Jonah

[kjn]

Upon the emergence of Higher Criticism, many Old Testament Books, previously held to as factual, began to have their history questioned, and shortly after this, rejected. Now because of the literary style, and out of the ordinary events that take place, Jonah was quickly rejected, and critics stated that rather than a being a historical document, the Book of Jonah is a mere story seeking to communicate a particular message.

Higher critics tend to have a distinct bias that rejects all supernatural occurrences. Yet to one who is open to what we may call miracles, the Book of Jonah, and its historicity is not hard to accept.

Jonah is no mere parable. He is spoken of in the historical masterpiece 'Kings.' 2 Kings 14:25 states '...Yahweh, the God of Israel, had spoken through his servant Jonah, son of Amittai...' This is the same Jonah that we read about in the Book bearing his name. Jonah 1:1 begins, 'The word of Yahweh was addressed to Jonah, son of Amittai...' We may not question the historical nature of his prophetic book (Jonah), without also questioning the prophetic account, given in the historical Book (Kings).

The testimony of Jesus also powerfully favors Jonah's historicity. Matthew 12:41-42 states, "Some of the scribes and Pharisees spoke, 'Master, we should like to see a sign from you.' Jesus replied, '...The only sign that you will be given is the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was in the belly of a sea monster for three days and three nights (He is directly quoting Jonah 2:1 here) so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Yet on judgment day the men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation and condemn it, because when Jonah preached they repented.'"

The Pharisees were asking Jesus for a miracle to prove his authority. He cites Jonah, who for three days was in a sea monsters belly. When Jonah got his act together, he marched into the capital city of Israel's archenemy and preached `Only forty more days and Nineveh will be destroyed. And the people of Nineveh believed in God.' (Jonah 3:4-5). Yet, Jesus would die, be buried and then rise from the dead (a sign that would verify his claims) and these same skeptics still would not accept him. That is why he said that the people of Nineveh would judge them.

We believe that God will one day judge all, but that he is just and yet merciful. If the Book of Jonah is a mere parable, then Jonah did not preach to Nineveh and they did not repent. Besides severely undermining Jesus' authority, if the people of Nineveh would still condemn the Pharisees it would be most unjust and unfair. These are two terms that I do not associate with God. Hence I must conclude, and would encourage you also to promote the belief, that Jonah was
historical.

(Archeological evidence may also favor Jonah. A grave was found in Northern Israel, placed there for the prophet Jonah. Also ancient coins have been found with inscriptions of a man coming out of a fish's mouth. I do not include either as evidence, because I cannot find their source, and they pale in comparison to the Biblical evidence favoring Jonah)

kjn

[MalkyEL]

The bottom line is either you believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word and that He preserved it as He promised, or you don't  It really matters little what science proves or disproves - imho  

By the way - what/who is "Yahweh"- I thought that was a pagan god - what translation did you quote from anyway?

[kjn]

Actually most amateur critics would at least maintain that the Bible is God's word.  Just because they interpret parts figuratively or allegorically, that does not mean they deny its inspiration.  At issue is interpretation.  We have those who defend the Bible's historicity (as I do) and those who merely believe parts are allegorical.  Science should not be a factor, but often scientific trends to determine how we interpret the Bible.  This is a problem, for as science changes, our interpretations are forced to also, and sometimes this causes an individual to lose faith in the Bible.
Yahweh (YHWH) is the proper name used for God in the Old Testament.  It is most commonly translated into English as 'Lord' or 'Lord God.'  Read the Creation stories.  You will notice that the first one refers to God as 'God' while the second refers to Him as 'Lord,' or 'Lord God.'  Yahweh and Jehovah are the same name, so perhaps you are more familiar with Jehovah.  In any event it is not crucial to the topic, but now you know.
kjn

[MalkyEL]

kjn wrote:
This is a problem, for as science changes, our interpretations are forced to also, and sometimes this causes an individual to lose faith in the Bible.

nana:
Yes, I would agree with that, unfortunately. It comes from not being well grounded in the Word and then being doubleminded - and that is a very slippery slope.  

Science and God have never mixed well - although there are times when it does support God's Word.  However; the peculiarness of being a follower of and a believer in Jesus understands that proof is not necessary to believe what God says  


kjn wrote:
Yahweh (YHWH) is the proper name used for God in the Old Testament.  It is most commonly translated into English as 'Lord' or 'Lord God.'  Read the Creation stories.  You will notice that the first one refers to God as 'God' while the second refers to Him as 'Lord,' or 'Lord God.'  Yahweh and Jehovah are the same name, so perhaps you are more familiar with Jehovah.

nana:
Very interesting.  I am curious though, where you get your information from.  From what I understand, yahweh is what the caananites called their god.  And by looking at the two names, I don't see any similarities.  If memory serves me right, Jehovah is by far, the closer pronunciation of the tetragammatron.  The first "hey", I believe, is pronounced as yeh - not yah.  In English the "yeh" becomes "Jeh" due to some evolvement of the pronunciation over the centuries - that is a very loose explanation.  I have a link somewhere that explains it better.  I will see if I can find it.

oh - you never did tell me what translation you are using    thanx . . .

shalom, nana

[kjn]

You state that "science and faith do not mix well," but that is only becuase the majority of scientists that we hear criticizing that which is found in the Sacred Writings, presuppose that the supernatural either does not occur, or does not exist.  From such a presupposition, there are bound to be problems.

With regards to Yahweh being used as a name for one of the Canannite gods, I think this is mistaken.  Some of the Caananite gods include Baal, Asherah, both of whom we read about in the Book of the Kings.  What you may be thinking of is the Caananite creator-god who was named El.  The God of the Bible, is, on occasion, referred to as El Shaddai.  Perhaps this was what you were thinking of.  While there appears to be very little similarity between Yahweh and Jehovah, this is only because German translators, mispronunced the Hebrew "Yhwh,"  the name for God (the Tetragrammaton).  German translators placed a 'J' instead of a 'Y' and created the word 'Jahveh.' Jehovah is simply another form of the name Yahwheh.

Finally, the Bible that I was quoting from when I wrote the Jonah piece, was the Jerusalem Bible.

kjn

[MalkyEL]

I am currently on another forum which was discussing the yahweh issue and thought I would share one of the posts.   There will be further discussions on this, but were put on hold for a short time.  Link is at the bottom.

Quote:
I have been corresponding with my old forum friend HT on the name issue, and he sent me this as a response. I thought that I would post it.

Theophoric elements and Biblical names.

In the scriptures, Yeho (Yud-Hey) was a theophoric element that was used in a minimum of seventeen Biblical names. This can be proven simply by using only a concordance, and by starting at #3059, and reviewing names up to #3092 in the Hebrew. In all cases, the Hebrew meanings of these Biblical names translate as "YHVH has/will"(what He did or will do) with a specified action on His part. What was Joshua's original name? First check #1954 and notice the root word that Oshea/Hoshea it is derived from (yasha), while keeping in mind it's relation to the NT Greek term Hosanna (#5614). Then read Numbers 13:19. Anyone ever question why in post Torah writings he (Oshea/Hoshea) was referred to as Yehoshua, the same name that the Messiah later used in a shortened form? (Yeshua #3442) It is also interesting to note that after the return from captivity, Yehoshua was shortened to Yeshua in writings such as Nehemiah while referring to the very same Joshua, the son of Nun.

Check out the Biblical names with this element in the first syllable, and you will see that they all share the Yud Hey as the first two letters. Then check out the vowel pointings. If someone does not believe that the vowel pointings are correct, or have been intentionally tampered with, then they could possibly form another opinion by referencing extra-Biblical sources.

There are Bibilical names and expressions which use Yah as an ending, such as HalleleuYah, and the name Yah appears in the TeNaKh. People such as Michael Rood and others have stated that the Messiah's Name is YAHshua. He has then stated that he does not like to use the name Yeshua, because it only means "salvation". This needs to be clarified, as it is an incorrect statement. yeshuah (#3444) written Yud-Shin-Vav-Ayin-Hey, is a feminine noun that means "salvation".
Yeshua (#3442) written Yud-Shin-Vav-Ayin, is a male noun that means "He is salvation", and is the name that refers to Joshua in the TeNaKh. It is written in Matthew 1:21  "for He will save His people from their sins"

To me:

(Yeho)wah

(Yeho)shua/Yeshua

Make perfectly good sense, but everyone must be convicted in their own minds.

nana note:
I hauled out my trusty old Strong's hard copies for comparison to "test out" the names.  I was surprised that my Strong's from 10 years ago uses "Jehovah" while my newest [Strongest Strong's - published in 2001] uses "Yahweh".

Why do I get the feeling that we are ever so subtlely beingled down the dark path where the shiny knives areby "modern" scholarship?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(moderator note)
  Agreed.  From my studies the "theophoric" name issue blasts "yahweh' out of the water, since the multi-syllable form must begin with "Yeh".

See an indepth discussion by Gerard Gertoux at..
   
   http://www.divinename.net/
   How to get the book
   .pdf file
 
  p.10 According to the Masoretic text, at this time all theophoric names which had a part of the Tetragram integrated at their beginning were pronounced without exception YeHÔ-. Consequently, because the Tetragram is obviously the ultimate theophoric name, its reading had to be Yehô-aH to be consistent with all other theophoric names (YHWH can be read YHW-H).

  Then please note p.53 and p.54 , which gives a lot of the theophoric names.  They always will BEGIN with Yeh, and such names also can END with Yah.  As far as I know, this is a 100% correlation, with of course Yah by itself being outside the two groups.

  The extra point Truf is making is that it also gives strong support for the vowels.  If
a) the yud vowel with YHWH matches that of other theorphoric names, and
b) is actually different from the vowels of adonai, then this is very strong evidence of their usage in pronounciation.
This can use a little more consideration and researching, and may be an   extremely significant point, often overlooked.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/9557

shalom, nana