the page is this signature:

I Saw The Light Ministries Main Menu

Home / Light vs Darkness Ministry / Prophecy Ministry / More Truth Section / Commandments Section / More Pages!

Spanish / 한국어 Korean

Curses for Disobedience: Biblical Reasons For The Judgment Of The Jewish, African and Native American Peoples. Copyright 2018 I Saw The Light Ministries

You can look it up for yourself to see if you can find this page.

#2. The author gives his name as “Apostle Zimmerman.”

Here is a capture of that part of the page in which he claims to be an “Apostle.” I was not able to enlarge the capture, so you may have to use a magnifying glass.

 

On the bottom line, with his name, is this statement: “Click here to learn why I am called an “Apostle.” This is followed by this astounding claim: “It has nothing to do with me exalting myself. It’s only the position that the Almighty has appointed for me. That was His choice, not mine.”

So! We must assume that the “Holy Spirit” has exalted him. Since he identifies himself as “Apostle Zimmerman,” I will often use the abbreviation, AZ. We will see if the Almighty has appointed him or whether this is self-exaltation! Perhaps he is an apostle in the vein of the “Apostle” Judas.

Let us begin this critique of “Apostle Zimmerman” and his claims about the Sacred Names! We may have to borrow Sherlock Holmes’ magnifying glass, because we cannot gloss over any of his statements. Says Zimmerman:

What is the Name of The Almighty Creator?

Jehovah, Yahovah, Yah, Yehovah, Yahweh, YHWH, Yahshua, Yeshua or Jesus or What?

Step 1 Pray now!
Step 2 Open your bible now
Step 3 Read article with your bible
Step 4 Fast & pray more!

[This is good advice at any time! We may have to pray even harder to decipher his arguments! Let us take the author’s advice at this point. – Eli]

This article is important to everyone! Pentecostals, Protestants, King James Only advocates, Catholics, Hebrew Roots followers, sacred names believers, Torah followers, Jewish, Jehovah Witnesses & even Muslims. If you use any of the following words, this article will be very important to you: “Jesus, Hallelujah, Jehovah, Yehovah, Yah, Yahweh, Yeshua, Yahshua or YHWH”.

What is the name of the creator? Jehovah Witnesses say his name is Jehovah. Hebrew roots movement groups proclaim the Yah names. They claim that there was no letter J in Hebrew. Most English speaking people proclaim Jesus name.

[COMMENT: Right off the bat, the author poo-poohs the well-known fact that the letter J was not in existence in the Hebrew language; but this is one of most egregious errors that AZ makes. And I will provide much more documentation than Zimmerman does. It is true that most English speakers proclaim the Jesus name. But English speakers are about the only ones who do! This fact alone is an argument against his thesis, for if it is true that the Hebrew YHWH should be pronounced “Jesus,” why is it that only English has the hard J sound? In addition, those languages that have the letter J in their alphabets do not pronounce it like a J but as a Y. Only the French comes close with a zh sound, as in “du jure.” Did all of the other languages lose this sound – or did English adopt it?

For proof of what I have just stated, here is an analysis by Graham Howe:

{Which languages don’t have any letter for the sound of J, just like the Spanish speak H where they find J?

There is no language which has the letter J which does not have a sound for it. It’s simply that in many languages – indeed, in the vast majority of them – the letter J represents a different sound to that which it usually has in English.

• In German, Dutch, the Scandinavian languages and most of the Slavic languages, as well as Albanian; J is pronounced like the English letter Y. The sound of English J does not exist in native words in German, Dutch, and Scandinavian languages. Some of the Slavic languages do have a sound similar to English J, but it is spelt differently: in Polish, it’s spelt dź or dż (actually these two combinations of letters are pronounced slightly differently, but to the English-speaking ear they both sound similar to the English J sound: the English word “jam” (as in marmelade) has been borrowed by Polish, but is spelt dżem. In Croatian, it’s spelt dž – and “jam” is “džem”.
• In Turkish, Portuguese, Catalan and French, “j” represents a sound similar to the sound of “s” in “pleasure” or “measure. Turkish has a sound like English J, but it is spelt C: so the Turkish word “cami” = “mosque” – is pronounced similarly to the English word “jammy”. The other languages mentioned here do not have the sound of English J.
• Italian does not have the letter J at all; it does have a sound like English J, but it is spelt with a G followed by i or e: (English also has this convention in many words: the Italian word for “general” is “generale”; the word “junta” is spelt “giunta” in Italian.
• Welsh has the letter J, pronounced as in English, but it does not occur in any native Welsh words; this is a curious anomaly, since one of the most common Welsh names is “Jones”. Scottish and Irish Gaelic have no letter J.
• Many languages, such as Greek, Russian and most of the languages of Asia, India and the far east, do not have the letter J, simply because they use a different alphabet or script to other Western European languages. Source: Which languages don’t have any letter for the sound of J, just like the Spanish speak H where they find J? – Quora }

FURTHER COMMENT. Our divinely appointed apostle has a real problem as to how the letter J and the J sound have miraculously disappeared from all of these languages, including Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic. Polish does have a J sound, but it is spelled dz. Here is another argument against his proclamation:

{When Was The Letter “J” Invented? (And Was It Before Jesus?)

Writing & Speaking Tips / By Martin Lassen

Some of you may be aware that the letter J is one of the more recent additions to our alphabet. But when was it invented? And what was language like before it came into existence?

 

When Was The Letter “J” Invented?

The Letter J was invented for the Italian language by a man called “Gian Giorgio Trissino” in the year 1524. It was used in Roman Numerals, but back then, it was an alternative way of writing I, not its own letter. Before the letter J, Jesus’ name was pronounced “Yeh-Soos”.}

AZ actually tries to argue that the Letter J did exist in BC times, but he is the only person in the world, to my knowledge, who makes this claim. AZ is definitely out on a limb. We will find out later on whether the promoter of “ISawtheLight” is able to sustain this claim. I will present a thorough refutation of his main arguments later on.

For starters, if you type into your browser the question, “Did the letter J exist in biblical times,” here is the answer you get:

No.

AZ is the only person to make this claim, although it appears that he has hired other people to repeat his claims in order to make it appear as though he has support.

Back to our intrepid author. – Eli]

What is the real truth? – Are we damned if we use our modern native language instead of the ancient Hebrew language? – Is a person damned if they do not accept the Hebrew names? – Are the Yah names truly Hebrew? – What is the total truth about the “sacred names” issue? – Must we do away with the name “Jesus”? – Must we stop using the titles “God” & “Lord”? – What does Hallelujah & Jehovah mean? – What name did Moses write?

[COMMENT: There are radical Yahwists who say that those who do not use the Sacred Names, Yahweh and Yahshua, are lost and must be rebuked. These people are a fringe group, who insist that using the names ‘Jesus’ and ‘God’ is heresy. I am not one of them. I have personally borne the brunt of their radical scorn. I am a moderate on this issue, as I understand that when unfamiliar terminology is used before the uninitiated, confusion and even doubt results. It is always best to repeat that “Jesus = Yahshua” and vice versa. My basic position is this: Since we Anglo-Saxons, Caucasians, Celts and Brits are the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we should embrace our Adamic, Shemitic, Hebrew heritage and not regard it as “Jewish,” or, just as importantly, not disregard it as unchristian! Most Christians have zero knowledge of the etymological history of biblical terms, and this is a most unfortunate fact. I leave it up to the Christian Israelite’s own discretion as to how to proceed with such knowledge. Honey is sweeter than vinegar. Life is hard enough without having to be condemned by heavy-handed critics because you may not accept their terminology. On the other hand, the world is full of fatherly or motherly “advisors,” who, with reassuring words, tell big, fat lies. – Eli.] Back to AZ:

If you have been dealing with these issues, you owe it to The Almighty Creator & to yourself to read this entire page & to do much fasting & much prayer! This will be one of the most important decisions in your life!

[Indeed, it will! But such language makes me suspicious. The author is trying to convince you of his sincerity and acumen with such appeals. It is an EMOTIONAL appeal. Yahshua (Jesus) never made such appeals. He was always straightforward and to the point. We will see if the warnings and appeals made in this essay are warranted. Let’s just analyze his arguments without a lot of Sturm und Drang. – Eli]

To keep things simple & easy to understand, I highly recommend that you first read through the entire article slowly without clicking on any of the links. Then go back & read it again, clicking on the links that you are most interested in, which document & proves what has been presented in this article. Many of the underlined words are also links to provide documentation & proof what each statement. Everything is documented & proven. Only facts are presented.  [This remains to be seen! – Eli] If you want to get deeper into the study, you can go back & click on every link to see every bit of the evidence. I urge you to not discount & reject this article without first examining all of the evidence that I present in the entirety of the article. [To be sure, this will be done! – Eli] But to first understand what is being said, it’s best to first just read the article & then later go back & examine the source links.

What is Traditionally Taught:

Most people are taught that in the original Old Testament, the name of the creator appeared as “YHWH” or perhaps YHVH, and then people add vowels between each letter, in order to translate it into either Yahweh, Jehovah or some other variation of the Y names such as Yehovah, Yahshua, Yeshua, etc. All of these names & hundreds of variations are based upon the letters of YHWH or JHWH. And this is why many people believe that “Jesus” should be written as “Yeshua” or some other Y name variant.

[This statement is essentially correct, but the idea that there are “hundreds” of variations is an exaggeration. There are only a few. Ironically AZ is trying to provide one of those variations by claiming that the Hebrew YHWH should be spelled and pronounced as “Jesus”!!!!! – Eli]

The very first thing we need to understand is that when you go to school in Israel [“Apostle” Zimmerman is speaking of that rathole in the Middle East! The Abomination of Desolation and the Empire of Deceit! – Eli], they teach you that the language of the Jews is not the original Hebrew language. The style of writing letters is also not original Hebrew. As historical records show, and as they teach you in school in Israel, the style of writing & the alphabet is called “the Assyrian Script”.  [So, if an idea is taught in the Israeli State, it MUST be true! Right? Believe the rabbis! LOL! – Eli]

[https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4084582/jewish/What-Is-the-Authentic-Hebrew-Script.htm ] This is because when Israel was taken captive by Babylon, thousands of years ago, in the B.C. years, the original, true Hebrew language, called “Paleo-Hebrew” was banned by Babylon & so was the original, true name of the creator. The Israelites were forced to learn, speak & write the Assyrian language & Assyrian Script which both the Assyrian Empire & the Babylonian Empire used. 

[COMMENT: Here, I must insert a detailed criticism. Unfortunately for the “Apostle” Zimmerman, he makes several false/misleading statements.

1. Since the Jewish people ARE NOT the Israel of Yahweh, what is taught in the Abomination of Desolation is irrelevant. Also, the modern “block Hebrew” script is a rabbinical invention, which cannot be applied to paleo-Hebrew. Linguistic trickery is a favorite sport of the rabbis.

2. The Assyrian language was never spoken or written in Babylon. No Judahites were ever forced to speak that language. This assertion by AZ is one of the grossest errors he makes, because he gets this nonsense from a Hasidic source, supposing that Hassidic Jews are the descendants of the Judahites!!! WOW!!!! DOUBLE WOW!

3. a.) Furthermore, AZ is relying on TALMUDIC pronouncements when he makes this claim. Such claims, as proven in the Introduction above, have no bearing on the Hebrew Bible, as Talmudism is the denial of biblical Mosaism. Rabbinism is the PRETENSE of biblicism. Therefore, it is wholly unproductive and fruitless to base any historical argument on the opinions of the rabbis, especially Chabad Lubavitchers, who are the worst of the lot. Consider the source! AZ is asserting as historical fact a very broad, erroneous and misleading rabbinical commentary. From the website that AZ cites here, we read:

b) It was taught: Rebbi said: “Torah was originally given to Israel in Ashurit script. When they sinned, it was changed to roetz (Ivri script). When they repented, Ashurit script was reintroduced . . .”

This is rabbinical nonsense. I will have more to say about Assyrian script later on. Hence, AZ is making a statement about Scripture which is nothing but rabbinical rubbish. I would have to think that AZ is of the assumption that what the rabbis teach is also what Moses taught? Yahshua told the Pharisees, “Had you believed Moses, you would believe Me.” Most Christians do not realize that rabbinism is the very “traditions of the elders” that both Yahshua and Paul condemned in the New Testament.

Here is another rabbinical statement which suggests that what the “good Rebbe” said is not to be taken literally:

In the Cambridge History of Judaism, “The term Assyrian refers to the Aramaic script and may be reminiscent of the fact that it was during the period of Assyrian domination that Aramaic script and language received official status; the use of ‘Assyria Grammata’ by Greek writers has a similar origin.

So, we can see that AZ has made a MAJOR MISTAKE about the language of the Hebrews and of the Bible being written in ASSYRIAN script!!!!! No biblical commentator should ever take a rabbinical pronouncement at face value. Furthermore, the correct historical situation, as the Cambridge statement implies, is that the Assyrians adopted Aramaic, not vice versa. So, AZ has the situation backwards!

4. The Judahites in Babylon were, out of necessity, forced to adopt Aramaic, but they were not forced to give up Hebrew. They simply picked up Aramaic as a second language because they had to have social intercourse with the Babylonians. After 70 years of captivity, the common people of Judah forgot Hebrew, but the Judahite leadership, such as Ezra and Nehemiah, were still fluent in Hebrew.

Here is another account:

The Jews {sic, Judahites, Eli} sent into exile, remained as a single group, which helped them preserve their cultural identity by living in their community in Babylon, until being finally allowed to return home in 538/539 BC, at the time, when the Persians overthrew the Chaldeans…The exile period had a profound and long-lasting influence on the Jews’ {sic} development outside their homeland. Ancient sources confirm that some of the Jewish {sic} population adopted the Chaldean religion by giving names to their offspring after Chaldean deities.

Generally, however, the community remained united in its common faith in Yahweh.

Source: Why Were The Jews Exiled To Babylon? – Ancient Pages

These facts totally destroy AZ’s above assertion that: “The Israelites were forced to learn, speak & write the Assyrian language & Assyrian Script which both the Assyrian Empire & the Babylonian Empire used.” Unfortunately, AZ’s arguments don’t get any better! – Eli]

Back to AZ’s text:

Daniel 1:4 “Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

[COMMENT: The fact that Daniel and other Israelites may have had to learn CHALDEAN is of little relevance, as it was very similar to Aramaic.

From the following Wikipedia article, it is evident that Chaldean is another form of Aramaic:’

{Unlike the East Semitic Akkadian-speaking Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians, whose ancestors had been established in Mesopotamia since at least the 30th century BC, the Chaldeans were not a native Mesopotamian people, but were late 10th or early 9th century BC West Semitic Levantine migrants to the southeastern corner of the region, who had played no part in the previous 3,000 years or so of Sumero-Akkadian and Assyro-Babylonian Mesopotamian civilization and history.

The ancient Chaldeans seem to have migrated into Mesopotamia sometime between c. 940–860 BC, a century or so after other new Semitic arrivals, the Arameans and the Suteans, appeared in Babylonia, c. 1100 BC. According to Ran Zadok, they first appear in written record in cylinder inscriptions of the King of Mari Aššur-ketta-lēšir II (late 12th-early 11th century BC), which record them reaching Mesopotamia as early as the 11th century BC. They later appear in the annals of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III during the 850s BC. This was a period of weakness in Babylonia, and its ineffectual native kings were unable to prevent new waves of semi-nomadic foreign peoples from invading and settling in the land.

Though belonging to the same West Semitic speaking ethnic group and migrating from the same Levantine regions as the earlier arriving Aramaeans, they are to be differentiated; the Assyrian king Sennacherib, for example, carefully distinguishes them in his inscriptions.

The Chaldeans were for a time able to keep their identity despite the dominant native Assyro-Babylonian (Sumero-Akkadian-derived) culture although, as was the case for the earlier Amorites, Kassites and Suteans before them, by the time Babylon fell in 539 BC, perhaps before, the Chaldeans ceased to exist as a specific race of people.}

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea#:~:text=Ancient%20Chaldeans%20originally%20spoke%20a%20West%20Semitic%20language,of%20his%20empire%20in%20the%20mid-8th%20century%20BC.}

So, AZ’s idea that either ancient or modern “Hebrew script” is of Assyrian origin is nothing but a Jewish fable!!! Yes, the Judahites – not Jews — who were subject to the Babylonian captivity must have had to learn Aramaic. It was the Aramaic language that was brought back to Jerusalem by these Judahites. But Ezra and Nehemiah still knew Hebrew fluently. This is confirmed by the Aramaic Targums, which are translations of the paleo-Hebrew script into Aramaic for the benefit of the restored Israelites of Judah, who no longer understood Hebrew.

The “Apostle” Zimmerman is taking Chabad Lubavitcher rabbis at their word. Would Jesus do this? As explained already the rabbis of Judaism are trained deceivers and pretenders to the heritage of the Torah and Israel. The fact is that the Babylonian Talmud was carried by the Sephardic rabbis of Babylon (Sepharvaim), who were not Judahites but religious tricksters, into neo-Assyria, where they subsequently set up their Talmudic yeshivas. This Wikipedia article explains:

{Following the Babylonian exile, the Jews {sic, Judahites – Eli} gradually stopped using the Paleo-Hebrew script, and instead adopted a “square” form of the Aramaic alphabet. A similar “square Aramaic script” is still used for contemporary western dialects of Aramaic (Western Neo-Aramaic.

This “square” variant of Aramaic developed from the Hebrew alphabet proper during the Second Temple period, in a process that was not complete before the 1st century CE; for example, the letter samekh developed its closed or circular form only in the middle Hasmonean period, around 100 BCE, and this variant becomes the standard form in early Herodian hands, in the 1st century CE.} [Herod was an Edomite, not a Judahite. Herod was responsible for empowering the Pharisees in Judea. He also tried to murder baby Jesus. – Eli]

{The Samaritan alphabet, on the other hand, remains a direct descendant of the Paleo-Hebrew script.} [This is a very interesting factoid, as it provides proof that the modern Samaritans, who were partially descended from the Ten Northern Tribes, rejected Judaism and the Talmud, as they still do today. – Eli]

{The Aramaic alphabet was later adapted [By the rabbis. – Eli] in order to write down the languages of the Jewish diaspora (Karaim, Judæo-Arabic, Ladino, Yiddish, etc.), and was retained all the while in relatively unadapted form throughout the diaspora for Hebrew, which remained the language of Jewish law [which is NOT the same as biblical or Mosaic Law – Eli], scriptures and scholarship. The Hebrew alphabet was also retained as the alphabet used for writing down the Hebrew language during its rebirth as an everyday modern language starting in the 18th to 19th century. Source: History of the Hebrew alphabet – Wikipedia}

“Apostle” Zimmerman has uncritically accepted a Lubavitcher opinion, which is only one opinion among many Jewish and Christian opinions. AZ is using a Talmudic source and considers it to be authoritative. This may impress Judeo-Christians, but it is a bad sign for Identians. It is also apparent that AZ believes that Jews wrote the Old Testament and accepts rabbinical statements about the Bible uncritically. The Jews did not write the Old Testament. It was written by Israelites and Judahites. It must also be understood that the Masoretic Text is a Talmudic, Jewish redaction of the original Hebrew. The KJV was translated from the Masoretic Text, which means that it is full of rabbinical, not Mosaic, language.

So far, AZ’s claim that everything in his essay is “proven fact” is not holding up very well. It gets worse. Back to AZ’s original article: – Eli]

Did you read the above scriptures in your personal paperback/hardback bible today or just only on this website? [What Scriptures? Is AZ referring to these rabbinical pronouncements as “scripture”? Daniel 1:4 does not support his contentions about either the Assyrian origin of Hebrew or the Judahites being forced to abandon Hebrew. Let’s continue: – Eli]

If only online, I encourage you to please open your bible and read these verses both on our website and in your bible. There is power in reading the real bible. Also, did you pray before beginning to read about this specific subject today? If not, I encourage you to take the time now to pray for understanding of truth.

It is also documented, well known fact that Daniel wrote Daniel 1:1 until Dan.2:4 in Paleo-Hebrew. [Thank you. – Eli] But when he got to 2:4, he started writing in Assyrian, Babylonian Aramaic.

[COMMENT: Not true! It is Aramaic only. AZ is still following purely rabbinical opinion. Here is how the Encyclopedia Britannica differentiates Aramaic, Hebrew and Assyrian:

{Aramaic is thought to have first appeared among the Aramaeans about the late 11th century BCE. By the 8th century BCE it had become accepted by the Assyrians as a second language. The mass deportations of people by the Assyrians and the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca by Babylonian merchants served to spread the language, so that in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE it gradually supplanted Akkadian as the lingua franca of the Middle East. It subsequently became the official language of the Achaemenian Persian dynasty (559–330 BCE), though after the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek displaced it as the official language throughout the former Persian empire…Aramaic dialects survived into Roman times, however, particularly in Palestine and Syria. Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews [sic. Judahites – Eli] as early as the 6th century BCE. Certain portions of the Bible—i.e., the books of Daniel and Ezra—are written in Aramaic, as are the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Among the Jews [sic, Judahites – Eli], Aramaic was used by the common people, while Hebrew remained the language of religion and government and of the upper class. Jesus and the Apostles are believed to have spoken Aramaic, and Aramaic-language translations (Targums) of the Old Testament circulated. Aramaic continued in wide use until about 650 CE, when it was supplanted by Arabic. [But not among the Israelites. – Eli] Source: Aramaic language | Description, History, & Facts | Britannica.

The original language of Assyria was Akkadian. The fact that Daniel wrote partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic is not problematic, because AZ’s false premise, namely, that Hebrew and Aramaic are dialects of Assyrian, is totally false. From the time of the Babylonian captivity, both Hebrew and Aramaic, two languages which are dialectically similar, were used interchangeably by the House of Judah, by those who were fluent in both. – Eli] Back to Zimmerman:

This change of language was required. The Israelites eventually translated the entire scriptures into the Assyrian language [This is Lubavitcher nonsense, as explained in the many commentaries cited above. The fact is that the first Assyrian language Bible wasn’t published until 1852. (WorldBible.org.) All previous editions were in the Aramaic language. – Eli] in a new corrupt bible called “the Targum” & almost completely lost their original language.

[COMMENT. If we slaughter this dead horse, will we get any beef? – or pork? This is a very bad characterization of what actually happened. The fact is that the Paleo-Hebrew Scriptures were available to the Judahites and to the Herodians all the way through to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Upon the return of the House of Judah to Jerusalem in the land of Judah, the Aramaic Targums were composed by the Judahite priesthood in order to explain – by reading the Torah aloud in both Hebrew and Aramaic in the Judahite, not Jewish, synagogues — the paleo-Hebrew Torah to the returned exiles. It is completely misleading to suggest that the Targums supplanted the original Hebrew scriptures. “Apostle” Zimmerman is confusing the Babylonian Talmudic (Jewish) story with the actual history of the House of Judah. Again, AZ does not demonstrate any knowledge of this most important fact that the “Jewish scriptures” are NOT the Bible. The Pharisaic rabbis later composed the Masoretic Text (MT), which was not completed until around 1000 AD. The MT, not the Aramaic Targums, is the distortion of the original paleo-Hebrew by the Pharisaic rabbis. – Eli]

To this very day, the Jews do not speak Hebrew, but rather Assyrian Aramaic, but with a Jewish dialect. All of this is the documented facts of history! [What the Jews speak today is utterly irrelevant to Scripture! The only thing AZ has documented is rabbinical opinions! – Eli] They only call it “Hebrew” because it had become the language of the Hebrew people when they were in Babylon. [It is true that modern Jews do not speak Hebrew, but it is nonsense to say that they speak “Assyrian Aramaic” today. The Jews speak Yiddish, which is a combination of German, Polish and other languages set to the modern Jewish version of “Hebrew,” which is based on the Aramaic script. But this is all irrelevant, since the Jews ARE NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN true Judah! AZ has the chronology, the dialects, the ethnicity and the connections all wrong, according to Jewish fables, no less! This is poor scholarship, at its worst! AZ’s analysis is overflowing with Jewish deceit and a lack of outside confirmation. As I have documented, every outside source of reference totally disagrees with his Judeo claims. – Eli] When you look at most websites that proclaim the Y names, what they are calling the “Hebrew” language is not the Hebrew language. [This is nonsense! It is not the Yahwists who confuse modern “Hebrew” with paleo-Hebrew. It is AZ who is confused!! AZ is very confused! We know the difference between Jewish “block Hebrew” and paleo-Hebrew. AZ’s version of this history is totally lacking in scholarship. It is childish and silly. – Eli] They are pointing you to the Babylonian Assyrian [More nonsense! About 25% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in paleo-Hebrew by the Essenes or their predecessors. The rest is written in an Aramaic script, which is similar to what the rabbis concocted later, with its Masoretic vowel points! The Judahite Essenes left Jerusalem because they were opposed to the distortions of the Hebrew scriptures by the Pharisaic rabbis. – Here is an image of that Aramaic script:

 

 

Source: The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Earliest Surviving Copies Of The Hebrew Bible | PaleoaHolic.com Back to AZ: –Eli]

The writing lacks the Masoretic vowel points, which were later added by the rabbis.]

[Continuing with AZ:]

This is documented fact & well known in Israel. [COMMENT: Here again, AZ is demonstrating his ignorance of the fact that the Jewish “Israelis” are NOT Israelites but Edomites and Khazars!!! Sephardic Jews were/are NOT Shemites, Hebrews or Israelites. They are Edomites descended from Esau, who violated Yahweh’s Law when he married two Canaanite women! (Gen. 26:34-35; 27:46; 28:1) It is a complete waste of time to accept the Jewish version of things, as AZ is doing in this article. Apparently, AZ is ignorant of the wealth of scholarship about the differences between the Jewish Masoretic Text and the original Hebrew text. Here is a good summary by Fr. Joseph Gleason:

{I used to believe the Masoretic Text was a perfect copy of the original Old Testament.  I used to believe that the Masoretic Text was how God divinely preserved the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the ages. I was wrong.

The oldest copies of the Masoretic Text only date back to the 10th century, nearly 1000 years after the time of Christ. And these texts differ from the originals in many specific ways. The Masoretic text is named after the Masoretes, who were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the middle-east between the 7th and 11th centuries. {Note carefully:} The texts they received, and the edits they provided, ensured that the modern Jewish texts would manifest a notable departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures. Source: Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew (preachersinstitute.com)}

Since AZ falsely identifies the MT as a faithful representation of the original Hebrew, he can only misinform his readers on a subject of great importance. There is a world of difference between rabbinic Judaism and the Bible. I cannot stress this idea strongly enough: The Masoretic Text is the child of the Babylonian Talmud. The Targums are faithful translations by Judahites of the original Hebrew into Aramaic. – Eli ]

When you look at Strong’s Concordance of the Old Testament, look at the top of the page if you have a hard copy. It says “Aramaic” dictionary, and if you have an older copy, it says “Chaldean dictionary”! Strong’s Concordance does not give you the original Hebrew words of the original bible! Instead, it gives you the Assyrian, Babylonian Aramaic words of the very corrupt Babylonian Targum bible that the Israelites were forced against their will to write while in captivity!

[COMMENT: This is, again, a very poor analysis of the situation. First of all, AZ is assuming that the Targums are “Babylonian” literature. They are not. They are Judahite literature. If you read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah carefully, you will notice that these two leaders expunged all Babylonian influence from the record and returned to the pure Torah, re-instituting the Feast Days, the Sabbath, laws against miscegenation, etc. Indeed, this is WHY the Targums were introduced, so that these Aramaic-speaking Israelites would understand the Torah!! Furthermore, the mere fact that the Hebrews borrowed some terms from the Chaldean does not make Hebrew a Chaldean language!! Finally, the claim that the Judahites were forced, “against their will,” to write in Aramaic is also false. AZ has no documentation of this claim! As stated above, the leadership of the House of Judah retained their knowledge of Hebrew. Also, the Medes and Persians, who overthrew the Babylonians, were very friendly to the House of Judah and facilitated Judah’s return to Judahland. This was part of Yahweh’s plan to restore Judah after the 70 years of captivity.

In the next section, AZ demonstrates his lack of philological research, as he uncritically accepts the secular, anti-biblical, academic version of Levantine linguistic history. From the rabbinical bacon-cooking frying pan into the academic campfire!!! The fact is that the chart he references below was compiled by largely atheistic academics who do not want the veracity of biblical history to overthrow their evolutionary theories!!!! – Eli]

Chart #1
Alphabet Family Tree (Chart does not include all languages throughout history.)

 

[COMMENT: This chart is horribly incorrect. It reflects, as mentioned above, the anti-biblical bias of the secular philologists, academics and historians. The positioning of Proto-Canaanite, Ugaritic and Phoenician are completely outdated and historically absurd. This chart is based on the false idea that Hebrew is a form of proto-Canaanite!

True Israel: Come, let us reason together.

Since Ham, Shem and Japheth were brothers, they all spoke the same language. How else could they have communicated? This language is correctly referred to as Proto-Hebrew, not Proto-Canaanite. The reasons for this are quite obvious from both biblical and archeological history! The Flood occurred around 2345 BC. The three brothers and their families eventually parted ways after the Ark landed in southeastern Turkey.

The biblical records tell us that Japheth went north, Shem stayed in Mesopotamia and Ham went to Egypt (Mizraim). During this time, the descendants of these three brothers were able to communicate with one another. The Hamites spoke a language that used to be categorized as “Hamito-Semitic,” but that designation has been changed by these devious academics to “Afro-Semitic.” There is a hidden agenda here. The vast majority of secular academics are evolutionists. They cannot allow the Bible to refute their belief system. Hence, they will fight like the devil to prevent people from believing that the biblical record is true!

Moses and Joseph had no problems communicating with the Egyptians. This is because their languages had to be either identical or very similar in order to communicate as easily as they did! I hope this makes sense to all of the skeptics who follow the anti-biblical “scholars” of secular academia. Since Canaan was a son of Ham, Canaan spoke proto-Hebrew, not proto-Canaanite. Canaan begat the various Canaanite tribes, who became the worst enemies of the Israelites. Nevertheless, the Canaanites and the Israelites were able to communicate very easily. Why? Because they both spoke Hebrew, not Proto-Canaanite. The above chart is nothing but a perfect example of how secular linguists and historians try to negate the Bible with their false, theoretical nonsense.

When Abram arrived in Canaanland, he did not speak proto-Canaanite. He spoke Chaldean Hebrew. The reason he was able to converse with Canaanites and Egyptians is because they all spoke Hebrew.

The above table used by AZ is anti-historical nonsense. It was invented by academics, who do not deserve to be called “linguists.” They have made up linguistic lies because they hate the Bible and because it contradicts their precious fable of evolution. Hence, they go to elaborate lengths to diss the Bible by inventing their own fictitious timelines, fabulous “linguistic trees,” and anti-biblical “history.”

The Bible very clearly tells us that, after the Israelites conquered the territory of the Canaanites, several tribes, such as Dan and Asher took over the area and the city of Tyre. Under David and Solomon, Hiram, king of Tyre was an ally of both Israelite kings. However, after the split between Jeroboam and Rehoboam, the ten northern tribes became idolatrous pagans and adopted the religion of the Canaanites. This split occurred circa 900 BC. It was not until AFTER this event that any talk of Phoenicians and their language is possible, because Phoenicia was an offshoot of Tyre; and the ships of Tyre (Phoenicia) were manned by these paganized Israelites.

Hebrew preceded Phoenician, not vice-versa. AZ has been flummoxed by both Talmudic Jews and god-hating evolutionists!

This is the type of “proof” he is offering?

Douglas Petrovich, biblical linguist and archeologist, has this to say about this topic:

{In Part 1 of the series it was shown that most academic outlets have long portrayed Phoenician as the world’s first alphabet, which developed after the time of the Exodus and became the basis of all modern alphabets. This thinking has been propagated despite the fact that there has been clear evidence that the oldest examples of the alphabet don’t come from Phoenicia and predate the existence of Phoenician culture. Leaders in the field would be careful not to ascribe the name of “Phoenician” to the first alphabet, but that message has not been getting out to the myriad of classroom and media outlets that continue to teach that.

This issue is critical for understanding the roots of the Bible, since the sophistication of the biblical narrative required an alphabet to be in place for it to be written. If the alphabet was first developed by Phoenicians in 1050 BC (or even around 1200 BC) that would mean Moses could not have been the author of writings that ended up becoming the first books of the Bible as tradition and the Bible itself claim. However, if the alphabet developed centuries earlier, in the very area where the Israelites are said to have been active in the years before and during the Exodus, then this would fit nicely with the claims of the Bible.

Many experts in the area of ancient languages have recognized that the earliest alphabetic scripts developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs and were in a Semitic language (the broad cultural group that the Israelites were a part of), but few have entertained the idea that this language may have been the more specific category of “Hebrew,” the language of the Israelites.} Source: New Discoveries Indicate Hebrew was World’s Oldest Alphabet – Part 2 – Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy

 

AZ is wrong again!

CONTINUING COMMENT:

Linguistic Evidence from the New World:

David Allen Deal, in his book, Discovery of Ancient America, on p. 11 has this to say about Dr. Robert Pfeiffer’s translation of the paleo-Hebrew inscriptions on the Ten Commandments Stone, near Albuquerque, New Mexico:

“Though most of Dr. Pfeiffer’s translation is correct, his definition of the language as Phoenician, implying that the authors of the inscription were Phoenician, is certainly a misconception. Unfortunately, Dr. Pfeiffer is not alive to answer any of the obvious questions which arise. Why would the Phoenician people have any inclination to write the Ten Commandments? Would this not more logically be an act of an Israelite, especially a Judahite or Jew [sic – Eli] who of the various tribes of Israel tenaciously continued in the laws of Moses long after the other tribes had abandoned the faith? Indeed, the very thought, meaning and essence of Inscription Rock points to a worshipper of Yahweh.”

This is indeed correct, however, most Judeo-Christians have no idea that the Phoenicians were actually the same paganized Israelites Mr. Deal identifies. Even in their paganism, they would still have remembered the name of their exclusive God, Yahweh. The fact is that the Phoenicians cannot be Canaanites, because the Canaanites were neither shipbuilders nor seafarers, like virtually all twelve tribes of Israel were. As Mr. Deal explains, no Canaanite would ever inscribe a monument to Yahweh and the Ten Commandments, because these things were hated by the Canaanites, precisely because they were exclusively a part of Israelite culture.

Note also that today’s Jews are descendants of those Canaanites; and they still hate Yahweh. That is why they have gone to such great lengths to erase His name!

Such paleo-Hebrew inscriptions are found all over North America, as David and Solomon sent Israelite ships out to mine tin, copper and other metals and crystals. In variations of the paleo-Hebrew script, the name of Yahweh is literally found all over the area today known as America.

Here is the CORRECT TREE OF LANGUAGES, AS GIVEN TO US BY THE BIBLE:

Proto-Hebrew (probably spoken by Adam and Eve in the Garden and on down to Noah and his three sons and their wives.)

Next come Japhetic, Shemitic and Hamitic.

Japhetic gave rise to Greek, as Javan, the fourth son of Japheth settled in that territory called Ionia (an ephitet of Javan, originally pronounced Yahvahn – here, the J is also pronounced like Y, not a J, even today). This territory became known as Greece.

Heber, a descendant of Shem, also spoke proto-Hebrew. The Hebrew language is named after Eber. But the Hebrews obviously created their own dialect, which was the language of both spoken and written Hebrew in OT times.

As stated earlier, the Hamites, except for those Hamites that were present with Nimrod at the tower of Babel, retained their dialect of proto-Hebrew, because all of these dialects are either the direct descendants or cognates of Proto-Hebrew. These three groups easily communicated with one another. The written forms of these languages varied widely, but there is no doubt that the spoken languages were very similar even into the days of the Israelite invasion of Canaan, as the Amarna Letters prove.

Genesis 10 tells us:

“Unto Shem also, the father {Great-grandfather, actually. – Eli} of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.  The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.” – Vs. 21-22.

Note that Aram and Asshur were direct sons of Shem. Now, what language would these brothers have spoken? Greek, Latin, English, Yiddish, Assyrian? How about proto-Hebrew or Aramaic?

“And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.  And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.  And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.“  – Gen. 10:23-25.

Arphaxad, brother of Aram, is Eber’s grandfather. Asshur is also a brother of Aram. A portion of Asshur, in due time, became known as Assyria. It is obvious that these people were able to communicate with each other down to the times of the break-up of the Tribes of Israel. Their scripts may have been different, but their speech was similar. Since they are literal brothers and cousins, they all spoke the same language and subsequently developed their own dialects of proto-Hebrew.

At this point, since AZ’s theology and understanding of the Bible is so obviously colored by pagan, Jewish and atheistic/agnostic opinions, I think it should be obvious that his thesis is brutally defective. At this point, the reader should understand why I think AZ lacks discernment. Further on, “Apostle” Zimmerman presents the argument that, because satanists use the name of Yahweh in their chants, then Yahweh must be their god. This false idea has given rise to the completely spurious idea that Yahweh must be Satan, or a demon, because these satanists SUPPOSEDLY invoke the name of Yahweh in their rituals. But pagans have always used the names of various deities in their chants, so this proves nothing. Furthermore, “Apostle” Zimmerman never discusses who it was that took the name of YHWH out of the biblical translations. It was the rabbis (the Masoretes) themselves, precisely because they do not want Christians to use the Sacred Names. – Eli]

Continuing with AZ:

Notice chart #1 of the alphabet family tree. Notice how “Hebrew” & “Syriac” are brother languages, sons of Aramaic (Assyrian). Yet “Old Hebrew” or Paleo-Hebrew is not. They both descended from Phoenician language; [Patently false!!! As proven above, Phoenician descended from paleo-Hebrew, not vice-versa. Again, AZ is relying on outdated secular and rabbinical opinion and not upon the biblical narrative!!! He is relying on Jews and atheists to concoct his arguments!! – Eli] but Paleo-Hebrew & regular Hebrew are of two different branches. Notice also how that Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew is listed as a brother of Greek. [This is not quite accurate, because Greek devolved from Hebrew via Javan, the Japhethite. The correct statement is that Hebrew is the ANCESTOR of Greek. – Eli.] Examine chart #4 farther down the page to see that true ancient Hebrew looks & sounds like Greek. History also shows that the Greeks attained their language from the Israelites. Actually, Greek is Hebrew. [It is more correct to say that Greek is a Japhetic off-shoot of Proto-Hebrew. – Eli] You can see that very clearly by comparing the languages in these charts! Modern Hebrew & the so called “Hebrew” of Strong’s Concordance and Assyrian, Babylonian Aramaic look & sound alike, they are closely related, and are actually the same! [AZ is completely confused because of his reliance upon these anti-biblical sources! Hebrew and Aramaic belong at the TOP OF THE CHART!! – Eli]

[ADDITIONAL COMMENT: Since it is of paramount importance to get the Sacred Names correct, I here present the prophet Jeremiah’s warnings against those false prophets who seek to replace His Name, Yahweh, with various other names:

“I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. {like Zimmerman has dreamed that his lies are given to him by the Creator. – Eli} How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. {LORD is the meaning of the Canaanite word, “Ba’al.’ – Eli}  The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith Yahweh. Is not my word like as a fire? saith Yahweh; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?  Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith Yahweh, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.  Behold, I am against the prophets, saith Yahweh, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. {This applies to every Talmudic rabbi!!! – Eli} Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith Yahweh, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith Yahweh.  And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of Yahweh? thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith Yahweh.   And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of Yahweh, I will even punish that man and his house.” – Jeremiah 25: 25-34.]

 

Back to Zimmerman and his “divinely inspired dreams:

 

Chart #2

Aramaic/Hebrew comparison (Source)

 

Chart #3
Another comparison of Aramaic & modern Hebrew (Language of Strong’s Concordance & Masoretic text) Source

Proto-Semitic Hebrew Aramaic

 

See how Assyrian/Babylonian Aramaic looks like modern Hebrew! [COMMENT: That is because the Pharisaic Masoretes borrowed Aramaic script to form the “square Hebrew” letters of Yiddish Hebrew. Returning to biblical history: Eber was Aram’s great-grandfather; and they both spoke proto-Hebrew! Very simple! Even if AZ’s information were sincere, which it is obviously not, it is still both incorrect and obsolete. Here is the most recent update on the Indo-Aryan languages, which is based on migrational DNA studies:

 

{Source: https://greekreporter.com/2023/08/07/dna-indo-european-proto-greek/ }

 

The one problem with this chart is that the TRUE root language is PALEO-HEBREW. All European languages were brought into Europe by the descendants of Ham, Shem and Japheth. The world of secular scholarship will eventually agree with this, once they stop believing Jewish lies.

Furthermore, AZ’s own tribesmen disagree with him. Here is a review of a book entitled “Greek Is Hebrew,” by Joseph E Yahuda. Take a look:

{For about 30  years, the genius Jewish researcher Joseph Ezekiel Yahuda compared 3 languages:  Jewish, Arabic and Ancient Greek Homeric. Finally, in the year 1982, in London UK, he published a 680-page book titled’’ Hebrew is Greek’’. Suprisingly, most of the copies of this book have mysteriously disappeared. They disappeared from bookstores and most libraries, leaving only very few copies available. This scarcity gives the book the prospect to have increasing value as the years pass. It should be noted that in 2009 the book’s value was about 500 USD while today, two years later, the value of this book on the Amazon online bookstore is currently 1500 USD.

After becoming familiar with the Greek language, Yahuda learned the ancient Homeric Greek. He then decided to start research to compare the relationship between the Hebrew, Arabic and ancient Greek languages. His research took him about 30 years, as he compared the three languages from many aspects and in many ways.}

Source: https://rarebooksdigest.com/2011/10/06/a-rare-book-%e2%80%98%e2%80%99hebrew-is-greek%e2%80%99%e2%80%99-by-joseph-e-yahuda/#:~:text=After%20becoming%20familiar%20with%20the%20Greek%20language%2C%20Yahuda,languages%20from%20many%20aspects%20and%20in%20many%20ways.. }

So, a REAL Jewish scholar’s work is suppressed and we are left with the wild Masoretic speculations of Mr. Zimmerman! – Eli]

Back to the self-proclaimed Jewish Apostle:

 

The Following descriptions of similarities are from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic :

Aramaic & Hebrew:

Biblical Aramaic is closely related to the Hebrew language of Strong’s Concordance as both are in the Northwest Semitic language family. Some obvious similarities are listed below. – Same Aramaic square script (which was adopted to write Hebrew in place of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet found in earlier inscriptions). – The system of vocalization used is the same for the portions of the bible written in Hebrew & those written in Aramaic. – Verb systems are based on tri-consonantal roots. – Similar functions of the verbal conjugations. – Nouns have three states: the absolute, construct, & emphatic. [This statement only proves my point: that Aramaic and Hebrew are the parent languages of all the others!

Here is the first sentence of that Wiki item cited by AZ:

This article is about the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible. For the use of Aramaic in the New Testament, see Aramaic of Jesus. “Chaldaic language (misnomer)” redirects here. For other uses, see Chaldean (disambiguation).

Here is what wiki says about the “Chaldaic misnomer”:

For many centuries, from at least the time of Jerome of Stridon (d. 420), Biblical Aramaic was misnamed as “Chaldean” (Chaldaic, Chaldee). That label remained common in early Aramaic studies, and persisted up to the nineteenth century.

Biblical Aramaic – Wikipedia

So, Wikipedia agrees with me that Aramaic was never “Chaldean” and that it was a misnomer to refer to Aramaic as such!! But AZ does not quote this passage from his reference site, because it contradicts his claim that Chaldean/Asssyrian is the parent of Hebrew.

– Eli]

The fact is that the original sacred Old Testament scriptures were translated more than once. As generations went by & as language evolved & Israel was affected by the evolution of languages and the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity, the scriptures were translated into the language of each era. For example, the scriptures were eventually translated into Greek during the Greek & Roman Empire and then eventually into Latin during the time that the Roman Catholic Church was at its height in world domination. Eventually it was translated into German by Martin Luther who greatly persecuted the Jewish people.

[What? Martin Luther persecuted the Jewish people? More nonsense from AZ! The fact is that Martin Luther was able to read Hebrew and he read the Talmud. Having read the Talmud, Luther was aghast at its obvious supremacist, anti-Christ and anti-Christian nature. I have stated repeatedly that Judaism is the religion of the devil. AZ thinks Judaism is the religion of the OT!!! I agree with Martin Luther. The Jews are the real Christ-killers and false accusers. Hail, Martin Luther. AZ is exposing his cluelessness about the true nature of the Jews and Judaism – or he is covering it up! – Eli]

Then eventually the bible was translated into English, but it was old English due to the language of the time. Eventually into modern English with the New King James & other modern versions. Time & evolution of languages changed the language of the bible though different eras. The same was true during the earlier eras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew The scriptures were originally written in “Old-Paleo Hebrew” (true Hebrew) then eventually translated into a Jewish {Sic – Eli} dialect of the Babylonian language of Chaldean/Aramaic. Aramaic, which is actually Assyrian, the language of Assyria & Babylon, was adopted by the Hebrews when taken captive to Assyria & Babylon. [As stated above, this is categorically untrue and historically inaccurate. – Eli] Aramaic replaced ancient Paleo-Hebrew. [This statement, amazingly, is actually correct. Will wonders never cease? – Eli] Examine very closely any hard copy of the Strong’s Concordance. Notice the “Hebrew” dictionary in the back of the book. Notice how it says “Hebrew and Chaldean Dictionary”. Then pick any page of that Hebrew/Chaldean dictionary. Any page. Look at the words on the page. Notice how it says “(Chaldean Origin)” for not just one word but several words, on every page of the old testament words! The common claim is that the Aramaic language is used only in the books of Daniel, Ezra and a few other places in the bible. However, if you really study & examine all the facts, all of the Strong’s Concordance Dictionary of “Hebrew” words are actually of the Aramaic, Babylonian, Chaldean or Assyrian languages, not true Hebrew. Chaldean was the 11th dynasty of Babylon. [COMMENT: The Chaldean dynasty of Babylon did not rule until very late in biblical history: from 626 to 539 BC. Hence, Chaldean language could not have been much of an influence on Hebrew. As stated above, the true chronology of these languages is to put proto-Hebrew earlier than these other languages. “True Hebrew” can only be a reference to the dialect spoken/written by Eber and his descendants. In addition, as already cited, the Chaldeans were latecomers to the area of Sumeria/Akkadia/Babylon. Aramaic and Hebrew therefore predate Chaldean. Abram was a “Chaldean” because he lived in a territory which was later conquered by the West Semitic Chaldeans. However, designating Abram a “Chaldean” is actually anachronistic, in the same sense that “Ruth was a Moabitess” is anachronistic. Abraham would have spoken a form of proto-Hebrew. Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages. Strong’s Concordance simply reflects the similarities between Chaldean and Hebrew. It does not remotely suggest that the Chaldean is primary! “Apostle” Zimmerman is adding too much spice to a glass of Chaldean beer – or, perhaps, too much Manischevitz wine in Mason jars! – Eli] Chaldean was the empire of Babylon during the Babylonian captivity of the Hebrew people. It is at that time that the original scriptures were translated into Aramaic/Babylonian/Chaldean/Syrian. The Aramaic translation of scripture was called the Targum. Major Proof Source 1. Source 2. Source 3. The language of the Hebrew People changed from Hebrew to the Chaldean language which is actually Assyrian. [AZ has already admitted that the original language was paleo-Hebrew. There was only ONE significant language transition and that was from Hebrew to Aramaic. The Assyrian/Chaldean language has no significance in this matter at all. AZ is simply making up false history to prop up the Chabad Lubavitcher fairy tales.– Eli] Concerning when Ptolemy of Egypt was going to translate the bible into Greek, The respected Jewish [sic, Judahite – Eli] historian, Josephus, said in his book “The Antiquities of The Jews” Book 12, Chapter 2, (page 309 in my copy which is copyright 1987 Hendrickson Publishers) “…will cause no small pain in getting them translated into the Greek tongue: (15) that the character in which they are written seems to be like to that which is the proper character of the Syrians, and that its sound, when pronounced, is like to theirs also…”. [Syrian is Aramaic. By this time in history, Greek had become radically different from its proto-Hebrew inception. This is why Josephus says that such translations would be difficult. – Eli]

What does “Aramaic” mean?

It means “Assyrian”! Aram is just another ancient name for Syria. Aram is Aramaic or Assyrian. [Correction! It does NOT mean Assyrian! As demonstrated above, Aramaic preceded Assyrian and was later adopted by the Assyrians. Aramaic became the language of Assyria after using the Akkadian (from Sumerian) language. Akkadian used cuneiform script. It was only partially phonetic, unlike Hebrew! Repeating the work of Douglas Petrovich cited above, Hebrew was THE VERY FIRST PHONETIC language. It also appears that he does not know that Syrian is the direct descendant of Aramaic and that Assyrian is not the same as Aramaic. Whatever AZ’s sources, which appear to be exclusively rabbinical and otherwise non-existent, AZ is constantly making blatantly false statements about linguistic chronology. -Eli] Back to the Jewish “Apostle:”

– http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H758&t=KJV

[This website has nothing relevant to say about AZ”s case. – Eli]
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aram_(biblical_region)

[Quote from this site: { Aramaic eventually replaced Akkadian as the lingua franca of the entire region and became the administrative and commercial language of several empires such as the Achaemenid Empire and the Neo-Babylonian Empire.^[5][6] Early on, the Christian Bible was translated into Aramaic, and by the 4th century the local Aramaic dialect of Edessa (Urhay) developed into a literary language, known as Edessan Aramaic (Urhaya).} Again, there is no outside support for AZ’s contention that “Assyrian” was the original language of the Hebrews. – Eli]
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Babylonian_Aramaic

[Neither of these last two sites agree with AZ’s contentions either. They are irrelevant at best, thus making his next comments even more irrelevant, if not confusing. Zimmerman is hoping that the reader will be impressed by these links, which give the impression that he is a true researcher. However, I have found that none of the links he adduces actually support his version of events. – Eli]

Therefore, Strong’s concordance doesn’t point to true Hebrew. It points to the Assyrian language. The Israelites adopted Chaldean (Babylonian/Aramaic/Assyrian) words & religious beliefs. [Not true! This is a ridiculous generalization. We have repeatedly shown that AZ’s ONLY SOURCE for this false information about the Assyrian language is a Chabad Lubavitcher site. None of the other sites even remotely agree with his contentions. – Eli] The word “Chaldean” means “moon” or “moon worshippers“. Smith’s Bible Dictionary 1878-1895 (which I personally own a copy of) on page 52 under the word “Chaldea”, says that Chaldea means moon in Armenian. Armenian is another language that descended from Aramaic and is closely related to the language of the so called Hebrew of Strong’s Concordance & the corrupted Babylonian translation of Holy scriptures. [What AZ is saying here is pure nonsense. The Babylonian corruption of the original Hebrew is the Jewish Masoretic Text, which was not compiled until around 1000 AD. The Judahites who returned from Babylon used both Hebrew and Aramaic, as the priests were still able to read and write Hebrew, but the common people spoke Aramaic. This is the simple historical and biblical fact. – Eli] If Chaldean means moon or moon worshippers, then the Chaldean language is the language of the moon worshippers. [This is probably why the rabbis of Judaism practice a LUNAR CALENDAR! – Eli] The word Chaldea also means Astrology or an astrologer. It is the language of wicca. Witches actually chant the letters. Something else very interesting to me is the meaning of the words following Chaldean in Strong’s Concordance. The number of confirmations related to the word Chaldean is astounding! […but also irrelevant! – Eli] H3778 astrologer, 3779 magian, 3780 covering the flesh, 3781 axe, 3782 fall fail cast down stumble ruin, 3783 ruin fall, 3784 whisper a spell, to enchant (as to chant the 4 letters YHWH), sorcerer, witch 3785 witchcraft, 3786 witchcraft, 3787 prosper, 3788 success, 3789 to engrave to write to inscribe to record, 3790 write, 3791 something written scripture, 3792 writing, 3793 letter or other mark branded on skin, 3805 capital of a column chapiter (as in the deadly head wound revelation), 3803 crown besiege restrain self, 3806 to butt or pound bray (as in the red bray horse of Revelation 6), 3807 strike, beat down to pieces break in pieces destroy stamp (as in the action of the end time Son of Perdition empire upon the whole earth).

[COMMENT: I would like to see proof of this claim that pagans use the name of Yahweh in their chants. I am not aware of any pagan group that chants the name of Yahweh. This is pure disinformation! Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with whether Yahweh is the true name or not!

Here is a post from the internet about the historical and archeological fact that Yahweh’s Name was used exclusively by the Israelites and by NO OTHER PEOPLE:

{Cernowain Greenman

I’ve a divinity degree from an accredited seminary; I’ve read many sacred texts.4y

Yahweh appears to have been a divinity of the early Hebrews. There is no archeological evidence of the name Yahweh appearing in either Egyptian nor Canaanite writings.

Unlike other names used in the bible for the Hebrew God, like El, Elohim, El Shaddai, which have Canaanite sources, Yahweh is distinctly Hebrew. {You dig? – Eli}

There was a place name, Yhw, located in ancient Arabia that was recorded in Egypt during the time of Amenhotep III. And there have been theories as to the possibility that Yahweh originally came from this region, but there is no evidence that an Arabian place name became the prominent name of the Israelite God, nor that Yhw was a name for a divinity.}

Source: Is YHWH originally the name of a pagan god? – Quora

Please read Exodus 3:14-15 to find out where Moses got this name!! AZ’s document is yet again loaded with secular and Jewish speculations, not facts. – Eli]

Now, let’s get one thing straight, there is no such thing as a “pagan language” or a “holy language”. All languages are cousins. [Firstly, this is an irrelevant statement. Secondly, I must disagree. Sumeria (“land of the black-headed ones”) and Akkad were entirely pagan cultures. It spawned Babylonian Culture, which later adopted a form of Aramaic called “Chaldean.” This influx of Akkadian words into Proto-Hebrew was most likely caused by the invasion of the Elamites. The Elamites were Shemites. (Gen. 10:22) But even in the days of Abram, Chaldea/Akkad was a pagan culture. Abram’s father, Terah, was an idol-worshipper. This is why Yahweh told Abram to leave Chaldea and start a new civilization in Palestine. Thirdly, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between Hebrew and any of the Negro or Oriental languages. -– Eli.] However, there are certain words that refer to pagan gods/demons. Both the Hebrew roots “sacred names” believers and I agree that there are certain names that we must avoid & never use to refer to the True Almighty Holy Creator, because there are names that actually are connected & originated with the worship of pagan gods. Our differences lay in the question of what names? [And YHWH is not one of them! – Eli]

What Was Originally Written?

Let’s take a look at how the name of the creator was written in the Paleo-Hebrew language in the scrolls of the oldest known fragments of the Old Testament. In these first 2 images, the scrolls were written in Aramaic. But when they wrote the name of the creator/God, they wrote his name in Paleo-Hebrew. This is why his name really stands out and appears different from the surrounding text. This is because these scribes understood that the holy name of The Almighty should never be translated or corrupted, changed or altered in any way. When they wrote the creator’s name, they were sure to write it the original way!

[Yes. This statement is correct! And the paleo-Hebrew is always spelled YHWH, as you can plainly see in the document below. So why did the Masoretes change it to LORD? Question, Mr. Zimmerman: If you are correct in your assertion that YHWH should be spelled JESUS, then why did your rabbis change it to LORD? Was it because, as they falsely claim, that this name is TOO HOLY TO BE PRONOUNCED? Or is it because the rabbis secretly worship BA’AL, i.e., THE LORD? Those of us in Identity know that the Jews hate the name JESUS probably even more than the hate the name YHWH. Is it not the case, Rabbi Zimmerman, that you are actually a Masorete in disguise, doing your best to deny the Name of the Father? “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus {Yahsua} is the Christ {Messiah}? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (I John 2:22. God is not the author of confusion, but you, Mr. Zimmerman, are doing a masterful job of creating confusion! – Eli]

This first image is of the book of Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in cave #11. This image shows columns 20 through 24 of the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. These columns include text from: Psalm 139 Psalm 137, Psalm 138, a psalm that is not found in any Masoretic Text but is known from the Greek Septuagint of Ben Sira 51 (Ecclesiasticus), a non-canonical Psalm called “Apostrophe to Zion:, Psalm 93, Psalm 141, Psalm 133, Psalm 144, and a Psalm known from the Syriac version of the bible (Syriac Psalm 3). Psalm 141 (verses 5-10) are the first 6 lines from the top of the second column from the left, after that you have Psalm 133 for the next 5 lines followed by Psalm 144. Source
You can click on this image to view larger.

The name of the creator is circled in the image above and underlined in the image below. [The name of the Creator therein is clearly shown to be YHWH (Yahweh) in the paleo-Hebrew script. Thank you very much, AZ, for confirming what we in CI teach on this subject!!!! – Eli] This next image is of a fragment called “11Q5”. It dates to around 100BC. It has Psalms 121 and 122. You can click on it to see it larger.

1. Reading from right to left, the first letter is the ancient Hebrew Jot/Jota/Jud. Y name followers erroneously call it the “Yod” because they are focusing on letters & sounds of the Assyrian language. [This is a rabbinical lie. AZ’s entire thesis on the Hebrew language is based on this false Talmudic, Chabad Lubavitcher nonsense. Not a single word of Scripture was ever written in the Assyrian language!!! The Assyrians eventually adopted the Aramaic language. And the Aramaic and the Hebrew are sister languages. It doesn’t matter what the letter is called. It has always been pronounced like a Y. The letter J (the dzh or dj sound did not appear in Hebrew EVER. It did not come into English until the early 1700’s. Nevertheless, the Name is clearly Yahweh; and its origin is with the Hebrews and not with any other people. – Eli] It looks like Z with a line through it. But it does not have the modern English Z sound. According to what other sound it was connected to in a word, it could have the sound of J, I or E. Since it was connected with the vowel sound of the next letter in the divine name, it must have the J sound. [Who says? Where is the documentation for this statement? Is there any Bible scholar he can cite to back up this claim? This contention is nothing blatant, Talmudic deception. None of the Scriptural languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Assyrian, Greek and even Latin had the J sound. It was the Y sound exclusively. This is even true today! The J sound was nonexistent in the ancient world. My BS meter is pointing at 100% with this Jewish nonsense – pure nonsense with a shot of chutzpah! With this line of argument, AZ has crawled out on a limb, and the limb has snapped. There is no one in the world who will back up this claim! I demonstrated earlier that you can search the internet for corroboration of this claim. THERE IS NONE! – Eli]

A website at www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html shows the mandatory rules of the Latin language which most truth seekers would be very weary [Sic? Eli] of. But the fact is that Latin is just a form of Greek, which is a form of Paleo Hebrew as I have already proven earlier in this article. Latin is not demonic. [Relevance? What is this supposed to mean? – Eli] It’s just an ancient language related to Paleo Hebrew. (The rule of J sound applied to Latin, Greek & Paleo Hebrew.) [AZ is being very misleading here, because the article he cites does not mention any other languages besides Latin, so whatever the article says about Latin cannot possibly be ascribed — except in his warped mind — to Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syrian or Chaldean, none of which languages had the J sound. This is the historical fact. No one else in the world teaches that the Hebrew Yod should be pronounced like a modern J. AZ is completely isolated in this line of argument. It should also be mentioned that Zimmerman knows that many people will not bother to check out his sources. Would a Jew lie? – Eli] In the source article, the first mention of the letter sound of J, it includes this quote:

“For convenience we will use the letter j (named jota) to mark the [j] sound, as it is common from the Middle Ages onward”.
It does not say that the j sound started in the middle ages, but was common in the middle ages. [COMMENT: Unfortunately for AZ, he totally misrepresents the import of the article he is referencing. First of all, the 1611 KIV had no J at all. King James was spelled King Iames, pronounced like Y. What the author of the article is saying is that the early letter J actually had a Y sound, not a J sound. This contradicts Zimmerman’s thesis. Even the very name of the letter is proof of this: yota, or iota. Both the Latin i and j were pronounced like a Y, although the j was considered to be a consonant and the i a vowel. That is the only difference. The Latin j was NEVER pronounced like a modern J. Very clever, if not totally effective, dissimulation by AZ.

From the same article, here is a direct quote that Zimmerman avoids:

{The [j] sound (technically called consonantal i) appears in the beginning of the words before a vowel or in the middle of the words between two vowels, as in ius [jus] and cuius [‘kujus]; the compound words preserve the [j] sound of the element, that begins with it, cf. coniunx [konjunks] and adiectivum [adjektivum]. For convenience we will use the letter j (named jota) to mark the [j] sound, as it is common from the Middle Ages onward; so we will write the above words as jus, cujus, conjunx and adjectivum.}

AZ is arguing that the article cited is asserting that the J sound has replaced the I sound BEFORE the Middle Ages, but that, very clearly, is not what the authors are saying. They are saying that, before the Middle Ages, the ‘jus’ syllable and the ‘ius’ syllable were both pronounced like a Y. Zimmerman pretends to understand the article, but he doesn’t.

Here is a MUCH BETTER explanation of how and when the English J acquired the modern J sound, as in budge or judge.:

{The letter J is, as you mentioned, relatively recent, and originated as a variant of the letter I. Why that happens is a little complicated, and requires unpacking some assumptions in your question.

In the original languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) which provide us with the names Jesus, Joseph, Justinian, etc., the sound which we write as J was pronounced as the English letter Y. (Just to make things confusing for English speakers, the phonetic symbol for this sound is [j].) In Latin, the letter for this was I/i, in Greek it was Ι/ι (iota), and in Hebrew it was י (yod). Thus, the Greek spelling for “Jesus” was Ιησους, pronounced something like “Yeh-SOOS”, and the Latin likewise was Iesus.

Subsequently, in the Latin alphabet the letter J was developed as a variant of I, and this distinction was later used to distinguish the consonantal “y” sound [j] from the vocalic “i” sound [i]. However, at about the same time there was a sound change in many of the languages of Western Europe, such that the “y” sound changed into a “j” sound ([dʒ], or sometimes [ʒ]). So we have it that in English, the letter J now represents a consonant [dʒ] which is not obviously similar to the vowel [i], despite the fact that they descend from the same letter and the same sound. (English also has many [dʒ] sounds spelled with J which come from native Germanic roots.)

You can see this history worked out differently in the spelling systems of German and many of the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe, where the letter J spells the “y” sound [j], and the letter Y, if used at all, is primarily used as a vowel.}

Source: history – If the letter J is only 400–500 years old, was there a J sound that preceded the design of the letter? – English Language & Usage Stack Exchange

Capiche?

Back AZ’s very confused, if not demonic, opinions: – Eli]

Then at the bottom of the article it says:
“By the epoch of the Late empire (3rd and 4th c.) the diphthongs ae and oe were equalized with the short e and au with the short o. The pronunciation of y coincided with that of i and by then the letter name ypsillon was replaced in the popular language by i graeca Greek i.”
It does not say that it was pronounced Y in every word and combination of letters. The first section mentioned already declared rules for when it was pronounced with J sound. [But not until the Middle Ages, Zimmerman. Stop lying! – Eli] Nothing in the bottom section demands a Y sound in every word possible. [Even more importantly: Nor is the modern J sound even suggested. – Eli]

[COMMENT: Zimmerman is preaching gobbledygook. The Greek and Latin J WERE NOT PRONOUNCED LIKE A MODERN J. Nor are they pronounced like a J even today. Rather, the j was used as a consonant but still retained the Y sound and the I retained its vowel status but was pronounced like a short i. What TRUTH (the Holy Spirit) demands is the correct pronunciation of words at the time they were spoken. Here is the declaration of a Latin Linguist on how the name, Julius Caesar was pronounced in those days:

{Brady Swanson, Studied history extensively for six years Updated 2y

Julius Caesar’s full name in Latin is Gaius Iulius Caesar. Written in Latin majuscule script, this would be CAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR.

If you know the International Phonetic Alphabet, then, in the Classical Latin of the first century BC, this name would have been pronounced something like /ˈɡaː.i.us ˈjuː.li.us ˈkae̯.sar/.

If you do not know the International Phonetic Alphabet, then, using English phonetic respelling, this would be something like “GAH-ee-oos YOO-lee-oos KAI-sar” with the ⟨r⟩ on the end of Caesar being an alveolar trill, as in Spanish or Italian.}

NO J sound! NO J sound! NO J sound! Did you notice that there was no J sound?

Does AZ have the expertise to refute this very clear statement of how the Latin J was pronounced? No, he does not! He is nothing but a Jewish liar. And his chutzpah outweighs his scholarship.

Even from the article AZ cites – if you bother to read it – it says, “…regarding the letter I (Iota, also spelled Jota, but still have only the I sound):

The [j]sound (technically called consonantal i) appears in the beginning of the words before a vowel or in the middle of the words between two vowels, as in ius [jus] and cuius [kujus]; the compound words preserve the [j] sound of the element, that begins with it, cf coniunx [konjunks]and adiectivum [adjektivum].”

From these examples, it can be seen that AZ has no idea what he is talking about! There was no J sound in any of the languages that relate to Scripture. Wherever it appeared, J was considered to be a consonant, but it still had the Y sound, as it still does in many European languages, such as in the German “Jahwohl.”

The next article will give the reader EXTENSIVE documentation of the fact that the letter J did not exist when AZ says it did. -Eli. Continuing with AZ: ]

Then it says:
“The most important phonetic change of that period was, however, the palatalization of c and g before the anterior vowels e and i and the equalized with them ae, oe and y…
G was palatalized in all Latin speaking world to [D3]. The consonantal i [j] was also transformed to [D3].”

[COMMENT: First of all, here is the definition of the word ‘palatalized:’ “In technical terms, palatalization refers to the secondary articulation of consonants by which the body of the tongue is raised toward the hard palate and the alveolar ridge during the articulation of the consonant. Such consonants are phonetically palatalized.” You will notice that when you pronounce the Y sound, your tongue is raised up toward the palate, sometimes touching, sometimes not. When you pronounce the J sound, your tongue stays more forward towards your teeth. The fact is that BOTH SOUNDS are palatalized, but in a slightly different way. This is what differentiates the I sound from the Y (consonantal j) sound. The I sound is produced from the throat, without having to involve the palate. All vowel sounds are produced exclusively from the throat, with only slight variations of the tongue and mouth for the different vowel sounds. Go ahead and pronounce A, E, I, O, U, to see what I mean. Vowels are not palatalized.

Secondly, the quotation I cited above was from the same article, which clearly states the J sound occurred “from the Middle Ages onward.” I guess AZ doesn’t understand plain English! So, either the article is contradicting itself, or AZ is misrepresenting the fact that “consonantal I” was still pronounced like a y, not a j. The j’s position in a word would make it a consonant, which has nothing to with how it was pronounced. The Latin j was created in order to differentiate it from the vowel, i. NOTE: Even more importantly, this line of reasoning has nothing to do with earlier languages, such as Hebrew, which NEVER had a J sound. And AZ has provided no evidence for any earlier J sound! Zimmerman is doing his utmost to trump linguistic facts with mere Jewish assertions, i.e., chutzpah.

So the pronunciation of the Latin I was changed from ‘ih’ to ‘yih,’ not to ‘Jih,’ {DZH} That did not happen until the Middle Ages, as AZ’s own cited article clearly states. – Eli. Back to AZ:]

The only thing this says is that in the Latin language the J sound became mandatory in the 3-4th century, which is more than 1500-1600 years earlier than the Y name people admit! [This is a lie, because the article clearly states that this change in pronunciation did not occur until the MIDDLE AGES, not the “3-4^th century”!!!!! Either AZ simply does not understand that the modern J sound is not being referenced here; or, he is lying. What was established in the 3-4^th century was a consonantal Y sound, not a J sound. – Eli] The article doesn’t prove beyond any doubt what sounds existed and did not exist in the life time of Jesus and in the B.C. years. But it does prove that the J sound is extremely earlier than the Y name people want to confess. [Sorry, AZ. This is an evasive statement. Nor does it provide ANY EVIDENCE for your false contention that the Hebrew Y was ever pronounced like a J!!!– Eli] The article does not prove that the Y sound was required in every word before the 3rd century. The article does enough to cause a huge earthquake in the foundation of the Y name doctrine. [Not hardly, as AZ does not recognize that the consonantal j was still pronounced like a Y. There is no Latin linguist who would agree with AZ in this matter! And, as I said earlier, what happened to modern Latin has nothing to do with biblical Hebrew. AZ’s “earthquake” is nothing more than a crack in his sidewalk! – Eli] Where did these rules come from in the 3rd century A.D.? Of course, it would have come from the usage of words before the 3rd century. Words, sounds and letters are always used by the population before declared mandatory by the so called experts. [Look who’s mocking the so-called experts! – Eli] Also, there were no audio recordings in the ancient civilizations. The study of ancient languages is complex and ever evolving. We must keep digging and looking; and examine all of the evidence, not just one article or one source. [Ironically, AZ has examined only one source, and he has proven that he does not understand what that source is saying. – Eli] Please take the time to examine all of the evidence that I present in this article. If you are sincere about knowing the truth you must look at more than just one piece of the puzzle. Consider the tons of proof presented below!

[So far, none of A’s “proofs” have provided any credibility. Here, to demonstrate the unanimity of opinion against AZ, is an alternative scenario of the situation:

{Because the letter J derived from the I, and had the same sound, it was classed as a vowel. The letter I comes from the Greek “iota,” which is the Hebrew “yothe.” Both have a vowel sound. There is no “J” sound in the Anglo-Saxon, let alone Hebrew, and no Roman form to work from. The J was first pronounced as the I until the printing press was introduced. Gradually the letter J acquired its own sound through French influence.

Webster’s Universal Dictionary (1936) discloses the early relationship between I and J:

As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with “i,” both letters having originally the same sound; and after the “j” sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.

Source: There’s No “J” in Hebrew, Greek or Latin! – Shawn Lazarus dot Info

The History Of The Letter J

Let’s go over the history of the letter J and see how it went from being an alternative version of I to its own letter.

In the year 1524, Italian Gian Giorgio Trissino was the first to use J as a letter. The sound that this new letter would make has another common way of being written “dg“. Due to the influence that Latin and French had on Italian, the letter J was just another way of writing “dg”.

However, back then, the usage of J was far from common, even in Italy, and it wouldn’t be until much later that it would become as recognisable as it is today. It’s unlikely he would have lived long enough to see his new letter become popular.

Much later in the 16th century, a Frenchman called Pierre Ramous was the next person to separate I from J. Back then, words that today we would spell with a J would have been spelt with an I. But, this was only amongst a few French scholars. It wasn’t until the 17th century that the letter J became common in English. If you read some of the older versions of the King James Bible, you will see the letter I where today’s version has the letter J.

What Was Jesus’ Name Before The Letter J?

Did you know that Jesus’ name wasn’t actually Jesus?

When he was alive, the letter J did not exist. And his name was “Yeshua”. This name is the same place that we get the name “Joshua” from.

The reason why modern English translations use Joshua and Jesus as two separate names is to separate the two to prevent people from getting them mixed up.

Before the Letter J was invented, to translate the Hebrew name “Yeshua” into English would have given you Yesus. This is what Jesus was known as for most of English history.

Most of the names we give people in the Bible are not their actual names.

Yahweh Vs Jehovah: What Is God’s Real Name?

If you read Christian literature, there will be two names that God tends to be given. One of them is Jehovah and the other is Yahweh. The reason why God seems to have two names is that his original Hebrew name has been translated differently.

In the Bible, his name is “הֹוָה‎ Yəhōwā,”. When spelt out phonetically, this name sounds like Yahweh.

However, if you were to take the letters of his original name, and turn them into Latin letters, his name is closer to Jehovah.

Because the Bible wasn’t written in English, it can be translated in multiple different ways.

Source: https://grammarhow.com/when-was-the-letter-j-invented/ }

These latter two explanations reflect standard historical, linguistic scholarship on the matter! It is also clear that AZ is not one of the “so-called experts” that he complains about! In this matter, I would not call him an expert. – Eli.]

Y name followers claim there were no vowels in Hebrew.  [This comment lacks clarity. AZ misunderstands us. No one has ever said the Hebrew had no vowels. Our position is that the vowels were not written. This was done to preserve space, especially since the OT had to be laboriously copied time and again. The vowel sounds were known to the Hebrew speakers. – Eli] But how could you write, read or speak without vowels? That’s nonsense! [AZ is confusing the written language with the spoken language. NO ONE has ever said that the spoken Hebrew lacked vowels. – Eli] There Archaeological discoveries of coins, etc prove that there were vowels. The well respected historian, Josephus, who lived in the first century, said that during the time of the first temple, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies wearing the name of God on his headband & that it was 4 vowels! Source: “War of the Jews” Book 5 chapter 5 section 7 paragraphs 235-236 by Flavius Josephus. Josephus was the son of a priest & extremely well educated. He would have had inside information not known by most people.

[I wouldn’t expect AZ to know about this, but the YHWH sounds doubled as vowels, just as the I and J sounds did early on! They were BOTH vowels and consonants, depending upon the context. This is the explanation for Josephus’s declaration that there were “four vowels”! As in the French word, “oui,” which consists of three vowels but is pronounced the same as “we” in English. In a similar manner, when transliterated into Greek, YHWH can be written and pronounced Iaoue, with five vowels! Here is a more scholarly answer from Fred Moeller:

{Relatively modern Hebrew manuscripts (e.g., the Aleppo Codex) do have “vowels”—or rather, vowel pointing (referred to in Hebrew as nikkud). However, these vowel points were not created until approximately the 10th century A.D. The original scrolls lacked vowel pointing.⁵ Instead, the original scrolls contained only twenty-two consonants.

However, Josephus wrote the following concerning the Tetragrammaton engraved on the high priest’s crown (tiara): And a tiara of fine linen encompassed the head, and it was crowned with hyacinth, around which there was another golden crown, bearing the engraved holy letters. And these are four vowels.

This appears to be a contradiction, but in Hebrew, a few of the letters also functioned as vowels, even today. Two of the consonants doubling as vowels are י and ו, which can be transliterated as “i” and “o”/ “u,” respectively. Coincidentally, these two letters (י and ו) also appear in the Tetragrammaton, hence the reason Josephus referred to them as vowels (φωνήεντα).

Another letter that also used to function as a vowel, but rarely so today, is the letter ה. In his analysis of the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll, Fred Moeller wrote,

Just as the Masoretes invented pointings to indicate vowel sounds so the Q[umran] scribes have added some semi-vowels to the text. The use of yod, waw, and “he” are frequent. ^} Source: names of god – Is יהוה ever transliterated in the Septuagint? – Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

I would say that AZ is making a mountain out of a dissimulated molehole {misspelling deliberate because it is actually a BLACK HOLE of disinformation!!}, having done very little research beyond what he wishes to inculcate. Although Josephus was a pure-blooded Judahite, he was also a soldier in the Roman army. The “four vowels” comment is interesting, but what does it really mean? All scholars, Jewish, Christian, Aramaic, have stated that the written Hebrew was consonants only, for the reasons given above. The inscription Josephus refers to may have been written in vowels, but the inscription is NOT biblical. As Fred Moeller explains, an inscription on a rabbinical tiara is not the same as Exodus 3:14-15. – Eli.] Before we get back to AZ, I will again reproduce here the document that he is commenting on. Up to this point, we have only covered the letter yod:

 

2. The next letter looks like a backward E or F. It had the E or EH sound.

3. The next letter almost looks like Y but the top portion of the letter looks like C instead of a pointed Y. In fact, the letter C was sometimes used to represent a sound similar to the S sound. [Says who? Citation please! EXTENDED COMMENT: First of all, the third letter, WAW, hardly looks like a C! Secondly, a Question for AZ: What historical era are you talking about? This is a very important question, because you are asserting that the Tetragrammaton contains the S sound, so that you can fabricate the word ‘Jesus’ out of the Tetragrammaton. You have made two assertions about the third letter of the paleo-Hebrew YHWH, waw, which can sound like a V or a W. After searching the internet on this matter, there is no one else who asserts that vav can be pronounced like an S. Here is a good image of the situation.

No S! Amazingly, Zimmerman is asserting that, because the top of the letter vav looks like a sideways C, the top of the letter vav represents a C!!!! Really? Very creative linguistics! Talk about pretzel logic turned sideways!! Or should I say schmutzig logic? {Schmutzig means filthy in German. – Eli} It should be obvious to any intelligent person that there is NO LETTER C in the Tetragrammaton! And then the C miraculously becomes an S for some unnamed “experts”!!! – probably his cissy co-religionists! AZ started out mocking “so-called” experts; but now he invents his own! You should also know the letter C was historically pronounced like a K, as in Keltoi (Celtoi), Kimmerian (Cimmerian), etc. The letter C did not develop the S sound until around 1700 AD. Examples: ceiling, celery, centipede, cell. The English Caesar is based on the Latin/German “Kaiser.” Zimmerman is concocting linguistic heresy out of Talmudic cloth.

Here is an image of the earliest form of the Tetragrammaton:

The letters from left to right are Hey, Waw, Hey, Yod. Notice that the Waw does not have the cup shape. That was a later development. Zimmerman, or some other rabbi, has stylized the Waw, giving it, in the earlier image, the nice round cup shape, which is required to convince you that the letter S derives therefrom. More corkscrew logic! Even with this later shape, the Waw was always pronounced like a V or W, never like an S. Kapiche?

It would be instructive for us to also take a quick look at cuneiform. Here is an image of a clay tablet and the stylus:

Cuneiform script originally lacked curves because it is an offshoot of inscribing lines on rocks. It is difficult and time-consuming to carve curved lines onto hard rock. This is why ancient letters carved into stone typically lack curved writing. Cuneiform script dates back to 8,000 BC. Writing on papyrus was invented in Egypt around 3,000 BC. This transition to quill and paper made it easier write curved letters. Naturally, Zimmerman only shows you the highly stylized, cup-topped version of the letter Waw, so you can be easily misled.

From the website Hebrew today, we read concerning the letter gimel:

The Hebrew Letter Gimel (ג)

The letter Gimel is the third letter in the Hebrew alphabet. This letter is actually the source of the Greek letter Gamma, as you can see by the similarities in the two letters’ names. The English letters “C” and “G” are ultimately derived from Gimel, as well. While the name of the letter remains a mystery, some have speculated that it comes from the word “gamal” meaning “camel” (the English word “camel” is actually derived from “gamal”) because some say the letter looks like a camel. Whether or not the letter actually looks like a camel, you can use this trick to try to help you learn the Hebrew alphabet and as you try to improve your control of the Hebrew language. While Gimel is generally pronounced like the “G” in “gap”, some dialects pronounce it differently in certain cases. Some Yemenite Jews, for example, pronounce it as more of a “J” in specific cases.

Source: The Hebrew Letter Gimel (ג) – Hebrew Today.

Still no S!

Note that some Yemenite Jews pronounce the gimel like J, but not the Yod!!!!

Here is the Britannica entry on the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet:

“c, third letter of the alphabet, corresponding to Semitic gimel (which probably derived from an early sign for “camel”) and Greek gamma (Γ). A rounded form occurs at Corinth and in the Chalcidic alphabet, and both an angular and a rounded form are found in the early Latin alphabet, as well as in Etruscan. The rounded form survived and became general, and the shape of the letter has since altered little.” – Eli.] So, we can see that the rounded form of the letter gimel was a much later development, but Zimmerman would have you believe that the letter C is derived from the paleo-Hebrew waw! I’ll bet the other rabbis at Zimmerman’s yeshiva are most proud of his letter twisting antics! Back our intrepid wordbender!]

In some scrolls, it looks more like a U on the top instead of C. In other scrolls it looks like a S on top of the stick. [Documentation, please! Mere assertions will not fly for real scholars!! This kind of schmutzig, sullen logic might fly for novices, but not for those of us in Israel Identity! – Eli.] So whether it looked like a S, C or U, in all cases there are curves. [So, this is a graphic of the Hebrew letter vav, showing how it started out looking like a Y and then later morphing into a hook shape:

For the reasons stated above, the earliest form of waw was a simple Y shape, without curves, because curves were difficult to inscribe on rock. However, as you can see, this letter became the Greek F, not an S. No J! No S! – Eli.] Back to Zimmerman.

This is not a Y like we use today in English & also not the Yod they use in Assyrian Aramaic. If we look at all 4 letters of the divine name & render this letter as only a U sound without any consonant sound, then we would have 4 vowel sounds together which would be impossible to speak as a name. [Not true. The four vowel sounds can still be pronounced like iaua or ieue. – Eli.] The fact is that some letters represented both vowel & consonant sounds, such as is true with the first letter. Language & how to write was constantly evolving & continues to evolve even to this day. In ancient times, they were having a problem determining how to write sounds such as this sound of the S sound in combo with the U sound. Therefore it sometimes looked like a U and sometimes looked like a S. [Not true! The U never looked like an S! More meshugana logic from Zimmerman. ‘Meshugana is Yiddish for a crazy person! I once worked for a Jewish woman in Chicago who named her cat ‘Meshugana.’ That’s how I know what the word means…not that I’m jooish or anything…hehe. Mr. Meshugana derives the S from a U on a stick! The rabbis LOVE to play games with words and letters. – Eli]

4. Then, the final letter is the backward E again.

So in conclusion, we have the 4 letters “JEUE” or “JESE” but the truth [NOT! This is a chutzpah lie! – Eli] is that the Hebrew sound of the 3rd letter would need to be represented by 2 English letters for us modern day speakers. [So, Mr. Meshugana requires YET ANOTHER transfiguration of waw! Pure linguistic fabrication by a Pharisee! I think he has been bashing his head a little too hard against the wailing wall. – Eli] Thus in our modern [sic, Talmudic. – Eli] way of writing, it would be “JESUE“. [Absolutely incredible chutzpah! – Eli] JEUE/JESE is the original 4 letters written for the Creator’s Name. [TOTAL PHARISAIC NONSENSE! Question: Where does the second S of Jesus come from? Answer me this, please! I think the Jews have a love affair with the letter S because it looks like a snake. – Eli] Remember that the 3rd letter has both a S & U sound. [Documentation, please! Corroboration, please! AZ has only given us his pretzel logic opinion on a matter about which he is clearly not an expert! I can see him smirking at his goyim prey, drooling at the prospect of a ridiculous lie converted into “truth” in the minds of the stupid goyim! – Eli.] English doesn’t have one letter that adequately represents the 3rd letter, so we must use both the S & U letters. [So, we MUST INVENT a letter since there is no REAL ONE! ROFLMAO! There’s an invented word for you! Do you know what it means? Well, Zimmerman’s fictitious “rules of grammar” require that a letter which looks like a Y must be twisted into BOTH a U and an S!!! Quite an act of linguistic prestidigitation! – Eli] (JESUE is also pronounced with 2 syllables. [Don’t the rabbis teach that the name of God is unpronounceable? This must be it! – Eli] The 1st syllable sounds like the plural of the letter G [Wait a minnit! A letter has a PLURAL form? What? – Eli], as in saying the sentence “Google [Giggle, hehe. – Eli] has 2 G’s”. But it would not be correct to write the letter G in this name, but it has the sound. [So, it would not be Talmudic to write the letter G for the G sound because we must have an S sound! Makes perfect Talmudic sense to me! – Eli] The 2nd syllable continues & confirms the S sound of the plural of the G sound [Actually, the G does look somewhat like a coiled snake! – Eli], and then moves onto the short u sound of the word “us” without the final S of the word “us” [Because there IS NO S. Da S be silent. ROFL! I am so doubled over, I think I’m going to lose my lunch! – Eli]. Thus we have the total sound of “G’s-u” without a long U, but rather with a short u sound.) [Or, as Groucho Marx quipped. Who do believe, me or your own eyes? – Eli] All 4 letters of JEUE were considered “vowels”, even the J [Sorry! NO J! – Eli] because the Jot/Jota/iota character could be used to have either the J sound, or the E or I sound, depending on the other sounds within the word. Since it was connected with 3 other vowels, it must have the J sound, that’s the rule of language. [It is? Says who? If it’s not in the Chicago manual of Style, I won’t believe it! I think Zimmerman is an excellent comedian! The rabbis in the yeshivas are laughing their S’s off!! – Eli] The U was also a semi-vowel having both the short u vowel sound & consonant S sound. [OMG, The U has the sound of an S? I can’t take this nonsense anymore! anymore! Sorry! NO S! – Eli ] But all 4 letters were considered vowels since they had the connection of possible vowel sounds in certain cases. But it would be illogical to think that we could pronounce the holy name as 4 vowel sounds, even though it was written with 4 vowels. We must have consonant sounds in a word/name. It also would not make any sense to pronounce JEUE with a consonant sound at the beginning followed by 3 vowels without having another consonant sound. In this particular structure of letters, we really need 2 consonant sounds. So we must pronounce the U/S with both the U and S sounds. Thus we have the name of JESUE, not pronounced “JE-SUE” but rather “JE’s-u” or “G’s-u”. Remember that the u is short, not long, and is the same short u sound in “us”. [There yous have it, folks! The Jewish Jewsus! Or is it the Jewish Jesuit? – Eli] The problem with Y name followers is that they try to force every Assyrian so called “Hebrew” pronunciation upon every Paleo-Hebrew letter, which is impossible to accurately do, because Paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic are 2 distinct, mostly unrelated languages, as shown in the charts on this page. [The problem with Zimmerman is that he forces numerous letters to have sounds that are non-existent! – Eli] As I have proven, it is more accurate to place ancient Greek pronunciations upon Paleo-Hebrew. [Zimmerman, you have proven no such thing! Tsk, tsk. What you have proven is your sly ability to twist words and letters with serpentine logic into jewsuit lies. I can make up words too! Hehe. – Eli]

[COMMENT. AZ has proven no such thing! He has clearly invented this “rule of language”!! There is no such rule, except in AZ’s vibrant Jewish imagination! Groucho Marx is laughing in his grave! Zimmerman’s jokes are SOOOOO FUNNY! The reality is that there is no soft G sound in these fictional rules!!! To this day, Greek has no soft G sound. AZ’s comments are pure dissimulation, with no attempt to cite one of those “experts” he mocks! The Celtic church of Britain has always pronounced His Name as Yesu. Listen to Bach’s composition, “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” in English. Jesu is pronounced YAZ-Zoo. We are not trying to force Assyrian pronunciation onto Hebrew. AZ has invented new letters for old, so that he can flummox unwary Judeos who will believe anything a joo says because he is one of the ‘hosen’ who has claimed to be a Kwistian; and we must believe therefore! #Believe the Jew! This attempt to twist the Scriptures actually deserves an A for effort. It’s even funnier than the Abbot and Costello “Who’s on First” routine. I have never witnessed such incredible linguistic prestidigitation, forcing all languages to conform to his very creative, but fictional analysis. For this, AZ definitely deserves a Snakademy Award for the best work of fiction by a joo! We are almost at the end. Just a few more jibes. Back to this Jewish scribe’s account: – Eli.]

Remembering S Sounds:

We know that after the Jewish priests transitioned to the Aramaic language & to the Assyrian name of YHWH, that even though the original divine name was banned by Babylon & by the Jewish government rulers, the priests remembered the S sound in the middle of the original true divine name by making the Aramaic S letter with their hands when they performed priestly blessings.  [In honor of the Serpent, no doubt! Yahweh is NOT an Assyrian name! That is pure hogwash, a black hole full of lies!! Yahweh is a Hebrew name, without question. No other people ever used that Name, because they rejected as belonging to the hated Israelites. I have shown above that AZ has totally misidentified the relationship between Hebrew, Aramaic and Assyrian. AZ has given a completely false picture of those languages and cultures, including their chronology. Here is an assessment of the situation by an Assyrian living in America:

{The Ancient Assyrian language is related to Hebrew in a distant sense, much the same way as Russian and English are both Indo-European languages. However, they are not close enough to have a normal conversation. In the Ancient Period in the Middle East, Akkadian often served as a lingua-franca, a language of communication that educated people throughout the region would understand. Ancient Assyrian was very closely related to Akkadian, so it was likely that the educated among the Ancient Israelite and Ancient Judean population would have understood some Assyrian. (This would be in much the same way that Spanish speakers can make out Portuguese, but not completely understand it.)

However, around 2700 years ago, the Ancient Assyrian language died off and was replaced by Aramaic, which is much more similar to Hebrew than it is to Ancient Assyrian or Akkadian. Accordingly, those Assyrians would have had a much easier time conversing with Ancient Israelites and Ancient Judeans than previously. It bears mentioning that most of the interactions between Assyrians and Israelites or Judeans occurred in this later period, because it would only be in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (where Aramaic was spoken) that the Assyrians would launch a successful conquest of the Levant region. If the Bible is an accurate account, though, Assyria also had a diplomatic core with Hebrew-fluent members. The Rabshaqe (ܪܒܫܩܐ‎), or the Assyrian Chief of Princes, actually gives a particularly graphic speech in the Kingdom of Judah in fluent Hebrew to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, threatening them with the cruelest of punishments should they resist the Assyrian Imperial advance.} Source: Was the ancient Assyrian language related to Hebrew? Could an Israelite and an Assyrian converse without a translator? – Quora

So, we can see from this statement that AZ’s contention that Assyrian is similar or the same as Aramaic or Hebrew has no support among the Assyrian-speaking world. Also, the original Assyrian language, Akkadian, was written in cuneiform. Hebrew was never written in Akkadian cuneiform. There IS evidence that the earliest Hebrew was written in Egyptian cuneiform: https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2017/01/12/new-discoveries-indicate-hebrew-was-worlds-oldest-alphabet-part-2/

It is not possible that anyone could be so badly wrong about these things by accident. AZ claims he has hit a home run, but it was only a foul tip into the Jewish catcher’s mitt. – Eli]  They were not allowed to write & speak the divine name, but they used sign language to remember the S sound in the middle of the divine name. [Sign language? Really? Where is this in the Bible? Please site a source other than yourself or other Jewish sources for this information. I just typed in my browser the words “Can any of the letters of the Tetragrammaton be confused with the letter S”? Zero results. AZ is simply making this up! The Jews love that letter S because it resembles their father!! – Eli.] There is also reason to believe that they might have even remembered the S sound both in the middle and at the end! The rule of the Greek language, (which actually is the Paleo-Hebrew language [This is a false equation. Greek grammar is much more complex than Hebrew! There is no S in the Tetragrammaton. The second S in the word ‘Jesus’ had to be inserted at the end for grammatical reasons. The first S comes from the sh sound in Yahshua. – Eli] …because history shows that the Greeks adopted their language from the Hebrews) is that you add the S sound at the end of JESUE to show that it’s a male masculine word. Then the u sound blends in with the final E to make one sound mixed with the final S sound, thus we have “Jesus”, pronounced “G’s-us”. [As in the word, ‘casuistry’! – Eli] Therefore, to say the ancient Paleo-Hebrew divine name of the creator & properly applying all of the rules of language [AZ is simply making up his own rules and claiming that “all rules of language” support his dubious thesis!! Considering the fact that every language has its own grammatical rules, this is a completely idiotic statement!! Need we go any further to prove that AZ is a Pharisaic dissimulation artist? – Eli], we should pronounce the ancient Hebrew divine name as “Jesus”. [RIDICULOUS! – Eli] Greek is Hebrew. Jesus is Hebrew. [Sorry! NO J! No S! – Eli] Also, English comes mostly from Greek which is Paleo-Hebrew. The USA & British Commonwealth are the modern descendants of the “lost” 10 tribes of Israel & so English still maintains a lot of Hebrew sounds.  [The joo certainly knows how to ingratiate himself with those of us in Israel Identity! – Eli] Source. Even if you disagree, [I certainly do! – Eli] please at least take the time to finish reading this article because soon I’m going to give you solid, undeniable proof about the origins of the Y names of Yeshua, Yahweh, YHWH, Yahshua, etc. [We have done so! AZ has not given us any “undeniable proof” yet, so why should we expect any now? I agree with him that Greek was derived from Hebrew, but there is no reverse influence. – Eli]

[Here is the history of the Greek language, by the Encyclopedia Britannica:

{While it is possible that speakers of Hellenic or pre-Hellenic arrived earlier, there is no linguistic evidence of Hellenic prior to the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE on what is now the Greek peninsula, where the language brought by the relevant people(s) developed into Greek. Later, Greek-speaking people occupied most of the islands of the Aegean and, about 1000 BCE, the west coast of Anatolia. With few exceptions that is still the area occupied by the Greek language today. In the second quarter of the 1st millennium BCE, a vast “colonial” movement took place, resulting in establishments founded by various Greek cities all around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, especially in southern Italy and Sicily. This extension of the linguistic area of Greek lasted only a few centuries; in the Roman period, Latin, more or less rapidly, took the place of Greek in most of these ancient colonies. After the conquest of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt by Alexander the Great, Greek was the standard language of the rulers in the new urban centres of these countries until the invasions of the Arabs and the Turks. “Colonial” Greek survived longest at Byzantium, as the official language of the Eastern Empire.}

From this analysis, I think it is fair to say that Hebrew is much older than Greek. This being the case, Greek is derived from Hebrew, not vice-versa. – Eli]

Here is Zimmerman’s false conversion. Albert Jesus Einstein would be proud!

[Yes! And the Holycaust killed six million and six million more! Beware of people who cannot spell. They like to cast spells. The names of the Hebrew prophets virtually all end in the suffix el or iah (yah), as in EzekiEl, JeremiYah, IsaiYah, ObadiYah, EliYah, etc. None of these biblical names ends in Je or Jes or even with an S or anything like what AZ is claiming; and throughout history no one has ever pronounced them with the J sound. For 4,000 years or more, the word, ‘halleluyah’ has always been pronounced with a YAH sound even if it is spelled with a J, as in ‘hallelujah.’ If you look up the word ‘John’ in Strong’s Concordance (G2491), you will see that it is spelled Ioannes (with an I) and is pronounced accordingly. ‘James’ comes from the Greek (G2385), ‘Iakobus.’ I, not J. AZ is blowing smoke out of his kazoo! {Eli’s slang for the double O is pronounced like a double T: ‘butt’. Hehe}]

Back to AZ’s document. – Eli]

Exodus 3:14 The Name At The Burning Bush

The other main scripture all of us refer to in the discussion of sacred names or concerning the Name of the Creator is Exodus 3:14 which in the KJV says “And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.”

According to Strong’s Concordance (a dictionary of the bible), which is actually a concordance of the Babylonian Aramaic Language (when referring to the Old Testament), the words “I AM That I AM” comes from H1961 H1961: “hAZah hAZah”. [Sooo, that’s where the expression “Huzzah, Huzzah” comes from! Great scholarship! – Eli] However in the true Hebrew scriptures of Exo.3:14, it actually said:

“EHJEH ASHER EHJEH”. (Pronunced I-JE Asher I-JE)

[I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. Neither Hebrew or Greek ever had a J sound, only a Y sound. This is pure Talmudic fiction coming from someone who has no background as a linguist but is posing as an expert. – Eli]

Proof #1, Proof #2 [Poof, poof! LOL! – Eli]

Contrary to what some people say, it was not “hAZah hAZah” and not “I Am, I Am”. But regardless of what the above sources claim, it also was not “EHYEH ASHER EHYEH” because there was no Aramaic or Yiddish letter Y in Paleo-Hebrew.

[This statement is incredible, because every known source of scholarship says quite the opposite! Since Zimmerman repeats the same lie over and over again, ad nauseum, I have to refute it over and over again. That’s my yob, mahn! The J sound was completely absent from all related languages until about 1500 AD, when it was brought into English from the French. So, here is this completely unknown person, who does identify himself as a jew, who does not love White people, contradicting all known scholarship with unfounded, undocumented, meshugana chutzpah yargon. – Eli]

The following image shows what it would look like in Paleo-Hebrew. Note: This is not an image of an actual scroll, but rather is just an example of how it would have been written.

The most important part of this sentence is “EHJEH”. So I will explain each letter. In this image, you see 3 words. The 1st word & 3rd word is “EHJEH”. Reading from right to left, in the 1st & last word, the last letter is looks like a capital letter A on its side, pointing left. Most of the time, that is actually the letter A. But not always. Thousands of years ago, the sounds of both E and A were interchangeable. And there was more than one possible letter/character for the e/E sounds. The next letter, working to the left, looks like a backward F with an extra line, or perhaps like the letter E backwards with an extra long handle. It had the possible sounds of E or EH. The next letter looks like Z with a line through it. But it’s the ancient Jota/Jot/Jud that had the sounds of J, I and E. All of these letters depend how what letter and sound is associated next to it. In this case, it has the J sound because of its association with the over vowels in this word. And then the final letter is the backward F/E looking character again. Therefore we have “EHJEH”. It’s pronounced like the 2 letters “I, G”, but the letter G is not an accurate way to write the word/sentence. But it has the sound of saying the 2 English letters “I” and “G”. God was saying “I am JE”, [Hmm, Zimmerman’s g-d is saying “I am a Jew.” Now, I get it!! LOL! At this point I just have to laugh, because AZ is making statements that are not backed up by any scholarship, anywhere, except in his own synagogue of make-believe!!!! – Eli] which is the more accurate way to write this sentence. But He did not use the word “am” in the middle. He did not say “I AM” because thousands of years ago, they did not use so many wrds in a sentence. [How is “I AM’ or “I AM THAT I AM” to be construed as a long sentence? Genesis 1:11 states, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” Not so many words in a sentence?  It’s amazing how AZ drops so many little tidbits of profoundly unfounded assertion in our laps! The Jew speaks! The goyim listen! – Eli] They spoke very short sentences, with few words. He said “I JE”, which means “I am JE”. [AZ forgot to add the W! Hehe. – Eli] Now, placing this phrase into the entire 3 word sentence, we have:

“EHJEH ASHER EHJEH” It’s hard to translate into just 3 or 4 English words. It means “I am JEH (the h is silent so it’s pronounced JE, the same sound in Jesus) the beginning, currently self-existing, and eternally existing, JEH”. [Again, there is no evidence that Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic ever had the J sound. This is not reasoning. This is bovine excrement. – Eli]

He wasn’t saying that His Name was “EHJEH ASHER EHJEH”, but rather He was speaking a sentence that basically says “I am JE the beginning, currently self-existing, and eternally existing, JE”

Or in other words, He was saying “I am JE, The Alpha & the Omega, the beginning and the end, the eternal”.

He said that His Name is JE as in Jesus, JE with us, God with us. JE is short for Jesus. In fact, many early New Testaments even abbreviated Jesus as “JE”.

[ I guess the S is silent! {chuckle}. Jesus said, “I come in my Father’s name.” That name is Yahweh, not Jesus. If the Father’s name were Jesus, Yahshua would have said, I come in My own Name”! Not so? – But none of this makes any sense, in any language! – Eli.]

“EHJEH ASHER EHJEH” is only part of what He said in Exodus 3:14. After this, He said “THUS SHALL YOU SAY TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, ‘JESUS HAS SENT ME TO YOU’ ” [The New Testament says quite the opposite. – Eli] Therefore He first explained Who He is (basically ‘Alpha & Omega’, a very primitive way that man had already known the Creator) in connection with the JE abbreviation of His name, and then He gave the full name!

[“Apostle” Zimmerman is providing a very unique analysis of Ex. 3:14. Also, AZ’s insistence that Y should be pronounced like a G is completely foreign to all other scholarship! Here is a conventional analysis of the I AM THAT I AM of Ex. 3:14:

{And God said unto Moses, I am that I am
This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their (to on) from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is (own): it is said, that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it,

“I am all that exists, is, and shall be.”

And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written (ei), the contraction of (eimi), “I am”. Our Lord seems to refer to this name, ( John 8:58 ) , and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, “I shall be what I shall be,” the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh: thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you;
or as the Targum of Jonathan has it,

“I am he that is, and that shall be.”

This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.} Source: Exodus 3:14 – Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse (biblestudytools.com)

A further criticism of AZ’s analysis of ehyeh asher ehyeh is that, although the two ‘ehjeh’s are verbs, the Name is a complete sentence. Hence, I AM THAT I AM is actually a statement about Yahweh’s own Being. This is common for Hebrew names. I seriously doubt that this is true of Assyrian or Greek. For example, the name Abraham means “father of many.” Ariel means “lion of El.” Elijah means “My God is Yah.” Elianah means “my God has answered.” Ezekiel means “God (Elohiym) strengthens.”

Considering All Things [All these falsehoods! – Eli]

• Considering EHJEH “I (am) JE” in Exodus 3:14 & that it meant that He is the Alpha & Omega; and JESUS said He is the A&O in the book of Revelation,

• in Exo.3:14, He said both JE and JESUE/JESUS,

• and “JESUE/Jesus” in Exo.6:3 and most other places in the bible,

• and “Jesus” abbreviated as just “JE” in many early New Testaments,

• and the name of “Jesus” in both early & modern New Testaments, the conclusion must be that the creator’s name in both the Old Testament & New Testament, in Paleo Hebrew, Greek & English is “Jesus”. [“The conclusion must be” is not a very definitive expression of AZ’s argument. That is because it is completely fabricated: styrofoam impersonating concrete! – Eli] His name does not change in different languages, because He is the creator of all the Earth and all races. [This is an obvious non-sequitur, as all names undergo changes in sounding from language to another! As we have already demonstrated with many proofs, English is the ONLY LANGUAGE that contains the word ‘Jesus.’ “Apostle” Zimmerman is simply asserting: “My pet name for God is unchangeable.” However, AZ’s entire thesis is based on arguing against the ways the pronunciation has changed from one language to another! Now, contradicting himself, he says the name never changes! – Eli] It is wrong to try to change the pronunciation of the divine name. [I agree! So, why are you doing it?! – Eli] His name is Holy & should not be changed to a different pronunciation in any language. Jesus is his Hebrew name. [Nonsense! Nonsense! Nonsense! Jewish nonsense! – Eli] We respect his Hebrew name & have no need to alter it.

• [VERY IMPORTANT COMMENT: The above image shows the 1611 King Iames Bible. Zimmerman’s narrative is nothing but pious, poisonous posturing, which the Jews are experts at! AZ is precisely the one who is altering THE NAME! The original KJV of 1611 DID NOT CONTAIN the letter J. The Greek/Latin/English name of the Messiah was spelled ‘Iesus’ therein! In 2012, I had the opportunity to visit pre-Revolutionary grave sites in Williamsburg VA. There I found numerous gravestones on which the name “Iames” was inscribed. No J! In the 1611 KIV:

It says “Epistle of Iames,” not James.

You can view snapshots of the 1611 King Iames Bible here:

THE GENERALL EPISTLE OF IAMES.  (ORIGINAL 1611 KJV) (kingjamesbibleonline.org)

The ignorance/distortion of linguistic history displayed by AZ is truly epic!

Here is an excellent summary of the situation of pronunciation changes that led up to the modern English ‘Jesus’:

{The name Jesus is an English rendering of the Latin name Iesus, which is a Latin rendering of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), which is a Greek rendering of the Aramaic name יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšūă‘), which is a shortened form of the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšúa), meaning “YHWH is Salvation,” which is the original Hebrew name of the hero Joshua from the Book of Joshua in the Hebrew Bible.} Source: What was Jesus’s name in Aramaic? – Quora.}

In short, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the letter J even existed in any language before the Middle Ages. This is especially true of Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. The Apostles addressed Jesus as either ‘Yahshua” (Hebrew, meaning “Yahweh saves”) or ‘Yeshua” (Aramaic). The truth is that the word ‘Jesus’ was never heard anywhere on planet earth until the 1750’s. – Eli] Back to AZ’s Jewish flatulence:

The Greek Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus & the Apostles Used, Almost Identical to Paleo-Hebrew [This is a blatant lie! There is no similarity between the 250 BC Greek script and the paleo-Hebrew of OT times! The Septuagint (LXX) was commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphus. 70 Judahite scribes were employed for the task, which was completed around 280 BC. Here is an image of the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton written within the Greek LXX text:

 

The DISSIMILARITY is quite obvious!

Here is another:

 

 

 

– Eli] Back to AZ for more dissimulation! Have patience, we are almost done!

 

Chart #4: Comparison of Paleo Hebrew and Greek

1 = North Semitic alphabet (Paleo-Hebrew) 2 = Earliest Greek character (9th-6th centuries B.C.) 4 = Eastern branch (Ionic) 5 = Eastern branch (Attic) 7 = Western branch 9 = Classic Greek 10 = Names of the Greek Letters (those in parentheses = names of letters now discarded in classic Greek)

Both Chart #4 (left) and Chart #1 (top of page) shows that Greek and Paleo-Hebrew are closely related. Whereas “Modern Hebrew” (& Strong’s Concordance Hebrew) is closely related to Assyrian Aramaic. [This idea has already been refuted herein. There is no such thing as “Assyrian Aramaic.” “Apostle” Zimmerman is simply making this up! The chronology of the Assyrian language shows that the Assyrians picked up the Aramaic speech and writing late in their history, well after the events described in Genesis and Exodus. – Eli]

Greek & Paleo-Hebrew look and sound almost identical. Notice also that Paleo-Hebrew did have vowels! [AZ has no way of knowing how Greek and Hebrew sounded in those days. Yes, the paleo-Hebrew did have vowels, but the vowel characters were left out of the text to save space and because Moses and the scribes knew how to pronounce the words. Early Greek had no written vowels either. It was the Greeks who took the Hebrew – not Phoenician – alphabet and started inserting vowels into their written words.
For example, the paleo-Hebrew Aleph became A; the Paleo-Hebrew Hey produced E; Yod became Y; Waw spawned a short a; etc– Eli.]

The Hebrew roots sacred name followers claim that Hebrew did not have vowels. [This is inaccurate. Nobody has ever said that the Hebrew language had no vowels. AZ fails to distinguish between written and spoken Hebrew. The correct statement is that the vowels existed but were not written down. This is disingenuous language that insults our intelligence! – Eli] They are talking about “modern” Hebrew which is really Chaldean Aramaic & did not even exist during the lifetime of Moses! Paleo-Hebrew did have vowels and also had a “J” sound as well! [Sorry, NO J! – Eli]

The truth is that Greek is much closer to the ancient language of the bible than what modern Hebrew is. [Modern Hebrew is Jewish, but AZ has no idea of how ancient Greek sounded. Even today, neither Greek nor Jewish “Hebrew” have a J sound! To this day! If the J sound was as prevalent as he claims, “Apostle” Zimmerman would have to explain how all these early languages “forgot” the J sound!! – Eli] Jesus & the apostles used the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament. It was often quoted in the New Testament by Jesus & the Apostle Paul. Jesus called himself the Alpha and Omega. Hebrew roots people may have a problem with Greek but Jesus did not have a problem with Greek! [Hebrew roots people do not have a problem with Greek. I don’t know where Mr. Zimmerman gets this idea from. – Eli] It was almost identical to the old Paleo-Hebrew! [The graphics above show how radically different the paleo-Hebrew is from the Greek. The Zimmerman yeshiva is making things up again! – Eli] Greek & Old Hebrew look and sound alike. God has preserved His Word through the Greek Septuagint, what fragments we have of the Old Paleo-Hebrew & through the Alexandrian Text.

Update & new confirmation in 2020, which is years after I first wrote this article: I have now discovered that the original settlers of Greece were the tribe of Dan, one of the tribes of Israel, during the time of either Joseph or Moses! [Welcome to the world of Israel Identity! I think Zimmerman is merely trying to ingratiate himself to those of us who have known this for decades! – Eli] This is partly how the Hebrew language came to Greece. The original Greeks were Hebrews! [The original Greeks were Japhethites, but their territory was later swarmed over by various migrating Israelite tribes, from whom the Hebrew influence comes. Neither group had a J sound in their language! – Eli]
Source 1. Source 2. Source 3.
And that the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt was much shorter than 400 years. [Not true!  Since AZ admits to only recently discovering this fact, he does not understand that the House of Zarah Judah left Egypt early, along with members several other tribes, while the other Israelites remained slaves until Moses liberated them around 1446 BC. The prophecy given to Abraham that the Israelites would be slaves to another people was given around 1900 BC. “Apostle” Zimmerman has a lot to learn about biblical history! If AZ comes to understand Christian Identity, would he give up his Jewish roots? – Eli] Click to watch this video for biblical proof that the time between Joseph and Moses was very short.

YHWH & What It Means in Assyrian Babylonian Aramaic:

The original scriptures did not have the four letter tetragrammaton of YHWH. [Nonsense! – Eli] The 4 letters shown here   are “Modern Hebrew” which is really Babylonian {sic, modern Jewish – Eli} Aramaic. They did not appear in the original scriptures. Moses did not write them. They are not Paleo-Hebrew. They are Aramaic (Modern Hebrew) which did not exist during Moses lifetime. Moses would have written during 1446-1406 B.C. in old Paleo-Hebrew. The language of Aramaic, the language of “YHWH/YHVH”, did not exist until around 900 B.C. See Chart #1 and notice the time line at the bottom of that chart. So, how can we say that Moses wrote the Aramaic letters of YHWH/YHVH? We can’t! We must admit that the scriptures were translated from one language to another language during each era, just as we witness in our modern times. We must admit that the original name that God spoke (and Moses wrote) was not the 4 letters YHWH/YHVH which people then translate into Yahweh, Yahshua, Yeshua, Jehovah & a host of other names other than Jesus. The 4 letters YHWH/YHVH & all the translations from it are all Babylonian Aramaic. YHWH/YHVH is actually the tetragrammaton name of Baal. [Nonsense! The Hebrew equivalent of Baal is “LORD,” which is the word the Jews have substituted for YHWH. – Eli] Even the Encyclopedia Britannica 1958 edition, Volume 12, page 996 says: “…Yahweh is not a Hebrew name”.

[This claim is also bogus. Here is what the EB says about the name Yahweh today:

{ Yahweh, name for the God of the Israelites, representing the biblical pronunciation of “YHWH,” the Hebrew name revealed to Moses in the book of Exodus. The name YHWH, consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, is known as the tetragrammaton.

After the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE), and especially from the 3rd century BCE on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely a local religion, the more common Hebrew noun Elohim (plural in form but understood in the singular), meaning “God,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Britannica Quiz

 World Religions & Traditions

The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century CE worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, added to “YHWH” the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Latin-speaking Christian scholars replaced the Y (which does not exist in Latin) with an I or a J (the latter of which exists in Latin as a variant form of I). Thus, the tetragrammaton became the artificial Latinized name Jehovah (JeHoWaH). As the use of the name spread throughout medieval Europe, the initial letter J was pronounced according to the local vernacular language rather than Latin.} Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh.}

So, you see, there is no support for A’s bogus claims about the pronunciation of Hebrew words.

I typed the words “Encyclopedia Britannica 1958 edition, Volume 12, page 996 says: “…Yahweh is not a Hebrew name.” into my browser. This is what comes up: “Error 404.”

If Encyclopedia Britannica ever made such a statement, it no longer does. Sanity prevails, occasionally! If you look at all the listings under that heading, they are all repetitions of “Apostle” Zimmerman’s bogus claims. He has also hired people to make videos, repeating his nonsense!

It is becoming very clear to me that “Apostle” Zimmerman is a Talmudic disinformation specialist whose mission in life is to suppress the use of the Sacred Names, Yahweh and Yahshua. Zimmerman is just another Masorete.

This situation is eloquently expressed by the editors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1974). From the Preface:

{A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; The King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as a part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice of reading the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh,” this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. The four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced [by the rabbis of Judaism! – Eli], they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word “Adonai” meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”). The ancient Greek translators substituted the word ‘Kyrios’ (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word ‘Dominus.’ The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian church.} Online source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html

From this statement, we can see that the suppression of the Name of Yahweh is an entirely Jewish business and that the modern churches have succumbed to this practice by imitating the Jews in this suppression. It is evident to me that “Apostle” Zimmerman is co-operating with this same form of suppression by concocting out of very completely illogical and ahistorical arguments a yet more subtle technique of suppression than has been employed by the rabbis since they executed Yahshua. This is the technique of redefining old words and making up new words that never existed in order to fool the goyim.

I will here provide one more proof that AZ’s linguistics are pure fiction. The proof is contained in the New Testament, with regard to Pontius Pilate’s inscription upon the Cross, which inscription was written in three languages.

Here is an image of that plaque:

None of the three languages contains the letter J! Sorry, Charley! Your deception has been exposed. Dear reader: Do you believe the Jew or your own eyes!

One more point of reference:

From THE INSCRIPTION AT THE CROSS – THE TRUTH STANDS FOREVER :

{Fast forward to the Roman Catholic Church and the use of the letters: INRI

The Roman Catholic Church used this ancient custom by placing four letters on their crucifixes which are “INRI.” These are the first letters of the four words of the inscription on the cross as they appeared in Latin.

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IUDAEORVM – INRI

The name “Jesus” in Latin is not spelled with a “J.” It is spelled with an “I.” So the first letter “I” represents the name of Jesus. The second letter “N” is the first letter for the word “Nazareth” in Latin. Then “R” for Rex, is the first letter for “King,” and finally “I” would be for the “J” in the word “Jews.” Those are the first four letters of the four words in Latin. “INRI.” And since the Roman Catholic religion uses Latin in their services, it only stands to reason that on their crucifix they would’ use these four Latin letters.

I = Jesus (Iesvs)
N = Nazareth
R = Rex (King)
I = Jews {sic, Judaites. – Eli}

What more proof do you need that the I was pronounced like Y and not like a J?

It is quite obvious to me that “ISawtheLightMinistries” is seeing through Talmudic spectacles!

Yahshua said: “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” – Matt. 6:22-23.

Way too many of our people love to have their ears tickled by Jewish lies, especially if they don’t know that they are reading and hearing Jewish lies.

At this point, since we are at 70 pages of critique, I feel that I do not need to offer any more detailed criticisms of “Apostle” Zimmerman’s document. It is just more of the same arguments, endlessly repeated. Thanks for allowing me to clear the air of Talmudic smog! Read on, if you care to!

Shine on, you meshugana diamond!

I have spent enough time on this refutation. I am already sick of it! It just reminds too much of what is found in the Talmud: namely, distortion of the Holy Scriptures by clever and devious means! It was the rabbis of Judaism who struck the Name of YHWH out of the Holy Scriptures nearly 8,000 times and replaced it with LORD. Consider the source!

Fum! Fi! Fo! Fee! I smell the blood of a Pharisee!

– Your humble servant, Pastor Eli James]

Here is the link to Zimmerman’s article, if you care to read on:

www.isawthelightministries.com/sacrednames.html

SUMMARY

The salient points, concerning the Zimmerman document denouncing the Sacred Names, Yahweh and Yahshua, follow:

1. The writer, “Apostle” Zimmerman, is a self-proclaimed “half-Jew.” Not good.
2. Zimmerman pretends to be inspired by g-d, whoever that is! Whether a Jew can be inspired by the Holy Spirit is highly unlikely. (See Obadiah.)
3. AZ takes Judaism and the Its-a-lie State seriously! He’s a true blue Jew, through and through!
4. Yahweh is the Spirit of Truth. “We are of Yahweh: he that knoweth Yahweh heareth us; he that is not of Yahweh heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (I John 4:6) Zimmerman knows Him not!
5. His biblical linguistic statements are based Chabad Lubavitcher lies.
6. AZ appeals to “divine inspiration.” So, suspend reason and believe the Jew.
7. The secular linguistic theories he presents are totally obsolete and anti-biblical.
8. His J statements are pure Talmudic rubbish: Chutzpah versus established facts.
9. He fails to alert his readers that the current denial of the Sacred Names has the Masoretes at its sources, as it is still today!
10. Zimmerman’s attempt to change the Hebrew letter Yod into a J is sheer sophistry.
11. Likewise, his attempt to change the Hebrew letter Vav into an S is a clever exercise in fooling the goyim. I would call it delusional, if I didn’t know it was deliberate.
12. Judaism is the Synagogue of Satan, and no biological Jew can rise above it, especially the false “apostle,” Zimmerman.

I rest my case. May Yahweh be with you always.

Pastor Eli James

Postscript

There has recently been a rash of net videos proclaiming that “Yahweh is Satan.” To these presenters, I say, “If Yahweh is Satan, then why did He give us the Ten Commandments?” Does Satan punish sinners? Yahweh punishes sinners. The Bible is an intensive record of how Yahweh punishes sinners. Satan would do no such thing!

Aleister Crowley explained the law of Satan very well. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” The modern version of this “law” is “If it feels good, do it.” This is the difference between Yahweh and Satan. Lucifer says: Lust, graft, murder, usury, deceit: Go for it!

Yahshua said “I do the will of My Father.” When the Pharisees accused him of having a devil, He said to them, “If Satan cast out Satan, how shall his kingdom stand?” Now you know why the Jews are always trying to cast out Yahweh. They are doing the will of Satan while masquerading as the “chosen.” To put it simply: Judaism is nothing but the continuation of the Luciferian rebellion.