השם יהוה נאמר

[daq]

Scepticism is a healthy stance in most cases.
I'm looking forward to more on the vav position that you've considered and put forth in thought. Sound pronunciation(dialect) and script are related after all.

There is a much greater issue on which I am focused: the true, and closest to the original, separation of the text. Once that has been ascertained to the best of our knowledge, the script in which the text is written does not matter so much in regards to the first century, and beyond that time into the past: for they did not have a pointed text such as now exists in the M/T.

Does it matter whether the following is written in the Paleo script or the Ashuri script? (No, it doesn't).

King David Sod — נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני עד־אשית איביך הדם לרגליך
— יהוה said to Adoni, (my Master), Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

What is the name seated at the right hand side within the Tetragrammaton? יהוה
That one is the Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18).

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

There is a much greater issue on which I am focused: the true, and closest to the original, separation of the text. Once that has been ascertained to the best of our knowledge, the script in which the text is written does not matter so much in regards to the first century, and beyond that time into the past: for they did not have a pointed text such as now exists in the M/T.

Does it matter whether the following is written in the Paleo script or the Ashuri script? (No, it doesn't).

King David Sod — נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני עד־אשית איביך הדם לרגליך
— יהוה said to Adoni, (my Master), Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

What is the name seated at the right hand side within the Tetragrammaton? יהוה
That one is the Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18).

It "script, does matter if youre looking for a blessing[baruch](holy kiss). Can you find the word for blessing in the paleo[scibble] script?
לימיני
I dont bother my time with greek.

 

[daq]

Do you think it is possible that the original rendering of that first verse of psalm 110 said: "יהוה said to (my) יהוה: ..." ?

I've heard people make that claim, (and what that would entail), and I suppose anything is possible, but I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense, imo, neither within the statement itself, nor in the overall context of the first four verses.

Isaiah 38:9-11 TS2009
9 This is the writing of Ḥizqiyahu sovereign of Yehuḏah, when he had been sick and had recovered from his sickness:
10 I said, “Am I to go into the gates of She’ol in the prime of my life? Shall I be deprived of the rest of my years?”
11 I said, “I shall not see Yah – Yah in the land of the living! I shall no longer look on man with the inhabitants of the world!

What does verse eleven mean?
How can he see Yah in the Land of the Living to begin with?
Who is Yah? Where is the Land of the Living according to the scripture?

In the Lamb's Sefer of Life every name written therein is written to have lived, (see Genesis 5).

 

[daq]

The fact it doesn't seem to make sense to us, could be a good argument for an emendation by the sofriem.

In vers 5 of psalm 110, many bible translations now render a small Lord.

KJV:
The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

My old, Dutch SV (statenvertaling) translation (considered the Dutch 'King James' renders the Lord in vers 5 as LORD. Some other bible translations as well. That makes one ponder whether the Lord at the right hand in the first verse should be LORD as well.

The implications of this are huge.

The other one is Daniel 7:14. In the OG Greek Daniel it seems to equate the Son of Man figure As the Ancient of Days. (And not approaching the AoD as in the MT).

Jesus combined both Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 together at his trial which lead to the charge of blasphemy.

(If the Kohen Gadol really believed the Son of Man figure coming on/with the clouds in Daniel, and the one seated at the righthand of Power/El in Psalm 110, is not the Deity, as the Jews argue today, how would it be blasphemous to say?)

First they rejected Him (יהוה) as King. And later they rejected Him (יהוה) as Messiah.

There is ben Adam, (Psa 8:4), and there is ben Enosh, (Psa 144:3-4). Which one is it whom the Father put all things in subjection under his feet? and which one is like Habel? The one given dominion over all things is as ancient as the days and that one is the Judge, (Jhn 5:22).

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

So then, I will post one example of what I am saying in the above, and it is an extremely important example, or at least it was for me when I first saw and realized what this probably meant. I could write a wall of text here about what follows, but instead it is probably better just to post the example and let those who are interested investigate these things for themselves, yet there is much going on in the following passage: things which need to be studied through in prayer with an open heart and mind.

There are many places in the OG LXX where the Tetragrammaton is actually divided at the waw, producing Yah, which would have appeared that way in the Paleo Hebrew text but do not now appear that way in the M/T, which is not likely due to anything nefarious, but because of the problem of separating the Ashuri text, (having a waw separator and written in a semi-scriptio continua form like the Paleo text), if perhaps you no longer have the Paleo text to guide you in that separation process. Another thing which is critical to understand is that Yah may be rendered as either Kurios or Theos in the LXX, and here Yah is rendered as Theos. Paul quotes from this passage in Romans 14:11 and he quotes from the OG LXX almost verbatim.

ישעה 45:23-25 Hebrew Bible
בי נשבעתי יצא מפי צדקה דבר ולא ישוב כי לי תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון׃
אך ביהוה לי אמר צדקות ועז עדיו יבוא ויבשו כל הנחרים בו׃
ביהוה יצדקו ויתהללו כל זרע ישראל׃​

Isaiah 45:23-25 OG LXX
23 κατ εμαυτου ομνυω η μην εξελευσεται εκ του στοματος μου δικαιοσυνη οι λογοι μου ουκ αποστραφησονται οτι εμοι καμψει παν γονυ και εξομολογησεται πασα γλωσσα τω θεω
24 λεγων δικαιοσυνη και δοξα προς αυτον ηξουσιν και αισχυνθησονται παντες οι αφοριζοντες εαυτους
25 απο κυριου δικαιωθησονται και εν τω θεω ενδοξασθησονται παν το σπερμα των υιων ισραηλ

View attachment 343569

Yeshayah 45:23-25 Paleo Hebrew Translation
[23] By Myself have I sworn, the righteous Word has gone forth from My mouth and shall not be turned back, that unto Me every knee shall bow: every tongue shall surely confess by Yah unto Me,
[24] saying, He is my righteousness and strength: all those incensed against Him shall come and be ashamed!
[25] In YHWH shall they be justified: and all the seed of Yisrael shall hallu-in-Yah!

Let the dead bury the dead. For the Lord[yod hei] is of the living eternal.
Psa 115:15-18

יז לֹא הַמֵּתִים, יְהַלְלוּ-יָהּ; וְלֹא, כָּל-יֹרְדֵי דוּמָה.	17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence;
יח וַאֲנַחְנוּ, נְבָרֵךְ יָהּ-- מֵעַתָּה וְעַד-עוֹלָם: הַלְלוּ-יָהּ.	18 But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for ever. {N} Hallelujah.

 

[daq]

I wonder, is it the will of God that we are reintroducing a/the pronounciation of the tetragrammaton in our bibles?

I am not saying it is the will of God that we forgot how to say His Name.

But of course He foresaw it would happen.

The LXX subsitutes the tetragram for Kyrios and the NT does the same, and draws mostly from the LXX.

The NT says Iesous is Kyrios.
And that we now must call on Jesus Christ to be saved,
and that is the Name above all Names.

In the OT we had to call upon the Name יהוה for salvation.

Now we know that is corresponds to Jesus Christ.

I am starting to think that God allowed this fading away of the tetragram pronounciation in favour of the Name Jesus Christ ( Thus not allowing bypassing Messiah by calling upon the Name ).

It helps when there is 1 name for people to call on, to avoid confusion.
Jesus Christ instructs praying in His Name. Texts make clear He is the Lord, upon whom we call through the Name Jesus Christ.

I am really starting to doubt whether we ought to use names such as yahweh or yehovah at all. If it was his wish, wouldn't Jesus and the apostles have restored it?

There is not a single NT manuscript I am aware of that has the tetragram.
Jwitnesses say it is a conspiracy, and these have been deliberately destroyed, but I have found no evidence for such claims

The problem with the N/T is just about the same: people assuming that translations of men are correct, and trusting those translations instead of what is actually written in the most ancient texts that were closer to the autographs. The name Jesus, Yeshua, Jesu, Yeshu, or any variation of that name isn't written out in full plene form in any of the most ancient Uncial codices, manuscripts, texts, or fragments. What is actually written in them is a nomen sacrum abbreviation which very few ever study or even talk about. It is simply taken for granted that the church who interpreted them to begin with was correct in their interpretation because they said so.

Anyone who doesn't think this is critically important should try reading 1Cor 12:3 from an uncial text without the nomina sacra interpretations in their English translations and look deeper into what Paul is saying and why the four primary nomina sacra were probably used to begin with. They are there to force the reader to learn and get to know the Word.

Manuscript P46 - CSNTM

The most ancient forms of the two nomina sacra used for the Master also did not have case endings and were very simply two letters with an overstrike. This may be seen in some of the more ancient texts we now have, such as Papyrus 18.

Papyrus 18 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The two nomina sacra for the Master in Papyrus 18 are Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, and that's it: no Jesus, no Yeshua, nor Yesu, nor Yeshu, nor Jesu, nor Jeshu, nor Jehoshua, nor Yehoshua, nor Yahuah, nor Yahshua, nor any such names. One cannot know his name without scripture, context, and knowing that scripture and what it teaches: for we do not even have any guarantee that these two nomina sacra do not also have multiple meanings, which would only be known and understood by way of scripture and scripture context.

Statements such as found in 1Cor 12:3 and Rev 19:12 take on entirely different and critical meanings once a person realizes that the name of the Master is not openly stated in full plene form in any of the most ancient Uncial texts of the apostolic writings, and instead, contained nomina sacra abbreviations which must be understood and interpreted according to the scripture: not just because some early church proclaimed their interpretation to be the correct one at the point of a sword.

 

[daq]

It "script, does matter if youre looking for a blessing[baruch](holy kiss). Can you find the word for blessing in the paleo[scibble] script?
לימיני

The so-called silver scrolls, (amulets), containing portions of the Priestly Blessing.

Ketef Hinnom scrolls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ketef Hinnom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

4Q22 Paleo Exodus:

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q22 PaleoExodus

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Translation page

dssenglishbible.com

I dont bother my time with greek.

No doubt, for you already said linguistics are a bore, (in reply #20).

 

[daq]

I dont bother my time with greek.

Let the dead bury the dead. For the Lord[yod hei] is of the living eternal.
Psa 115:15-18

יז לֹא הַמֵּתִים, יְהַלְלוּ-יָהּ; וְלֹא, כָּל-יֹרְדֵי דוּמָה.	17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence;
יח וַאֲנַחְנוּ, נְבָרֵךְ יָהּ-- מֵעַתָּה וְעַד-עוֹלָם: הַלְלוּ-יָהּ.	18 But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for ever. {N} Hallelujah.

The original otot-letters are written in the heavens by the finger of Elohim and remain there unto this day, and scoffers upon the earth may look up and scoff, and may even speak untruths about them: but no man will never change them. In addition to this, again, the Paleo Hebrew of the Prophets is the same language, it is Hebrew, but even Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek had become dead languages, yet today they live. It was not even realized until sometime in the 1800's that the Apostolic writings were actually written in Koine Greek: think about that, not even the translators of the KJV fully realized what they were reading and translating two hundred years before that fact became widely understood in modern times. The fact that you openly admit that you have nothing but the Pharisaic Masoretic text for scripture, which is only a thousand years old, is essentially just another testament reinforcing the majority of your opinions in the things you tend to post anyway.

Psalm 115:17-18 --> 116:1 OG LXX
17 ουχ οι νεκροι αινεσουσιν σε κυριε ουδε παντες οι καταβαινοντες εις αδου
18 αλλ ημεις οι ζωντες ευλογησομεν τον κυριον απο του νυν και εως του αιωνος [αλληλουια - separated as Psa 116:1]
1 αλληλουια [Psa 115:18] ηγαπησα οτι εισακουσεται κυριος της φωνης της δεησεως μου

Revelation 19:1 (Rev 19:1-6 ~ αλληλουια x4)
1 μετα ταυτα ηκουσα ως φωνην μεγαλην οχλου πολλου εν τω ουρανω λεγοντων αλληλουια η σωτηρια και η δοξα και η δυναμις του θεου ημων

See also Hebrew Apocalypse Revelation 19:1.

You have a single arrow: I have a full quiver.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

The original otot-letters are written in the heavens by the finger of Elohim and remain there unto this day, and scoffers upon the earth may look up and scoff, and may even speak untruths about them: but no man will never change them. In addition to this, again, the Paleo Hebrew of the Prophets is the same language, it is Hebrew, but even Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek had become dead languages, yet today they live. It was not even realized until sometime in the 1800's that the Apostolic writings were actually written in Koine Greek: think about that, not even the translators of the KJV fully realized what they were reading and translating two hundred years before that fact became widely understood in modern times. The fact that you openly admit that you have nothing but the Pharisaic Masoretic text for scripture, which is only a thousand years old, is essentially just another testament reinforcing the majority of your opinions in the things you tend to post anyway.

Psalm 115:17-18 --> 116:1 OG LXX
17 ουχ οι νεκροι αινεσουσιν σε κυριε ουδε παντες οι καταβαινοντες εις αδου
18 αλλ ημεις οι ζωντες ευλογησομεν τον κυριον απο του νυν και εως του αιωνος [αλληλουια - separated as Psa 116:1]
1 αλληλουια [Psa 115:18] ηγαπησα οτι εισακουσεται κυριος της φωνης της δεησεως μου

Revelation 19:1 (Rev 19:1-6 ~ αλληλουια x4)
1 μετα ταυτα ηκουσα ως φωνην μεγαλην οχλου πολλου εν τω ουρανω λεγοντων αλληλουια η σωτηρια και η δοξα και η δυναμις του θεου ημων

See also Hebrew Apocalypse Revelation 19:1.

You have a single arrow: I have a full quiver.

Block script has been around for 3000 yrs. Paleo script is only found in a few dss fragments. Arrows from a strange tongue have no flights to guide them. And I'm sceptical that the apostolic writings were originally penned in greek. They sound more like translitierations from hebrew. Especially when you read and, and repeatedly used like a vav..
The dss scrolls themselves show the prophets in block script. You're only contesting that the lxx greek has more value than the masoretic text. That's is an entirely different topic.
I showed where yod hei is found and the contextual meaning. Find that in paleo hebrew.
Blessings included.

A bore because there's no need rehash history.

Paleo-Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[daq]

Block script has been around for 3000 yrs.

Only in the language of the nations, as already addressed, and everyone knows that except for those who either do not care to study or prefer to believe things that cannot be proven with evidence.

Paleo script is only found in a few dss fragments.

Again, not true, and that's on you for the lack of study in such things, and this also has been addressed in links you probably did not read.

Even if you do not wish to read what is in the following page: at least look at some of the archeological finds on the right side of the page, which are merely a very small sampling of the archeological evidence for Paleo Hebrew.

Paleo-Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Arrows from a strange tongue have no flights to guide them. And I'm sceptical that the apostolic writings were originally penned in greek. They sound more like translitierations from hebrew.

While that is essentially proven when it comes to Matthew, it is proven by texts, artifacts, written evidence, which is the most important thing in such a discussion as this: wishful thinking and unproven emphatic statements are worthless in such an endeavor.

The dss scrolls themselves show the prophets in block script.

There are also Paleo Hebrew texts and they are, for the most part, the older texts. What the DSS may actually be showing us is a critical window into the period wherein the process of separating the Ashuri text may have begun. Some texts do not even have all five final form sofits, showing us that the sofits were probably also not original to the Ashuri text: this also makes perfect sense because it was not originally separated except by the waw which doubled as a word separator, and the waw as a word separator had replaced the separator middle dot in the more ancient Paleo Hebrew text.

You're only contesting that the lxx greek has more value than the masoretic text.

That isn't something I have said. Languages evolve over time, and especially over long periods of time, and the LXX helps us to better understand what once was, and so also does Paleo Hebrew. It is about getting back to the closest possible readings, meanings, and understandings of the scripture, to arrive at the closest place we may get to in order to hopefully learn and understand the original intent of the original inspired authors, and I prefer to use every tool available to me on loan from Elohim.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The two nomina sacra for the Master in Papyrus 18 are Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, and that's it: no Jesus, no Yeshua, nor Yesu, nor Yeshu, nor Jesu, nor Jeshu, nor Jehoshua, nor Yehoshua, nor Yahuah, nor Yahshua, nor any such names. One cannot know his name without scripture, context, and knowing that scripture and what it teaches: for we do not even have any guarantee that these two nomina sacra do not also have multiple meanings, which would only be known and understood by way of scripture and scripture context.

This has been used by the Eastern Orthodox for close to 2000 years. It is the Greek abbreviation of His Name...a contraction of the Greek word for Jesus (IHSOUS) , which in Greek is spelled IHΣΟΥΣ and Xhristos spelled ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ is abbreviated as XP (Chi Rho).....IH XP. Another used, mostly in Icons is IC XC. The Orthodox clergy use it in a hand symbol when doing a blessing.

 

[daq]

This has been used by the Eastern Orthodox for close to 2000 years. It is the Greek abbreviation of His Name...a contraction of the Greek word for Jesus (IHSOUS) , which in Greek is spelled IHΣΟΥΣ and Xhristos spelled ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ is abbreviated as XP (Chi Rho).....IH XP. Another used, mostly in Icons is IC XC. The Orthodox clergy use it in a hand symbol when doing a blessing.
View attachment 343689

Yes, apparently the EO have the original nomina sacra, but whether or not that means what you have said is what is at issue. Moreover IC XC is simply the first letters with the second (original) letters having been dropped, (eta in the first nomen and rho in the second nomen are missing), leaving only the lunate sigma case endings. Technically that is the iota with the lunate sigma case ending, and chi with the lunate sigma case ending. The fact that the lunate sigma is a case ending may be seen in uncial texts where you will find the lunate sigma change depending on the case form. Codex Sinaiticus is a good example: right at the beginning of Matthew, (Mat 1:1), you will find iota-upsilon chi-upsilon.

This essentially proves that it was a mistake for church scribes to start adding case endings to the two nomina sacra for the Master, for look what happened as with Codex Sinaiticus and other such manuscripts: they confounded the meaning by eventually letting the second letters drop out of each of the two nomen sacrum, Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, and ended up with IC XC, saving the case endings which were not even original, while dropping two of the critical letters which were indeed original.

Can you get Yah El or Yah Elohim from iota-sigma, (IC)? There is no samek or shin in the words El, Eli, Elohei, or Elohim, and yet the theophoric names containing El in the Greek Uncial texts, where they are directly transliterated into Greek, are written with the letter eta, (Η, (η in lower case miniscules)).

Yisra·El ~ Ισρα·Ηλ
Emmanu·El ~ Εμμανου·Ηλ
Eliyah ~ Ηλιας
Eli (my El) ~ Ηλι Ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46 quoting from Psalms 22:1)

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes, apparently the EO have the original nomina sacra, but whether or not that means what you have said is what is at issue. Moreover IC XC is simply the first letters with the second (original) letters having been dropped, (eta in the first nomen and rho in the second nomen are missing), leaving only the lunate sigma case endings. Technically that is the iota with the lunate sigma case ending, and chi with the lunate sigma case ending. The fact that the lunate sigma is a case ending may be seen in uncial texts where you will find the lunate sigma change depending on the case form. Codex Sinaiticus is a good example: right at the beginning of Matthew, (Mat 1:1), you will find iota-upsilon chi-upsilon.

This essentially proves that it was a mistake for church scribes to start adding case endings to the two nomina sacra for the Master, for look what happened as with Codex Sinaiticus and other such manuscripts: they confounded the meaning by eventually letting the second letters drop out of each of the two nomen sacrum, Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ, and ended up with IC XC, saving the case endings which were not even original, while dropping two of the critical letters which were indeed original.

Can you get Yah El or Yah Elohim from iota-sigma, (IC)? There is no samek or shin in the words El, Eli, Elohei, or Elohim, and yet the theophoric names containing El in the Greek Uncial texts, where they are directly transliterated into Greek, are written with the letter eta, (Η, (η in lower case miniscules)).

Yisra·El ~ Ισρα·Ηλ
Emmanu·El ~ Εμμανου·Ηλ
Eliyah ~ Ηλιας
Eli (my El) ~ Ηλι Ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46 quoting from Psalms 22:1)

Well we know it has meant that for almost 2000 years by Church experts in Greek and koine Greek. Not sure what you mean in your last paragraph. Not sure why it matters regarding IC. IH XP and IC XC are essentially the same, just abbreviated/contracted slightly differently. Are you saying it is NOT IHSOUS, IHΣΟΥΣ and Xhristos spelled ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ? It is NOT Ιησούς Χριστός (IC XC)? If not, what is your suggestion?

 

[daq]

Well we know it has meant that for almost 2000 years by Church experts in Greek and koine Greek.

What I want is Logos-reasoning from the scripture so as to know what the nomina sacra mean, then, after that, if church tradition agrees, how can I not also agree? As I said previously, the only real evidence most people have for their understanding of the nomen sacrum Iota-Eta is church tradition: I however do not believe the interpretation of the church is correct because of the Logos-reasoning I find in the scripture surrounding that nomen sacrum.

Not sure what you mean in your last paragraph. Not sure why it matters regarding IC. IH XP and IC XC are essentially the same, just abbreviated/contracted slightly differently. Are you saying it is NOT IHSOUS, IHΣΟΥΣ and Xhristos spelled ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ? It is NOT Ιησούς Χριστός (IC XC)? If not, what is your suggestion?

The Apostles have given us ample evidence in the scripture to understand and know the Word.
Here is some of that Logos-reasoning based on multiple previous posts.

1 Peter 2:2-3 KJV
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

Exodus 16:31 KJV
31 And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.

Taste and see that YH ו IS TOB.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

What I want is Logos-reasoning from the scripture so as to know what the nomina sacra mean, then, after that, if church tradition agrees, how can I not also agree? As I said previously, the only real evidence most people have for their understanding of the nomen sacrum Iota-Eta is church tradition: I however do not believe the interpretation of the church is correct because of the Logos-reasoning I find in the scripture surrounding that nomen sacrum.

Well yes, that was my question to you since it seems you do not agree with what has been accepted for 2000 yrs. What IS your interpretation?

 

[daq]

Well yes, that was my question to you since it seems you do not agree with what has been accepted for 2000 yrs. What IS your interpretation?

Here's why it isn't about "my" interpretation:

1 Corinthians 12:3
3 Wherefore I make known unto you, that no one speaking in the Spirit of Θ̅Υ says, Anathema Ι̅Η, and no one can say, Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η, but by the Holy Spirit.

Hear the context: this is way too important to simply take someone else's word for it.
We are all to be taught of Elohim, (Isaiah 54:13, John 6:45).

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

There is a much greater issue on which I am focused: the true, and closest to the original, separation of the text. Once that has been ascertained to the best of our knowledge, the script in which the text is written does not matter so much in regards to the first century, and beyond that time into the past: for they did not have a pointed text such as now exists in the M/T.

Does it matter whether the following is written in the Paleo script or the Ashuri script? (No, it doesn't).

King David Sod — נאם יהוה לאדני שב לימיני עד־אשית איביך הדם לרגליך
— יהוה said to Adoni, (my Master), Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

What is the name seated at the right hand side within the Tetragrammaton? יהוה
That one is the Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18).

Blessed Yod hei being the Father eternal with vav hei the Son eternal on the right hand. Father and Son are One on heaven and earth.

 

[daq]

Blessed Yod hei being the Father eternal with vav hei the Son eternal on the right hand. Father and Son are One on heaven and earth.

It looks to me as though you may have the right hand and left hand sides mixed up. The right hand side is the beginning of the scroll, Genesis 1, just as Hebrew is written right to left, and in that manner the Son who is the Word has the seven stars in his right hand side, (the right hand side of the scroll of the Word, Genesis 1). Therefore Yah is on the right hand side, within the Tetragrammaton name of the Father, and is ever in the bosom of the Father.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Here's why it isn't about "my" interpretation:

1 Corinthians 12:3
3 Wherefore I make known unto you, that no one speaking in the Spirit of Θ̅Υ says, Anathema Ι̅Η, and no one can say, Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η, but by the Holy Spirit.

Hear the context: this is way too important to simply take someone else's word for it.
We are all to be taught of Elohim, (Isaiah 54:13, John 6:45).

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. First we were talking about the Greek abbreviations/contractions of IH XP and IC XC Are you saying it is NOT IHSOUS, IHΣΟΥΣ and Xhristos spelled ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ? It is NOT Ιησούς Χριστός (IC XC)? If not, what is your suggestion? In your 1 Corinthians quote, it is Theos (God) and Kyrios (Lord) Iesous (Jesus). What do you not agree with exactly??

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

It looks to me as though you may have the right hand and left hand sides mixed up. The right hand side is the beginning of the scroll, Genesis 1, just as Hebrew is written right to left, and in that manner the Son who is the Word has the seven stars in his right hand side, (the right hand side of the scroll of the Word, Genesis 1). Therefore Yah is on the right hand side, within the Tetragrammaton name of the Father, and is ever in the bosom of the Father.

bet elohim.
Yes the 7 sealed scroll is in the right hand. A correct perspective when reading right to left, blessed Father[yod, hei] is Head of the Son[vav, hei].
So there is no misunderstanding on my part. Nor for anyone perceiving the beautiful script, Word facing back at them. I believe you may have been viewing the script as a mirror instead.
John 6:46