Posts: 95
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
Aaron S Wrote:I recently came across Etheridge's understanding regarding, as he calls it, Morio:
Etheridge Wrote:The old Syriac Version for Yehovah employs the title Morio, "the Lord." The Syrians considered this name with its four letters M.R.I.A. to correspond with the Hebrew Tetragram, YHWH; and the letters themselves as the initials of words symbolical of the Divine Nature; the first, m, standing for morutho, "dominion;" the second, r, for rabbutho, "majesty," or "greatness;" the third and fourth, i, a, for aithutho, "essential being." Morio, "The Lord," is distinguished from the common form of Mar, "a lord," and is never used but as an appellation of the Deity. Here's a link to that specific page: The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, Volume 2, p. 10.
This seems to be the same definition given by Hassan Bar Bahlul in his lexicon. Check it out here:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/BarBahlul/page.php?p=576">http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/BarBahl ... .php?p=576</a><!-- m -->
Shlama
Posts: 783
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/_MarYah.htm">http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/_MarYah.htm</a><!-- m -->
I have decided that in the next release of my translation, YHWH / Maryah will be removed and restored with the Lord.
Pure on the linguistic argument, one could understand that YHWH is meant. A translater should have the reader decide wether or not to understand 'YHWH' instead of 'the Lord'.
b.t.w. Traditionally, there is NOT even one authentic source in an NT older than say, 1000 years, having YHWH in non-Hebrew language (such as Greek or Aramaic).
It started in the middleages where Shem Tov and his Matthew 'translation' hadd Ha-Shem on specific places. In the Middle ages, translations tended to add YHWH again.
So, it looks like 1000 years before, the jews, Christians etc. did not write or pronounce JHWH with a reason.
It's alterating history to reverse that in our Bibletranslations.
I admit, it has taken a few years to get at this point, personally.
Posts: 22
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation:
0
distazo Wrote:http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/_MarYah.htm
I have decided that in the next release of my translation, YHWH / Maryah will be removed and restored with the Lord.
Pure on the linguistic argument, one could understand that YHWH is meant. A translater should have the reader decide wether or not to understand 'YHWH' instead of 'the Lord'.
b.t.w. Traditionally, there is NOT even one authentic source in an NT older than say, 1000 years, having YHWH in non-Hebrew language (such as Greek or Aramaic).
It started in the middleages where Shem Tov and his Matthew 'translation' hadd Ha-Shem on specific places. In the Middle ages, translations tended to add YHWH again.
So, it looks like 1000 years before, the jews, Christians etc. did not write or pronounce JHWH with a reason.
It's alterating history to reverse that in our Bibletranslations.
I admit, it has taken a few years to get at this point, personally.
distazo Wrote:Pure on the linguistic argument, one could understand that YHWH is meant. A translater should have the reader decide wether or not to understand 'YHWH' instead of 'the Lord'. I tell you, much of the confusion comes from YHWH or MarYAH not being there in the first place. And leaving it to the reader to further translate the meaning (depending on their ability) leaves even more problems.
I can only hope the Lord changes your mind on this.
Peace.
Posts: 783
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
whathell Wrote:I tell you, much of the confusion comes from YHWH or MarYAH not being there in the first place. And leaving it to the reader to further translate the meaning (depending on their ability) leaves even more problems.
I can only hope the Lord changes your mind on this.
Peace.
It was the Lord who told me: "Do not alter the Scripture".
"that in our example you may learn not to think beyond that which is written"
<!-- s  --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt=" " title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
1 Corinthians 4:6
Posts: 22
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation:
0
distazo Wrote:whathell Wrote:I tell you, much of the confusion comes from YHWH or MarYAH not being there in the first place. And leaving it to the reader to further translate the meaning (depending on their ability) leaves even more problems.
I can only hope the Lord changes your mind on this.
Peace.
It was the Lord who told me: "Do not alter the Scripture".
"that in our example you may learn not to think beyond that which is written"
<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
1 Corinthians 4:6
Now I'm confused.
Questions:
Are you saying it's actually YHWH where you will now replace LORD?
Are you saying it's actually MarYAH(Master YHWH) where you will now replace Lord?
It seems to me that it would reduce the ambiguity and confusion. For example, you hear people going around saying "BAAL" means "LORD".
Posts: 18
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
From what i see, personally, Marya is not equivalent to YHWH (the four letters), but to Adonay, an exclusive title of YHWH. Because it is not Mar-Yah, but Mary? or Mari?, and it really looks like it is an equivalent of Adonay.
Posts: 18
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
Actually, a jewish scholar from Judaism told me that Mary? is an exclusive title for the Creator. He was telling me that the Brit Hadash? is from a pagan origin (off course I don't believe that) because it says that Yahosh?a is Mary?, an exclusive title for the Creator, so he confirmed me that even in Judaism they know that the title Mary? is a title for the Creator. That's why I think that Mary? is like saying in hebrew Adonay, because Adonay is an exclusive title for YHWH.
P.D. Sorry if my english is not that perfect, my native languange is spanish.
Posts: 783
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Iejezquel Wrote:Actually, a jewish scholar from Judaism told me that Mary? is an exclusive title for the Creator. He was telling me that the Brit Hadash? is from a pagan origin (off course I don't believe that) because it says that Yahosh?a is Mary?, an exclusive title for the Creator, so he confirmed me that even in Judaism they know that the title Mary? is a title for the Creator. That's why I think that Mary? is like saying in hebrew Adonay, because Adonay is an exclusive title for YHWH.
P.D. Sorry if my english is not that perfect, my native languange is spanish.
You're quite clear.
I also think that marya should not be written as maryah. There is no aramaic justification for that. It equals Adonay.
However, in some cases, marya also is used for people, in the NT. Somewhere in acts.
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
Hi distazo,
Do you know that those of the early Church taught that God, The Father was not named? I came across this fact some time ago, and was kind of shocked by it...They taught that the one who revealed His Name to Moses on the mountain, was The Word of God The Father, and EVERY time it mentions that anyone spoke with or saw GOD or had any interaction with Him, that it was ALWAYS The Miltha/Word of GOD. And that Word/Miltha in the fullness of time being incarnate as Yahshua, The Messiah, who is Emannu-EL "God with us", being the Word/Miltha of God The Father, who was brought from of and from The Father's own un-created Being before all ages, as the vehicle/means to bring forth the creation of all things, and to reveal His infinate, invisable, and incomprehensible nature.
Make no mistake about it, The Messiah, IS YHWH in Human Form, being united with and in Humanity, in the Person of Yahshua/Jesus...
YAHSHUA the Man, and YHWH/The WORD/MILTHA are united in ONE Person. GOD being pleased that ALL HIS FULLNESS dwells in Him, bodily, possessing The Holy Spirit WITHOUT MEASURE. Being at once, both GOD & Man at the same time. If you see Yahshua...You have seen GOD. Period.
He is the "Visable image of the invisable GOD, the EXACT representation of His/GOD's Being.
We must not try to reduce Yahshua to anything less than He truly IS...GOD, fully manifested in Humanity.
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
Don't agree?
Then explain these verses.... "No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared him." John 1:18
"No one has seen the Father except the One who is from God; only He has seen the Father." John 6:46
"No man has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us." 1 John 4:12
The Word/Miltha/Logos of GOD The Father has always revealed to humanity, both who GOD the Father is, and what is The Father's will....being The Father's Holy expression of HIS Mind...as our human Soul is the means by which our human personality is expressed.
Posts: 783
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Thirdwoe Wrote:Hi distazo,
Make no mistake about it, The Messiah, IS YHWH in Human Form, being united with and in Humanity, in the Person of Yahshua/Jesus...
YAHSHUA the Man, and YHWH/The WORD/MILTHA are united in ONE Person. GOD being pleased that ALL HIS FULLNESS dwells in Him, bodily, possessing The Holy Spirit WITHOUT MEASURE. Being at once, both GOD & Man at the same time. If you see Yahshua...You have seen GOD. Period.
He is the "Visable image of the invisable GOD, the EXACT representation of His/GOD's Being.
We must not try to reduce Yahshua to anything less than He truly IS...GOD, fully manifested in Humanity.
Hi,
I think you have misread my message <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt=" " title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
I did not reduce Yeshu. I just wrote that marya means THE Lord. The 'ya' is an absolute form, a suffix on Mar. The 'ya' is not the same as Yah, which is clearly something in the Tenakh, where Jawheh (JHWH) several times is called 'Yah".
The Syriac does not have the required 'h'. If it did, then we truly could say: ok, MRY means Maryah.
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
I do not want to misunderstand you Brother...and pardon my typing if it is too direct. That is good you are not trying to reduce The Word of God to less than who He really is ---> The Word/Miltha of God, who is God and with God.
I take it then that you do believe that it was This same Word/Miltha of God, The Father, who spoke to Moshe on the mountian, and revealed His Holy Name to him? Or do you believe that The Father spoke without His Word/Miltha?
The early Christians all taught that every time that there were interactions with men and God, before the advent of the Messiah, it was The Word/Logos/Miltha of God, with whom they were conversing/interacting with, He being the means by which God and man deal with each other...as it is even today...The Messiah being the mediator between God (The Father) and mankind, without which/whom none can relate with God.
Posts: 783
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
akhi thirdwoe,
The Massicha _is_ the Rock (symbolically) which is in Arabia (Galatians 4:26) near mountain Jebel el Laws.
1 Corinthians 10:4 clearly explains this, Jeshu is YHWH who spoke to his people.
YHWH however, is a verb (I once understood), so it is true, that God was 'name-less' in those days and he revealed his name through Yeshu.
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
I'm in agreement on what you say there Brother...have you seen a picture of that Rock near mountain Jebel el Laws in Arabia?
Here are some pictures of it...very awesome.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7240465.jpg">http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7240465.jpg</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.panoramio.com/photo/45742892">http://www.panoramio.com/photo/45742892</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8604949">http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8604949</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.panoramio.com/photo/39970649">http://www.panoramio.com/photo/39970649</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.panoramio.com/photo/41584969">http://www.panoramio.com/photo/41584969</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AAZZV-P04UQ/TL5E4E7mpoI/AAAAAAAAALQ/CzWpju1R2cs/s1600/rockofhoreb.jpg">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AAZZV-P04UQ/T ... fhoreb.jpg</a><!-- m -->
..
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
distazo Wrote:However, in some cases, marya also is used for people, in the NT. Somewhere in acts.
Shlama Akhi Distazo,
You're wrong on this point. You may be thinking of Maraye (plural of Mar), with the zqape for plurality. 3rd-person plural of "mar" (lord). The word is spelled with the same consonants as Marya, but it's not pronounced with the same vowels. One is plural, the other is singular.
Maryah, while written as you said without the Heh, means only "Mar-Yah." Your point about the Heh being missing is irrelevant, have you seen how Zechariah, Hezekiah (Matthew 1:10), and other names containing the Sacred Name are spelled in Aramaic? You guessed it - without the Heh. That's because Aramaic has a preference to spell words as they are pronounced phonetically. It is different from Hebrew in the spelling of these names at times, depending on the phonetics.
MRYA -> Lord Yah, always. Never used to mean anything else, period.
+Shamasha
|
