Is Jesus God and How Not to Use Hebrew

[wmam]

So educate this poor sot (maybe you dropped a "c" I'm not sure). Are subjects of a sentence and phrase usage ambigous enough in Hebrew to be able to make such a mistake easily?

First, I wouldn't call you personally sottish but your action, as it were, to me was.

No, I didn't drop a "c".

Thank goodness that I am not a teacher. I haven't the patience to teach. LOL....... I have almost lost all what I had discussing truth here. LOL

I will share this with you though. I picked up on the use of the word in question here.............

Jer 4:22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

Jer 4:22 For3588 my people5971 is foolish,191 they have not3808 known3045 me; they1992 are sottish5530 children,1121 and they1992 have none3808 understanding:995 they1992 are wise2450 to do evil,7489 but to do good3190 they have no3808 knowledge.3045

H5530
סכל
sâkâl
saw-kawl'
From H5528; silly: - fool (-ish), sottish.

It's so easy to attack others and belittle them. It's quite another to see and understand truth for yourself and let those that dabble with what they think they know to themselves.

I believe ZSR1973 has allot of truth but I do not agree with them 100%. Though I do not agree with part of there understanding, I will not lower myself to ridicule and harass them nor belittle or judge them because of it. One doesn't have to agree but to not agree with what one says when you have already made it clear that you do not know the language in which is being used plus you make no attempt to research the meaning of the certain words used in the context in which one used them is as I have said to me very sottish. If this offends you then I do apologize. I meant no ill will.

 

[wmam]

By the way, what ancient Hebrew translator do you use?

LOL.........I pretty much stick to the KJV but there are times I like the NIV but yet I'll pick over the JPS interlinear Hebrew/English and check all the above against each other as well as some other choice translations. I think your statement was, and forgive me if I am wrong or misunderstood, something along the lines of who was we to question the translators of the KJV or the like which had a far better grasp of the language than we did? Well I can show some mistakes in translation of both the OT and the NT in the KJV and other translations as I am sure you are well aware of and if not we can start another of the many already posted threads on such a subject or you can just as easily PM me and we could do it that way. One only really has to understand one concept when reading the Scriptures though........It was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, about Hebrews. This alone changes the understanding of many context through out the whole of the Scriptures.

 

[wmam]

Which is exactly why I'm wondering how one translation could use a noun as the subject of a sentence and then another use the same Hebrew word as part of a prepositional phrase used as an adjective.

I wonder if the English redactors understanding of the Hebrew way of sentence structure is also a problem? I mean............. I don't think that the Hebrew writers of that day cared to much then, or now, whether they wrote in a way that pleases the English way of writing or context.

Perhaps a good pentacostal tongues interpreter is needed. Maybe Ken Copeland is available.

No comment.

 

[Zsr1973]

No problem there (except for the parenthetical insert). That some things were created and some things were formed from what was there is obvious in the English translation. That Adam was created is also evident in the English translation:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27 KJV.

That things created are also formed is not a contridiction.



First this about your "Master Teacher" from http://www.masonicinfo.com/york.htm

"He claimed to be an extraterrestrial being from the 19th galaxy called Illyuwn, Malachi (born as Dwight) York. Now this self-proclaimed leader of his creation, the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, will likely spend the rest of his life in US federal prison having received a 135 year sentence.

[FONT=verdana, Arial, Helvetica]During 2003 he admitted to multiple state charges of child abuse, kidnapping, and more. Engaging in a variety of tactics to avoid prosecution, he claimed that he was an American Indian using a genealogy so weak as to cause any serious historian fits of laughter. In another ploy, he withdrew his guilty plea and chose to stand trial on federal charges - where he ultimately lost."[/FONT]​

For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_York​

Perhaps you could find a more credible source.​

At this point I might conclude that what you offer is an excellent example of the point I made with this thread. Thank you so much.​

There is nothing you can state that I haven't heard or seen before, except for the fact that i was there. Not all that you see in the American media is straightforward. In fact, i left the name of my organization available for everyone to see purposely, just for this type of situation.

What you didn't see in the media is that they invaded Tama-Re (the Egyptian city of the West that we built) and took the names and records of all the members of our orders and lodges. They used it to threaten him and so he plead. But you probably don't really believe your government would use that type of tactic against a Black organization, do you? (thats rhetorical of course)

If you mock his native American background, that's fine. Just look at these "Native American" councils in which half the members are blue-eyed and "pale-skinned" as the original natives used to say. Read the diaries of the earliest explorers to the Americas and you will see that they describe those original Natives as very dark skinned tribes. The tribes of the south did mix with Blacks during that era. Almost every true African American I have ever met has native American in their background. We just aren't as clued in as the more "light-skinned" brothers in how to manipulate that heritage for our own good.

Regarding his case, what the media doesn't portray in their versions of the "facts" is that the majority of complaintants in the case against him all lived together with his son who is angry with him. Many of the young women were sleeping with the same son in Atlanta. Those are the people making the case. After over three decades and many thousands of members over the years, where are the people coming out of the woodwork claiming he molested them too? There are none. To top it off, several of the complaintants have retracted their story. Copies of their transcripts can be found online just as easily as you found the "cult" websites.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There is nothing you can state that I haven't heard or seen before, except for the fact that i was there. Not all that you see in the American media is straightforward. In fact, i left the name of my organization available for everyone to see purposely, just for this type of situation.

What you didn't see in the media is that they invaded Tama-Re (the Egyptian city of the West that we built) and took the names and records of all the members of our orders and lodges. They used it to threaten him and so he plead. But you probably don't really believe your government would use that type of tactic against a Black organization, do you? (thats rhetorical of course)

If you mock his native American background, that's fine. Just look at these "Native American" councils in which half the members are blue-eyed and "pale-skinned" as the original natives used to say. Read the diaries of the earliest explorers to the Americas and you will see that they describe those original Natives as very dark skinned tribes. The tribes of the south did mix with Blacks during that era. Almost every true African American I have ever met has native American in their background. We just aren't as clued in as the more "light-skinned" brothers in how to manipulate that heritage for our own good.

Regarding his case, what the media doesn't portray in their versions of the "facts" is that the majority of complaintants in the case against him all lived together with his son who is angry with him. Many of the young women were sleeping with the same son in Atlanta. Those are the people making the case. After over three decades and many thousands of members over the years, where are the people coming out of the woodwork claiming he molested them too? There are none. To top it off, several of the complaintants have retracted their story. Copies of their transcripts can be found online just as easily as you found the "cult" websites.

I take that as a, "No, I don't have a more credible source."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

LOL.........I pretty much stick to the KJV but there are times I like the NIV ....

Neither of which translate the Hebrew into anything but "The Lord God.." as does the NLT, the NKJV, the Nasv, the RSV, as well as Webster, Young, and Darby, the ASV, and the HNV to name a few.

but yet I'll pick over the JPS interlinear Hebrew/English...

Which translates Genesis 2:8 into......?

...who was we to question the translators of the KJV or the like which had a far better grasp of the language than we did? .

And you are a better translator than the above mentioned translations?

Well I can show some mistakes in translation of both the OT and the NT in the KJV and other translations ....

Broadening the argument does not resolve the issue os Gen 2:8 and the proper translation of the term "The Lord God..."

One only really has to understand one concept when reading the Scriptures though........It was written....for Hebrews, about Hebrews...

This is inaccurate as the Old Testament mentions people from Adam to Jacob who were not Hebrew and makes numerous references to the fate of gentiles.

Not bad for a sot if I do say so myself. After all as my favorite translator says, "Sottish is what sottish does."

 

[wmam]

Neither of which translate the Hebrew into anything but "The Lord God.." as does the NLT, the NKJV, the Nasv, the RSV, as well as Webster, Young, and Darby, the ASV, and the HNV to name a few.

Hmmmmmmm........ did I say they did? If so then my apologies but I do not recall ever saying as such.

Which translates Genesis 2:8 into......?

Gen 2:8 ויטע5193 יהוה3068 אלהים430 גן1588 בעדן5731 מקדם6924 וישׂם7760 שׁם8033 את853 האדם120 אשׁר834 יצר׃3335

Not sure if this is what you wanted but this is what it says with the Strong letters.

And you are a better translator than the above mentioned translations?

I never claimed to be better than anything. I am only a student of the Scripture and have seen mistakes as well as mistranslations with a hint of agenda's mixed in here and there. Hey but that is me. You may find that all is well or all is bad. that would be you. I am not here to sway you or to change your mind. You are free to believe whatever makes your boat float.

Broadening the argument does not resolve the issue os Gen 2:8 and the proper translation of the term "The Lord God..."

Oh......that is what you wanted. LOL........That is easy. Lord = Baal and God = Super Human. The One I call the Most High is neither but rather YAH Elohim. But again, that is just me. You are free to believe whatever your heart desires and you won't hear a peep outta me.

This is inaccurate as the Old Testament mentions people from Adam to Jacob who were not Hebrew and makes numerous references to the fate of gentiles.

Oh wow... I can't believe that I have been wrong all this time. Thank you for setting me straight. Now I can rightfully say that the whole time I was reading a book in school called American History that it was a lie and should have been called by that which it mentioned through out all of its pages. :areyoucra LOL Wold History maybe? No cause it didn't mention Pigmy's in there did it? Hmmmmmmmm.

Not bad for a sot if I do say so myself. After all as my favorite translator says, "Sottish is what sottish does."

Hey you got me there. Who is it for me to argue with a self proclaimed sottish person. You win. Your understanding, and translation, is 100% correct for you.

 

[blueman]

I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that Jesus claimed equal deity with God The Father, according to biblical record. John 8:58 in which Jesus states "I and the Father are one" and in John 1:1 in which the famous passsage in "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word represents Jesus and His eternal nature. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus stressed His authority that all judgement and forgiveness of sins rests with Him. Only God can forgive sins and rendered judgement. Paul talked about Jesus's incarnation in Phillipians Chapter 2 Jesus equality in deity with God The Father and the voluntary sacrifice made through His incarnation in an effort to bring salvation to a lost world. According to biblical record, there was no doubt God The Son was on an equal plateau with God The Father.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hmmmmmmm........ did I say they did? If so then my apologies but I do not recall ever saying as such..

You said this, "I agree with all that you have stated in the last two post here..." in post #64 in response to Zsr1973. In one of those posts he said that the translation in Gen 2:8 that The Lord God refers to "Yahuwa specifies a specific deity from amongst a group of angelic beings, called Eloheem 'these deities." That puts you in a distinct minority. Perhaps I assumed you we agreeing with his statements when he said that the "correct" translation was "Yahuwa of the Eloheem."

Gen 2:8 ויטע5193 יהוה3068 אלהים430 גן1588 בעדן5731 מקדם6924 וישׂם7760 שׁם8033 את853 האדם120 אשׁר834 יצר׃3335

Is that a translation?

I never claimed to be better than anything.

Of course you did you claimed to be better than me. Not high aspirations on your part considering your opinion of my sottish statements.

Hey you got me there. Who is it for me to argue with a self proclaimed sottish person. You win. Your understanding, and translation, is 100% correct for you.

In logic that is what is known as a Relativist Fallacy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In logic that is what is known as a Relativist Fallacy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not sure what Balaam and his donkey has to do with this.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There's no such confusion. The confusion is derived from your misunderstanding of the difficulty of bringing the many Hebrew designations for God into the English language. It's not that the Hebrew is ambiguous, but the English can't carry the precise translation of the Hebrew without modification, which seeems to your eyes to affect English grammar.

I suggest that you read the preface/introductions to the various translations. It explains how the translators render the various names of God.

Au contraire Piere, I'd say that the confusion in Zman's translation comes from the use of a plural noun for God, Elohim. This is a plural noun used to describe a singular entity. The "Master Teacher" offered by Zman chose to translate this as a group of dieties which not only doesn't square with the body of scripture but misunderstands the nature of God.

Since I can't fathom (with my limited sottish understanding of Hebrew translation) how a subject of a sentence becomes a modifier in Hebrew. Perhaps you might be able an enlightened and specific explaination rather than offer a general statement which may or may not apply to the Gen 2:8 interpretation of Jehovah Elohim. Nowhere have I seen this translated as Jehovah "of" the Elohim exept by the "Master Teacher" whom if you read the links comes of as, well, a crackpot.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Au contraire Piere, I'd say that the confusion in Zman's translation comes from the use of a plural noun for God, Elohim. This is a plural noun used to describe a singular entity. The "Master Teacher" offered by Zman chose to translate this as a group of dieties which not only doesn't square with the body of scripture but misunderstands the nature of God.

Since I can't fathom (with my limited sottish understanding of Hebrew translation) how a subject of a sentence becomes a modifier in Hebrew. Perhaps you might be able an enlightened and specific explaination rather than offer a general statement which may or may not apply to the Gen 2:8 interpretation of Jehovah Elohim. Nowhere have I seen this translated as Jehovah "of" the Elohim exept by the "Master Teacher" whom if you read the links comes of as, well, a crackpot.

Elohim is quite clearly used to refer to multiple subjects throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Judaism was not monotheistic until *possibly well* after Babylon.

In Job 1, Elohim refers to the court of God, as well as several instances in Psalms and Proverbs.

There is no reason whatsoever in Genesis 2.8 to assume that Elohim only refers to God when we have scores of instances in the Old Testament were the plural term refers to plural subjects. In light of these instances, "Master Teacher" seems perfectly acceptable.

 

[Zsr1973]

I take that as a, "No, I don't have a more credible source."

More credible than what? In any subject the doctrine I have learned and teach stands on its own. Lets not even mention the less than credible English translations of the bible of which so many people place their souls (those who have one) without scrutinizing it whatsoever.

Its so typical for you to choose from a doctrine spanning thousands of years of history and many languages worth of evidence to choose the "extraterrestrial" subject to bring to the board. Obviously you are just parroting one of the slanderous and opinionated "cult" sites from the web. My question to you is have you disected our information firsthand yourself, or are you taking the religious route and believing what someone else said without seeking any evidence? So lets talk about extraterrestrials.

American Heritage Dictionary
Extraterrestrial - From or occuring outside earth or its atmosphere.

Lets state the obvious. According to this definition, any meteorite, comet, planet, or star would be extraterrestrial. Basically it would apply to anything originating from outside of Earth. So would an angel, lets say Gabriel , incarnating on the earth physically be considered terrestrial or extraterrestrial? How about back in the Babylon story when the Lord "came down" to see the city of Babylon and the tower:

Genesis 11:5
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

First of all, exactly where did the Lord come down from? And if he is truly omnipresent with the power to appear anywhere, why did he have to travel in a direction to visit the city in the first place? That would put him in a definite place and time, surely not omnipresent. Being in a definite place and time would make God less than himself, and that's the one thing God can't do and still be God. And why didn't the all knowing God of the bible already know what they were doing without going to see? (Going to see is a mortal experience, the real God would already know, right?) You can't use the common lie saying he was testing them, because they weren't concerned about God nor were they expecting his visit. But lets go a little further into this about God's actions:

Genesis 11:7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Wait a minute, here is God again talking about going down. In fact, now the God you profess is omnipresent has to travel somewhere to carry out a task. What happened to the God of genesis chapter 1 who basically can just order it up and its done? this God seems to be more like the God of Adam that Adam thought he could hide from. And why would God have to confound languages to prove a point? Didn't he create us? Didn't he give us our intellect in the first place? It appears god had no idea what he was getting into by creating man. But his biblical reason for confounding the languages is even more strange:

Genesis 11:6
And the Lord said, behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Whats interesting is that it doesn't say anywhere that what they were doing was a sin. God is simply concerned that they will be able to do whatever they imagine. Why would God need to be worried about that? What can the people possibly do to hurt God? And Babylon never became "good" after confounding the language, so what did it prove? Not to mention his plan didn't work, because the Hebrews eventually fell off the path right in babylon, and today's people are working together and doing whatever they imagine right now. This translation makes God look like a failure to any thinking person. But as i said, the problem is that people have been given a book transliterated by people who had no idea what it was talking about. Malachi York, the man you mock, not only correctly translated the Torah, Psalms, and book of Revelation himself from the Aramic & Greek, he gave an average layman like me the ability to wield the truth amongst the world's so-called intellects; and when put to a real test (not just the test of your personal opinion) the answers are found to be true.

Of course if you have a better answer as to why God is made to appear so weak in the bible, by all means reveal your provable truth. I'll discuss Risq when you formulate your next post. The answer may not be what you think.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Elohim is quite clearly used to refer to multiple subjects throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Judaism was not monotheistic until *possibly well* after Babylon.

In Job 1, Elohim refers to the court of God, as well as several instances in Psalms and Proverbs.

There is no reason whatsoever in Genesis 2.8 to assume that Elohim only refers to God when we have scores of instances in the Old Testament were the plural term refers to plural subjects. In light of these instances, "Master Teacher" seems perfectly acceptable.

Again you have failed to specifically address Gen 2:8, What is confusing about "The Lord God" refering to one diety?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Its so typical for you to choose from a doctrine spanning thousands of years of history and many languages worth of evidence to choose the "extraterrestrial" subject to bring to the board. Obviously you are just parroting one of the slanderous and opinionated "cult" sites from the web. My question to you is have you disected our information firsthand yourself, or are you taking the religious route and believing what someone else said without seeking any evidence? So lets talk about extraterrestrials.

American Heritage Dictionary
Extraterrestrial - From or occuring outside earth or its atmosphere.

Lets state the obvious. According to this definition, any meteorite, comet, planet, or star would be extraterrestrial. Basically it would apply to anything originating from outside of Earth. So would an angel, lets say Gabriel , incarnating on the earth physically be considered terrestrial or extraterrestrial?

Tee Hee, so your teacher's an extraterrestial. Okay........

Genesis 11:6
And the Lord said, behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Whats interesting is that it doesn't say anywhere that what they were doing was a sin.

Perhaps your extraterrestial friend wasn't around when God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multipy and replinish the earth. Man was not doing this. The confusion of languages accomplished God's purpose.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

More credible than what?.

Well, more credible that your convicted alien teacher with a paragraph of multiple aliases.

In any subject the doctrine I have learned and teach stands on its own.

Yet you fail to defend or justify how you came about you unique translation of "Yahuwa of the Elohim" in Gen. 2:8. I would suggest using some scholarship of Hebrew concerning the specific usage in that passage which, so far, no one has offered. Your generalized comments and perceptions don't count unless backed up with valid scholarship.

 

[Zsr1973]

Well, more credible that your convicted alien teacher with a paragraph of multiple aliases.



Yet you fail to defend or justify how you came about you unique translation of "Yahuwa of the Elohim" in Gen. 2:8. I would suggest using some scholarship of Hebrew concerning the specific usage in that passage which, so far, no one has offered. Your generalized comments and perceptions don't count unless backed up with valid scholarship.

You are childish and disrespectful. Nor do you have the knowledge to answer my questions truthfully. That in itself is an answer to my question.

Basically what you are saying is that if I don't conform to the thinking of your "scholars, that I am neither credable nor capable of thinking for myself. Don't you see that by conforming, we are creating the same situation that Jesus' teachings speak against. Besides, your "scholars are no authority over me.

Use facts to refute me, not insults and opinions. Its quite simple, any lexicon will tell you that Eloheem means "gods". Its when religous believers who don't think for themselves begin injecting their opinions of what they think things mean with no evidence that it all becomes confusing.

Eloheem does not mean "God and his glory"
it doesn't mean "God and Jesus" or "God Jesus and Holy Spirit"
It doesn't mean "God singular but multiplied because he is great"

It means Gods. Same as the word Allahuma in the Arabic. Muslims delude themselves as well with that thinking because they also have no answers. Why don't you prove your case with facts and show us why Eloheem is a singular when it comes to God using historical or even Biblical facts SHOWING it. Good luck.

If your behavior reflects the actions of "good Christians" then I am proud not to be under that title.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You are childish and disrespectful. Nor do you have the knowledge to answer my questions truthfully. That in itself is an answer to my question.

Basically what you are saying is that if I don't conform to the thinking of your "scholars, that I am neither credable nor capable of thinking for myself. Don't you see that by conforming, we are creating the same situation that Jesus' teachings speak against. Besides, your "scholars are no authority over me.

Use facts to refute me, not insults and opinions. Its quite simple, any lexicon will tell you that Eloheem means "gods". Its when religous believers who don't think for themselves begin injecting their opinions of what they think things mean with no evidence that it all becomes confusing.

Eloheem does not mean "God and his glory"
it doesn't mean "God and Jesus" or "God Jesus and Holy Spirit"
It doesn't mean "God singular but multiplied because he is great"

It means Gods. Same as the word Allahuma in the Arabic. Muslims delude themselves as well with that thinking because they also have no answers. Why don't you prove your case with facts and show us why Eloheem is a singular when it comes to God using historical or even Biblical facts SHOWING it. Good luck.

If your behavior reflects the actions of "good Christians" then I am proud not to be under that title.

I suppose then that the "mature" way you represent is to totally avoid using facts and scholarship and resort to ad hominem attacks.

If asking for real substance and pointing out the lack of facts or scholarship to your position and the lunacy of the credibility of your teacher is a failing then , yes, I've failed. It feels good though.

 

[Zsr1973]

I suppose then that the "mature" way you represent is to totally avoid using facts and scholarship and resort to ad hominem attacks.

If asking for real substance and pointing out the lack of facts or scholarship to your position and the lunacy of the credibility of your teacher is a failing then , yes, I've failed. It feels good though.

You have thoroughly deluded yourself.

I don't have to prove that Eloheem is plural. That fact is listed in every Hebrew lexicon on the planet. You prove it isn't plural using the bible, dictionary, or anything else.

Regarding the tetragrammation that is falsely translated as "Jehovah", kindly check this link which leads to a Hebrew-to-English translation by an established website:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm

Go to Genesis chapter 2:8 and look at the second full Hebrew word and you will find Yod Heh Waw Heh in the Hebrew. It has been called "Yahweh" symbolizing "Good & Bad" but that is a Babylonian interpretation of the tetragrammation.

You may mock the facts as I reveal it to you, but there will be others who do the research and see that my words are true.

The Yahuwa gave Moses the tablets which would translate as "Hu" which is still the hebrew word for "he". The Arabic equivalent is "Huwa". This is a singular pronoun describing one individual male deity and the name given was "Ya" meaning Oh and "Hu" (Huwa) meaning "he who is". So when you see the name "jehovah" you are seeing the name Moses brought back from the mount, "Oh he who is". The fact is that there was no J, V, O or E in the ancient hebrew language, so at the least it would have been pronounced Ya Hu Wa. Check the Wikpedia link below as to that fact.
Do the research.


The word "Hu" as a deity did not originate with the Hebrews, they learned it in Egypt as well. "Hu" represents the creative force of will in Egyptian spiritualism, the same spiritualism that Moses was raised in. Look it up.

Notice genesis 2:4 where it says "these are the generations of heaven and earth..". What are the generations that came from heaven? You don't know, and you can't possibly know in the English translation. The answer is in genesis 6:2 where "sons" of God came down to earth taking human wives. The Eloheem are beings like us, they have sex (Gen 6:2), they eat (Gen 18:1-8), they talk (Gen 3:8) yet you have no knowledge of them.

You are the one who has no facts or research, and I am wasting my time and knowledge talking to you. You really don't want the truth, you want beliefs. That's fine, I respect your beliefs. Just remember:

You can believe 100% in the wagon, yet not know the wheel is falling off...
-Malachi York

Please show us using facts that Eloheem is singular.

Anu as root of heavenly deity - http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/100/110anu.html
Anu as Egyptian city - http://www.per-set.org/bod/bod80.html
Wikpedia link - origin of the name "Jehovah" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
"Hu" Egyptian origin of the "Word" - http://www.philae.nu/philae/perankhH.html