What God cannot do

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 14 2009,11:55)

Thinker said:

Quote

One who knows himself capable of sin could never speak with this kind of assurance. A man who knows himself capable of sin would never say “I always do those things that please Him” unless he is deluded like Peter. When Jesus said “I do laways those things that please Him” he was speaking indicatively.

Martian replied:

Quote

This is speculation. Why could a man not say that. A man who had a perfect relationship with His father could be capable of saying that. No problem.

Martian,
First I want to say publically what I in my pm to you today that I said that I will not reply to anyone but YOU.

Now to answer your reply. I made the point that if it was possible for Jesus to sin then God's word could have been nullified and this would mean that God can change. You have not answered bro. Just answer “Yes” or “No”.

Martian said:

Quote

Are you inferring that Jesus had some special connection with God that is not available to us? A connection that made it impossible for him to sin?

Yeah! Jesus did claim to have a “special connection” with God. He said,

Quote

My Father has been working until now and I work (John 5;17)

So what happened next? The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He distinguished Himself from the rest of them.

Quote

Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He had not only broken the sabbath, but also said that God was His OWN (v.18)

Jesus went against the establishment with such a claim. Why do you think they wanted to kill Him? If He would have claimed a common connection with others they would have said, “Now that's cool. Let's leave the man alone.” But He said, “God is MY OWN” and this is why they wanted to kill Him.

It falls upon you to explain why Jesus was put to death if He taught that He had a common connection to God with other men. And you must also explain how Jesus could have been capable of sin without the real possibility that God's promise could fail.

I repeat, if Jesus could sin, then the real possibility existed that God's promise could fail. And if there was a real possibility that God's promise could fail, then God can change. It's that simple! It's really that simple!

love,
thinker

Thinker said:
Quote
One who knows himself capable of sin could never speak with this kind of assurance. A man who knows himself capable of sin would never say “I always do those things that please Him” unless he is deluded like Peter. When Jesus said “I do laways those things that please Him” he was speaking indicatively.

Martian replied:
Quote
This is speculation. Why could a man not say that. A man who had a perfect relationship with His father could be capable of saying that. No problem.

You say –
Now to answer your reply. I made the point that if it was possible for Jesus to sin then God's word could have been nullified and this would mean that God can change. You have not answered bro. Just answer “Yes” or “No”.

Reply-
First do not presume to pull the old Yes or No scam on me. I am not your whipping to dog to be told how to respond to you. Any reasonable person knows that there are not always simple Yes or No answers.
Secondly, I already addressed this issue in my previous post. Please read it again. God inspired the writers to include the prophecies concerning Christ because He foreknew what Christ would do. Foreknowledge does not mean that God interfered with Christ ability to sin.

You say –
It falls upon you to explain why Jesus was put to death if He taught that He had a common connection to God with other men.

Reply –
Nope, do not need to prove anything except that your end conclusion nullifies Christ as our example. Again you fall into the category of those that are only interested in proving their doctrine and not interested in results. You do not seem to care that, in the end, your theory, process of interpretation, commentary or conclusions invalidate Christ as our example. In this particular case our example of how to overcome or resist temptation.

You say –
And you must also explain how Jesus could have been capable of sin without the real possibility that God's promise could fail.

I repeat, if Jesus could sin, then the real possibility existed that God's promise could fail. And if there was a real possibility that God's promise could fail, then God can change. It's that simple! It's really that simple!

Reply –
Actually I do not have to deal with any of your commentary on scripture or your doctrine. All I need do is test it with two questions.
Does it change the character of God?
Does in invalidate the efectiveness of Christ as our example?
Fail either question and no matter what the process, scripture commentary or theory it must be wrong.

So now that we know that your conclusions will not work, it is a simple matter to show how mine will. The question really becomes, How could God be so sure that Christ would not fail? Sure enough to give Him the ability to fail and yet write prophecy detailing Christ lack of failure.
The very word “prophecy” means to tell before. It is clear in scripture that God has foreknowledge. God can look forward in time and see what choices men will make. He could see what choices Jesus would make.

If I had a time machine and could go forward to the 2009 World Series and see the choices and outcomes each team makes, I could make promises that the Cubs would win the series. LOL fat chance! If I saw something different, like the Cardinals would win (more likely) I could make different promises.

The answer is very simple. FOREKNOWLEDGE.
From the beginning God can look forward to what Christ would do. Based on that knowledge God could inspire men to write prophecy concerning Christ’s lack of failure. The promises were made based on God’s foreknowledge.
Had God looked forward and seen that Christ would fail, scripture would have been written different with different promises. How different? More then that I do not know and do not wish to go into speculation.

The problem with your doctrine is that you do not run it to it’s conclusions.
You have, insomuch, as agreed that a true doctrine cannot change the character of God. One other thing that cannot be changed is the efficacy of Christ as our example.
You state that Christ was unaware of His ability to sin. Without an awareness of the ability to sin there can be no temptation. If Christ was not tempted then there are great contradictions in scripture and C
hrist’s example for us is greatly degraded.

Now a few questions for you.

Do you believe that Christ could be unaware of His capability to sin and still be tempted to sin? If so, how?

Do you believe that Christ was our example in how to resist temptation?

Do you believe that God can make promises based on His foreknowledge?

February 15, 2009 at 10:42 am#121632

Participant

Martian said:

Quote

First do not presume to pull the old Yes or No scam on me. I am not your whipping to dog to be told how to respond to you. Any reasonable person knows that there are not always simple Yes or No answers.

Martian,
In terms of real possibilities the answer is “yes” or “no”. I deal with real possibilities.

Martian said:

Quote

God inspired the writers to include the prophecies concerning Christ because He foreknew what Christ would do. Foreknowledge does not mean that God interfered with Christ ability to sin.

The sword cuts both ways good buddy. For the converse is also true that Christ's alleged ability to sin could not inerfere with God's foreknowledge. And if Christ's alleged ability to sin could not interfere with God's foreknowledge, then the real possibility did NOT exist that God's character could change by becoming a man. I am dealing with REAL POSSIBILITIES.

Psychologically Christ did not know Himself to be capable of sin. Jesus said , “I always do those things that please Him.” This means that Jesus saw Himself as a man that was incapable of operating out of union with His Father. He explicitly said that He cannot act on His own initiative,

Quote

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the father doing. For whatosever the Father does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19 ESV).

I gave the ESV translation because it gives the most accurate rendering from the Greek. Jesus said that he cannot act on His own accord that is, he could not act on his own initiative. This necessarily infers that he could not sin. His union with his Father could not be disrupted. This is true not only because God foreknew what Jesus would do as you say and I agree, but also because Jesus KNEW himself to be incapable of acting out of that union.

Your theory that Jesus had the ability to sin infers that the real possibility existed that the union between the Father and His Son could be broken. This in turn infers that God's promise could fail which in turn infers that God's character could change. So your going to have to come up with another line of reasoning for the theories you are presently postulating are out of accord with what Jesus KNEW about himself.

He said that he always did those things that pleased his Father. He said also that he could NOT act on his own initiative. These two statements together destroy your theory that he coud sin. What Jesus KNEW of himself contradicts your supposition that God's character could change by becoming a man.

thinker

February 15, 2009 at 5:34 pm#121648

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 15 2009,21:42)

Martian said:

Quote

Martian,
In terms of real possibilities the answer is “yes” or “no”. I deal with real possibilities.

Martian said:

Quote

God inspired the writers to include the prophecies concerning Christ because He foreknew what Christ would do. Foreknowledge does not mean that God interfered with Christ ability to sin.

Quote

thinker

You say –
The sword cuts both ways good buddy. For the converse is also true that Christ's alleged ability to sin could not inerfere with God's foreknowledge. And if Christ's alleged ability to sin could not interfere with God's foreknowledge, then the real possibility did NOT exist that God's character could change by becoming a man. I am dealing with REAL POSSIBILITIES.

Reply –
What gobble –de –gook!
Certainly if Christ had sinned it would have interfered with God’s foreknowledge because God would have seen something different then we now know he saw. Had that happened Gods promises would have been written differently.

The rest of your stuff is Not relevant!!!
Does not matter what scriptures you cut and paste together. Does not matter what translation you use because it fits your theories. None of it matters. You conclusion still leaves the fact that if Christ was not aware that He could sin then he could not be tempted.
Are you now going to say that Christ was not tempted like other men?

Mat 4
1Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
(Here is the context for the following verses)
2And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
3And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
4But He answered and said, “It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'”
(Satan offered him a choice. Jesus saw the choice and chose to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God)
5Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple,
6and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,? 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU';? and? 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,? SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'”
7Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'”
(Again a choice is offered by Satan and Jesus chose not to put God to the test)
8Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;
9and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.”
10Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'”
(Satan offers him kingdoms if Jesus would worship him and again Jesus chooses to worship God and serve Him only)
11Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

Mat 26
39And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
(Obviously Christ had a choice)
40And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour?
41″Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
42He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

Why was Christ even having this conversation with God if there was no choice to be made.

Now I have had about my fill of your silliness. If you do not believe Jesus capable of sin then you border on being outside of Christianity.

February 15, 2009 at 9:21 pm#121674

Participant

Just for clarity sake I post this from another thread —–

The name Yahweh comes from the root word hayah. This root and the words derived from it have a wide variation in meaning and application. The original concrete meaning is breath and has the extended meaning exist as one who exists breathes. Without God’s breath we and the universe would not exist.

The ancient Hebrews had a very organic and fluid language. The letter H denotes breath. To Hebrew thinkers the breath represents existence. When God created the world it was through the forming of words with His breath. The very word for Spirit in both NT and OT is breath or wind of God. When God created man, He formed his body from the dust, but the animation or life came from God’s breath.
The mechanical translation of Gen 2:7.

And YHWH { He Exists} of Elohiym molded the human of powder of the ground and he exhaled into his nostrils a breath of life and the human breathes/existed (hayah) for a being of life.
God’s breath did not change when creating Adam. The molecules that made up the dust of the Earth were transformed into organic matter and the soul sourced from God’s breath gave it life.

Through Hebrew poetry called parallelism YHWH and hayah, in Gen 2:7, are being paralled showing how close they are in meaning.

In our English translations “hayah” is translated “became”, however it is only one of several meanings and applications of the word. Became carries a meaning of being one thing and then becoming something else. By simple fact and by the way that Hebrews viewed their world the human Adam did not exist in another form and then become a being of life. Adam simply did not exist until he was sourced from YHWH.

YHWH has never not existed. He does not become anything, He simple is. I AM who I AM should be translated I Exist whom I exist. This points to God’s self sustaining nature and the fact that He did not come from somewhere, He simply exists.

Thinker — You cannot latch onto one application of hayah and claim that it means the same everywhere. As you have been preaching to me, context is everything. There is more contextual evidence and many sources that render an “exist” meaning. Even accepting a meaning of “He will Become” (which I do not) does not translate to God becoming a man. You make that leap based on a preconceived idea of doctrine and speculation.

Breath also carries with it the concept character and is related to the same root word as “shem” which is translated “name” and means character.
YHWH character does not change. His breath does not change. It is his breath that brings everything together and binds the universe. His breath/character can be seen in his creation –
Romans 1:20?For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

YHWH attributes and divine nature are revealed through His creation. That creation includes the universe, us and Jesus. Jesus the exact representation of God. A representation is not the original but only reflects the original.

The breath or essence of God does not change, but the ways in which it reveals, functions, or manifests itself can change. No one can see God, but we can see the effects of God. The Hebrews viewed God through their nomadic lifestyle and the concrete physical realm around them. This is why The ancient Hebrews saw God as wind. You cannot see wind but you can see the effects if the wind on the leaves and the blowing sand. In the same way God guided them on their journey through life just like the trade winds guided them.

In Acts 2 we see the “wind/breath of God infilling the apostles. For the first time these men had a larger taste of the life they were meant to live. Jesus, who was given all authority in heaven and Earth said He came to give life and life more abundantly. That life is in the breath/wind of God himself. The more we partake the more we live as we should.

February 15, 2009 at 9:24 pm#121675

Participant

Hi martian,
You say
“
In Acts 2 we see the “wind/breath of God infilling the apostles. For the first time these men had a larger taste of the life they were meant to live. Jesus, who was given all authority in heaven and Earth said He came to give life and life more abundantly. That life is in the breath/wind of God himself. The more we partake the more we live as we should”

But the breath of God which gives temporal life to all things
is not the Spirit of God which gives eternal life.

All nature does not share the Spirit of God.
The spirits of men and animals are not the Spirit of God.

Acts 2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

February 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm#121678

Participant

Hi M,
You say

“Through Hebrew poetry called parallelism YHWH and hayah, in Gen 2:7, are being paralled showing how close they are in meaning.”

Gen2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Where?

February 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm#121741

Participant

Martian said:

Quote

Certainly if Christ had sinned it would have interfered with God’s foreknowledge because God would have seen something different then we now know he saw. Had that happened Gods promises would have been written differently.

In other words, Christ's ability to interfere implies that God's promise could really fail. This in turn infers that God's character could really change. Therefore, Malachi 3:6 is not really true.

It is unfortunate that Christians do not study the art of correct thinking otherwise called “logic”. Martian hangs his hat on his “expert” sources while abandoning consistency.

thinker

February 16, 2009 at 6:14 pm#121748

Participant

Hi TT,
It is better not to become an expert because two of them never agree.
truth is of scripture, not the foolish reason of men.
Such folly led to trinitarianism.

February 16, 2009 at 6:16 pm#121749

meerkat

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2009,06:38)

Martian said:

Quote

It is unfortunate that Christians do not study the art of correct thinking otherwise called “logic”. Martian hangs his hat on his “expert” sources while abandoning consistency.

thinker

Thinker

There is no way that Christ could fail because God foreknew that he would do his Fathers will – that is why he was who he was – he was tempted, so he did have the capacity to sin, however he did not.

So while he really did have a carnal nature because he was really human – he overcame and is our example.

You seem to rely on Jesus never having the ability to sin is why he never did sin when it was Gods foreknowledge and Spirit which kept his son from sinning. I agree with Martian that to be tempted there is a choice and awareness involved – if there was never the awareness and ability to choose sin, then he was not tempted, and he overcame nothing.

February 16, 2009 at 6:48 pm#121753

Participant

Meerkat said:

Quote

Meerkat,
You say that it was God's foreknowledge and Spirit that kept Jesus from sinning. Then in the next breath you turn around and say that Jesus had the “choice” not to sin. But what “choice” did Jesus have if God's foreknowledge and Spirit prevented him from sinning?

Yet the anti-trinitarians have the audicity to say that the trinitarians contradict themselves. Geez!!

thinker

February 16, 2009 at 8:16 pm#121756

Participant

Hi,
Does anyone know what God can do?
If we do not know that is it useful to talk about what we think He cannot do?

February 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm#121768

meerkat

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2009,07:48)

Meerkat said:

Quote

Yet the anti-trinitarians have the audicity to say that the trinitarians contradict themselves. Geez!!

thinker

Thinker,

In what way was Jesus tempted if he did not have the ability to sin?

How is Jesus our example if he is different from us in that you say he did not have the ability to sin and so did not have a carnal nature that we have. What did he “overcome”?

February 16, 2009 at 11:45 pm#121777

Participant

Nick wrote:

Quote

Does anyone know what God can do?
If we do not know that is it useful to talk about what we think He cannot do?

Nick,
I have said over and over on various threads that God can become what He wants to become. So it's not me that says that God cannot do anything. You need to ask Martian that question. He seems to think that God is so high and transcendant that His hands are tied behind His back.

thinker

February 17, 2009 at 12:30 am#121780

Participant

Meerkat said:

Quote

In what way was Jesus tempted if he did not have the ability to sin?

How is Jesus our example if he is different from us in that you say he did not have the ability to sin and so did not have a carnal nature that we have. What did he “overcome”?

Meerkat,
What do you mean by the term “carnal nature” in reference to Christ? Did you mean that He had a sinful nature like us or just a sinless human nature? He had a human nature but not a sinful one. Hebrews 7 explicitly states that He was “seperate from sinners.”

You asked “What did he overcome?” The narrative of His temptation in the wilderness answers this.

For example, He had been without food for 40 days and the narrative says that He “hungered.” He was tempted of the devil to command the stones to become bread. Therefore, He overcame His legitimate bodily needs. His inability to sin cannot minimize the intensity of that temptation. Christ's temptation was in sharp contrast to Adam and Eve's because they gave in to the temptation to eat when they were not hungry. They were in a garden with trees all around them to eat from. But Jesus was in the wilderness and hadn't eaten for forty days. So we know without a doubt that the intensity of that temptation was great. Yet He overcame His hunger and obeyed God.

Jesus Himself said that He could not act on His own accord in anything. He did not say, “I will not do anything on my own accord”. He said that He cannot do anything on His own accord,

Quote

Truly, truly I say to you, the Son cannot do anything of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19)

This is a very clear statement. Jesus said that He could do only what He saw His Father doing. He could not act out of accord with His Father. This means that He could not sin. If He could have then the union between the Father and the Son could have been broken. This infers that God's promise could have failed which in turn infers that God's character could change. Yet this does not mean that temptation was not real for Him. He had not eaten for forty days and He was hungry. We know therefore by our own experience that the temptation of Jesus was real.

Yet He said, “I always do those things that please Him” (the Father). I would not have that kind of assurance had I not eaten for forty days. Though Jesus was in the wilderness and very hungry he still knew Himself as a man that always pleases God. I don't have that kind of assurance about myself. I find that I can have sexual relations with my wife and have my needs met and then immediately go out and see a woman and want her too.

So it must be conceded by all that in the very least Christ knew Himself to be incapable of acting contrary to His Father in all things.

thinker

February 17, 2009 at 2:36 am#121788

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 17 2009,10:45)

Nick wrote:

Quote

Does anyone know what God can do?
If we do not know that is it useful to talk about what we think He cannot do?

thinker

Hi tt,
How do you what God can become if we know so little about Him and how is that relevant to Him sending His Son?

It seems you have a small god that fits in your boxes.

February 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm#121888

Participant

Nick said:

Quote

How do you what God can become if we know so little about Him and how is that relevant to Him sending His Son?

It seems you have a small god that fits in your boxes.

What!! I have repeatedly said that God can become anything He wants and you accuse me of putting Him in a box?

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzaroni!!!

thinker

February 17, 2009 at 6:11 pm#121890

Participant

Hi TT,
You have no idea what God can do so building on such a foundation cannot bring doctrinal stability.

February 17, 2009 at 7:01 pm#121901

Participant

Thinker seems to think that foreknowledge has an effect on the future. It does not. Predestination is not the same as foreknowledge. God nowing in advance that Christ would not sin has no effect on Christ ability to sin.
Temptation means you have knowledge of a choice. A righteous choice and a sinfull choice. Thinker says Christ was not aware that he could make a sinull choice. Without awareness of a sinfull chpoice there can be no temptation. Satan made it very clear what the choices were and Christ was aware of what satan ws offereing.

February 17, 2009 at 7:18 pm#121903

Participant

Since this topic is being discused on two threads, I offer this from the other one.

Thinker has said that YHWH means He will become. The driving force behind this interpretation is not proper interpretive skills, it is a need to prove his doctrine.
Now I do not give a hoot about thinkers posturing or his need to prove that he is right and get the accolades of the forum. I do not care if it is driven by insecurity, pride, stubbornness or simple ignorance.
The reason I agreed that YHWH can mean
He became is because of our Western thinking. I attempted as the translators did to bring a Eastern concept into a Western cultures understanding. As I posted previously the story of Adam. It is easier for us of a Western thinking culture to understand that Adam became a living being when God breathed in him. However, from a Eastern mindset, They would have simply said “and Adam existed a living being.”
In order to make this clear, I offer this ——-
The original language of the ancient Hebrews was in pictographs. The Arabic letters we are all are used to did not appear until after the Babylonian Captivity. It is from these pictographs that the original understanding must be gathered.
For those unfamiliar with pictographs, they resemble hieroglyphics although they predate them. They are most likely the oldest form of writing known. Great strides have been taken to unearth these symbols in recent decades. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have added to the knowledge. For more understanding on these letters you can google “Hebrew Pictographs” and you will find a great deal about them. Unfortunately many “so-called” scholars completely ignore the original language of the Hebrews and only go back as far as writings after the Babylonian captivity. Only in the past 30 to 50 years has enough archeological evidence been uncovered that honest researchers have reconstructed this language.

One thing to always bear in mind is the effect that culture has on writing. One of the concepts is that the Hebrews believed nothing existed outside of God’s breath. Adam did not exist until God Breathed the breath of life into the clay.

Unfortunately, I cannot transfer the pictograph letters onto this site. I will try to describe them.
The primary letters of YHWH are HWH. The Y is added as a prefix indicating the word “He”
Allow me to include these descriptions from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.

H
The original pictograph for this letter is , a man standing with his arms raised out. The Modern Hebrew and original name for this letter is “hey”. The Hebrew word “hey” means “behold”, as when looking at a great sight. This word can also mean “breath” or “sigh” as one does when looking at a great sight. The meaning of the letter is behold, look, breath, sigh and reveal or revelation from the idea of revealing a great sight by pointing it out. ??The Modern Hebrew sound for this letter is “h”. Originally this letter doubled as a consonant, with an “h” sound, or as the vowel sound “eh”. When the Greeks adopted this letter it became the “epsilon” with an “eh” sound.??This letter is commonly used as a prefix to words to mean “the” as in “ha'arets” meaning “the land”. The use of this prefix is to reveal something of importance within the sentence.??The Early Semitic evolved into the Middle Semitic by rotating the letter 90 degrees to the left. This letter then evolved into in the late Semitic script that developed into the Modern Hebrew ?. The Middle Semitic was adopted by the Greeks and the Romans to become the E (reversed due to the direction of writing). This Middle Semitic letter also became the number 5.

W
The original pictograph used in the Early Semitic script is a , a picture of a tent peg. The tent pegs were made of wood and may have been Y-shaped to prevent the rope from slipping off.??The Modern Hebrew name for this letter is “vav”, a word meaning “peg” or “hook”. This letter is used in Modern Hebrew as a consonant with a “v” sound and as a vowel. If the Modern Hebrew letter appears as , it is the vowel sound “ow” and if it appears as , it is the vowel sound “uw”. When used as a vowel the ancient pronunciation was also an “ow” or “uw”. In each of the consonant/vowel letters of the Ancient Hebrew language the pronunciation of the consonant is closely related to the pronunciation of the vowel such as the letter “hey” (See above) is “h” and “eh” and the pronunciation of the letter “yud” (See below) is “y” and “iy”. For this reason, it is probable that the original pronunciation of the letter was with a “w”. In Modern Arabic language, this letter is also pronounced with a “w”. Therefore, the original name of this letter would have been “waw” instead of “vav”.??As the pictograph indicates, this letter represents a peg or hook, which are used for securing something. The meaning of this letter is to add or secure.??This letter is frequently used as a prefix to words to mean “and” in the sense of adding things together. ??The Early Semitic evolved into the in the Middle Semitic script. This letter then became the of the Late Semitic script and evolved into the Modern Hebrew ?. The Middle Semitic letter was adopted by the Greeks and the Romans to be the letter F but was dropped from the Greek alphabet later. The Late Semitic form of the letter became the number 9.

There is no indication in the original language of the concept of God becoming anything. God simply is. The whole idea of YHWH meaning become is simply taken from an attempt by translators to bring a Eastern concept into Western thinking. Of course the vast majority of translators since the third century have been Trinitarian and God becoming a man seemed appropriate to their doctrine. For hundreds of years very few have had the guts to step away from the traditional teachings of the Catholics. Probably because they would have been killed. Even today, with the freedom to believe what honest research reveals, many cannot get away from filtering their interpretations through their preconceived ideas of doctrine.

The resulting honest interpretation comes out like this –
Y = He
H= Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.
W = A connecting letter binding together the letters on either side.
H = Magnificent sight/breath meaning exist.

The end result is He Exists. With overtones of the magnificence of that sight.

February 17, 2009 at 7:20 pm#121904