It is amazing how many there are who don’t believe that Yahweh came as Yahshua Christ in the flesh as our Redeemer; that somehow Yahshua is a distinct and separate entity from the Father. Yet we are manifestly informed by Christ Himself at John 14:7-10:

“⁷ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ⁸ Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. ⁹ Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? ¹⁰ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. ¹¹ Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” (KJV) Yet, many dualists and trinitarians will declare that Christ didn’t mean what He said here; that Christ and the Father make up a duality or a trinity of persons! So, according to them, evidently Christ lied to Philip!

There are many passages in both the New and Old Testaments referring to the “Holy One”, all translated into the English in the singular tense. Reference is never made to a “Holy Two”! Two passages identically related are Acts 2:22-27, 29-30 and Psalm 16:8-10:

This is going to be a critical review of a subject debated over the centuries, and sadly misunderstood by a majority of Christianity. What is going to be presented here is evidence for which many are not aware. Because this is a critical review, all sides of the theme will be given reflection. Reflection, for some might not like what they see in the mirror. As a critical review, we will attempt to determine the validity of the evidence. Our goal here is to evaluate the criterion and hold the claimant’s feet to the fire.

I found such a critical discussion on the Internet and it will serve our purpose here. It involves a Michael S. Heiser, PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic studies, University of Wisconsin - Madison, in his endeavor to show that the bad-fig-jew, Zecharia Sitchin, doesn’t understand Hebrew, let alone Sumerian script. Erik Parker is Sitchin’s webmaster and answers all his electronic correspondence.

Heiser to reader: “As many visitors to Rense.com know by now, I have an academic bone to pick with Zecharia Sitchin. In the wide field of research into the anomalous, I am something of an anomaly myself: a credentialed scholar of Ancient Hebrew and Semitic Languages who takes these issues seriously (as opposed to just laughing at them). I have publicly stated I think Sitchin’s theories are hopelessly flawed, and have tried to put the evidence for this claim into the public forum of the internet, as well as through radio shows like Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell, and Jeff Rense’s show. Disagreement with me on the part of Sitchin followers was inevitable, and so here we are.

JUST BECAUSE THE TERM “YA” WAS FOUND AT EBLA & UGARIT IS NO SIGN THAT YAHWEH IS CANAANITE IN ORIGIN!

The “Jesus only” people are busy in an attempt to prop-up their faulty premise that the names “Yahweh” and “Yahshua” have a Canaanite origin. Check any good dictionary or encyclopedia and one will find that the letter “J” never existed in any language before the Middle Ages. It was the Medieval scribes that began the usage in the 1600s. While “J” is the 10^th letter of the English alphabet, it was the last letter (or 24^th) to be added by the scribes. Therefore, if “Jesus” is the correct name, the English “J” must be dropped (or “esus”). Neither Paul nor any of Christ’s disciples ever used the term “Jesus” with an English “J”! And, because there is no equivalent in the Greek for the English letter “J”, no early New Testament writer ever wrote the name “Jesus”. That brings up another question: Because the Greek alphabet has both a long and a short “e” ((1) epsilon & (2) eta), which of these two “e’s” do we use? Surely these experts on the name “Jesus” should be able to explain this! So, that leaves us with only the letters (“sus”) to enunciate His Name. And what kind of a name is that? It sounds a little like a hissing snake!

Many today are struggling with this very question. What other subject could be of more importance than the very name of our Creator? Maybe the following article will solve some of your uncertainties. If one wishes to find information on the term “Yahweh” it is somewhat hard to find. One reason is because in most encyclopedias it is listed under “Jehovah.” Also, in later up-to-date encyclopedias the information is rather suppressed. The following is a rather thorough, but not perfect, article on this subject found in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica printed in 1910. We will not use the entire article as toward the end they get mired in the errant criticisms of the 1800’s humanists. Otherwise this article brings to light many historical facts on the topic. But like all testimony, it must be scrutinized! (Footnotes have been changed to paragraph notes at the end of each paragraph by the use of superscript numerals inside of brackets [ ] ):

JEHOVAH (Yahweh1), in the Bible, the God of Israel. “Jehovah” is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word adonay, “Lord,” which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures. In such cases of substitution the vowels of the word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the consonants of the word which is not to be read. The consonants of the word to be substituted are ordinarily written in the margin; but inasmuch as Adonay was regularly read instead of the ineffable name Jhvh, it was deemed unnecessary to note the fact at every occurrence. When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah. It is an unprofitable inquiry who first made this blunder; probably many fell into it independently. The statement still commonly repeated that it originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; Jehova occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century. [1This form, Yahweh, as the correct one, is generally used in the separate articles throughout this work.]

The form Jehovah was used in the 16th century by many authors, both Catholic and Protestant, and in the 17th was zealously defended by Fuller, Gataker, Leusden and others, against the criticisms of such scholars as Drusius, Cappellus and the elder Buxtorf. It appeared in the English Bible in Tyndale’s translation of the Pentateuch (1530), and is found in all English Protestant versions of the 16th century except that of Coverdale (1535). In the Authorized Version of 1611 it occurs in Exod. vi. 3; Ps. lxxxiii. 18; Isa. xii. 2; xxvi. 4, beside the compound names Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-shalom; elsewhere, in accordance with the usage of the ancient versions, Jhvh is represented by LORD (distinguished by capitals from the title “Lord,” Heb. adonay). In the Revised Version of 1885 Jehovah is retained in the places in which it stood in the A.V., and is introduced also in Exod. vi. 2, 6, 7, 8; Ps. lxviii. 20; Isa. xlix, 14; Jer. xvi. 21; Hab. iii: 19. The American committee which cooperated in the revision desired to employ the name Jehovah wherever Jhvh occurs in the original, and editions embodying their preferences are printed accordingly.