Chioke Lin

I have seen what DHMO can do to metal, yet knowing that I can’t stop.

Your mistake is thinking that English-speaking people know how to speak English.  

I will get it wherever I can … sometimes a clerk at a 7-11 store will sell me some of the really pure stuff, sometimes my pharmacy has some. I have to be careful not to get it in my lungs …..

Okay, thanks. I was thinking there was something new to, English wording.
This would be a personal choice. I have sciatica, stenosis, and bulging spinal discs. I have severe pain 24/7 including sleep time which the pain can wake me up. This is why I don't take hard prescribed drugs because I know they can be addictive if taken for a long period of time, no matter which Pharma manufactures it. Abuse is abuse, no matter what.
This shouldn't be an excuse by anyone to go outside the recommended dosage prescribed by a doctor to abuse, especially from a black market, where no one knows what those drugs contain. In his case, too much Fentanyl. 
What happened to Jackson. Lack of sleep. I have the same problem, But I don't around looking for a doctor to give me propofol anesthesia. Like, I said, rich people can get pretty much everything, that doesn't mean they should. 

Should it matter? My sister knows a former band player from the "Sly and The Family Stones." She's gone door to door with him. I figure, to each their own in this case. Some apostles gave up their high positions to serve. The point there is, they were the first. Their evangelizing was different. 
If anyone can balance theirs lives to serve God in the proper manner, then no one should be critical of their bothers. That just shows envy and jealousy. 
If one becomes high profile. Not shaming the name of God would be a high priority. I remember, when "Prince" praised Jehovah in a ceremony he attended. President Obama was there, I think. Meantime, he found time to go door to door. But then, he died of a drug overdose.

Should it matter? My sister knows a former band player from the "Sly and The Family Stones." She's gone door to door with him. I figure, to each their own in this case. Some apostles gave up their high positions to serve. The point there is, they were the first. Their evangelizing was different. 
If anyone can balance theirs lives to serve God in the proper manner, then no one should be critical of their bothers. That just shows envy and jealousy. 
If one becomes high profile. Not shaming the name of God would be a high priority. I remember, when "Prince" praised Jehovah in a ceremony he attended. President Obama was there, I think. Meantime, he found time to go door to door. But then, he died of a drug overdose.

Should it matter? My sister knows a former band player from the "Sly and The Family Stones." She's gone door to door with him. I figure, to each their own in this case. Some apostles gave up their high positions to serve. The point there is, they were the first. Their evangelizing was different. 
If anyone can balance theirs lives to serve God in the proper manner, then no one should be critical of their bothers. That just shows envy and jealousy. 
If one becomes high profile. Not shaming the name of God would be a high priority. I remember, when "Prince" praised Jehovah in a ceremony he attended. President Obama was there, I think. Meantime, he found time to go door to door. But then, he died of a drug overdose.

Should it matter? My sister knows a former band player from the "Sly and The Family Stones." She's gone door to door with him. I figure, to each their own in this case. Some apostles gave up their high positions to serve. The point there is, they were the first. Their evangelizing was different. 
If anyone can balance theirs lives to serve God in the proper manner, then no one should be critical of their bothers. That just shows envy and jealousy. 
If one becomes high profile. Not shaming the name of God would be a high priority. I remember, when "Prince" praised Jehovah in a ceremony he attended. President Obama was there, I think. Meantime, he found time to go door to door. But then, he died of a drug overdose.

I'm sure a serious question would first need to be asked, and not some long-drawn opinion in order to have a meaningful bible discussion, and not just an argument generated by animosity. No Christian is supposed to argue, much like it's done here. So, it makes me wonder, how many consider themselves Christians.
But, this "topic" is about God's name, not some kind of, circular way at criticism. We can all do that without breaking a sweat.
It seems your presentation on how the name of God sounded seems a little outlandish, since we don't know exactly how the tone was for praising God in ancient times. 
We need to consider, how scribes manipulated the YHWH to make it seem to look like something else. Regardless if we are scholars or rabbi's, the professionals have a better understanding on how the YHWH was formed.
I AM THAT I AM
When Moses met God at the burning bush, Moses asked God what his name was. God responded, “I Am That I Am” (Exodus 3:13-14). In Hebrew the name is spelled YHWH, or Yahweh. In the several centuries before Christ, Jews were not allowed to pronounce the name because it was holy. When they came to the name Yahweh in the Scripture, they said Adonai (‘the Lord’). See the list of names for God at the entry for God.
It wouldn’t matter to a Hebrew. If God’s name came up, they substituted God's personal name out of fear. Those that God favored, had no problem praising God without fear.
Scholars recognize where scribes wanted to reconfigure the YHWH to mean something else.
Translators of the Old Testament have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh. Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios, which means, “Lord,” many have translated Yahweh as “LORD.” However, ‘Adonai, which is best translated “Lord,” appears with Yahweh in various instances. The King James Version, for example, translates Yahweh as “God,” and ‘Adonai as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to maintain the use of Yahweh. The name Jehovah has been judged by translators to be unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s exile to Babylon (Amos 6:10). Because of this, when reading the Old Testament, the Jews substituted either Elohim or ‘Adonai for Yahweh. From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ‘Adonai to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.
 Nehemia Gordon Findings, found the name Yahovah. So, the substitution of the J for Y and “e” for “a” is appropriate in the English language.
Now if the discussion is going to extend, to how we arrive at those substitutions from "a" to "e" then we need to understand how the language transformed within the Jews.

The professionals also have a good explanation for that transformation. So, in English, the name of God is Jehovah, and it's appropriate under the Hebrew scheme of language. 
 
 

I'm sure a serious question would first need to be asked, and not some long-drawn opinion in order to have a meaningful bible discussion, and not just an argument generated by animosity. No Christian is supposed to argue, much like it's done here. So, it makes me wonder, how many consider themselves Christians.
But, this "topic" is about God's name, not some kind of, circular way at criticism. We can all do that without breaking a sweat.
It seems your presentation on how the name of God sounded seems a little outlandish, since we don't know exactly how the tone was for praising God in ancient times. 
We need to consider, how scribes manipulated the YHWH to make it seem to look like something else. Regardless if we are scholars or rabbi's, the professionals have a better understanding on how the YHWH was formed.
I AM THAT I AM
When Moses met God at the burning bush, Moses asked God what his name was. God responded, “I Am That I Am” (Exodus 3:13-14). In Hebrew the name is spelled YHWH, or Yahweh. In the several centuries before Christ, Jews were not allowed to pronounce the name because it was holy. When they came to the name Yahweh in the Scripture, they said Adonai (‘the Lord’). See the list of names for God at the entry for God.
It wouldn’t matter to a Hebrew. If God’s name came up, they substituted God's personal name out of fear. Those that God favored, had no problem praising God without fear.
Scholars recognize where scribes wanted to reconfigure the YHWH to mean something else.
Translators of the Old Testament have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh. Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios, which means, “Lord,” many have translated Yahweh as “LORD.” However, ‘Adonai, which is best translated “Lord,” appears with Yahweh in various instances. The King James Version, for example, translates Yahweh as “God,” and ‘Adonai as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to maintain the use of Yahweh. The name Jehovah has been judged by translators to be unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s exile to Babylon (Amos 6:10). Because of this, when reading the Old Testament, the Jews substituted either Elohim or ‘Adonai for Yahweh. From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ‘Adonai to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.
 Nehemia Gordon Findings, found the name Yahovah. So, the substitution of the J for Y and “e” for “a” is appropriate in the English language.
Now if the discussion is going to extend, to how we arrive at those substitutions from "a" to "e" then we need to understand how the language transformed within the Jews.

The professionals also have a good explanation for that transformation. So, in English, the name of God is Jehovah, and it's appropriate under the Hebrew scheme of language. 
 
 

I'm sure a serious question would first need to be asked, and not some long-drawn opinion in order to have a meaningful bible discussion, and not just an argument generated by animosity. No Christian is supposed to argue, much like it's done here. So, it makes me wonder, how many consider themselves Christians.
But, this "topic" is about God's name, not some kind of, circular way at criticism. We can all do that without breaking a sweat.
It seems your presentation on how the name of God sounded seems a little outlandish, since we don't know exactly how the tone was for praising God in ancient times. 
We need to consider, how scribes manipulated the YHWH to make it seem to look like something else. Regardless if we are scholars or rabbi's, the professionals have a better understanding on how the YHWH was formed.
I AM THAT I AM
When Moses met God at the burning bush, Moses asked God what his name was. God responded, “I Am That I Am” (Exodus 3:13-14). In Hebrew the name is spelled YHWH, or Yahweh. In the several centuries before Christ, Jews were not allowed to pronounce the name because it was holy. When they came to the name Yahweh in the Scripture, they said Adonai (‘the Lord’). See the list of names for God at the entry for God.
It wouldn’t matter to a Hebrew. If God’s name came up, they substituted God's personal name out of fear. Those that God favored, had no problem praising God without fear.
Scholars recognize where scribes wanted to reconfigure the YHWH to mean something else.
Translators of the Old Testament have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh. Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios, which means, “Lord,” many have translated Yahweh as “LORD.” However, ‘Adonai, which is best translated “Lord,” appears with Yahweh in various instances. The King James Version, for example, translates Yahweh as “God,” and ‘Adonai as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to maintain the use of Yahweh. The name Jehovah has been judged by translators to be unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s exile to Babylon (Amos 6:10). Because of this, when reading the Old Testament, the Jews substituted either Elohim or ‘Adonai for Yahweh. From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ‘Adonai to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.
 Nehemia Gordon Findings, found the name Yahovah. So, the substitution of the J for Y and “e” for “a” is appropriate in the English language.
Now if the discussion is going to extend, to how we arrive at those substitutions from "a" to "e" then we need to understand how the language transformed within the Jews.

The professionals also have a good explanation for that transformation. So, in English, the name of God is Jehovah, and it's appropriate under the Hebrew scheme of language. 
 
 

Are you referring to the video? I can see many discrepancies with it. If you mean, me posting other people's published works, I will direct you to them. The video presenter for one hand no hieroglyphic experience. He mentioned something similar on another video. He was shown, how that badly deteriorated column read. 
I have the video, but, it appears, it takes forever to download. Either way, I didn't find myself in a tizzy. Let's keep the remarks friendly.

This is true. That's why I stick with the classics. They knew better how to deal with understanding.
In the first place, the known linguistic facts in the case need to be listed and dated. The first of these is that the oldest authenticated form of the divine name is the tetragrammaton itself as it occurs in line 18 of the Moabite Stone of the ninth century B.c. Cowley's attempt to deny this2 since it was against his own theory proves too much. His argument would eliminate the name of Israel's God from the stone, but it should naturally appear somewhere in relation to Chemosh, and line 18 is a most fitting point for that to happen. Second, his own etymology posits one unknown quantity to explain another, which leaves the tetragrammaton as decidedly the easiest alternative, with the result that this form of the name emerges with a double emphasis as the oldest-known example of it.

It appears, in 1926, Leroy Waterman would have agreed with Nehemia Gordon. The above goes toward "hieroglyphics and cuneiform" "Aramaic and Hebrew script" not people. That's been my idealistic view all along.

*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***
While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"  as the more correct way,
But Mr Carroll still advertises the company name. 

Ironically, the person in the video wasn't an archeologist. He got his master’s degree in archeology after studying in Israel for 10 years. Before that, he just supported a few digs. He didn't know anything about how to study archeology.

The video just shows another instance where God's name has been found. In Egypt, it's not the first time. This is just the latest. If archeologist continue to look, they will find plenty of evidence. Some will be open to the public, some will not, due to human intervention of not wanting God's name to be truly known.
https://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=7493#:~:text=The oldest historical mention of ancient Israel occurs,people called the Shasu. (Photo%3A the Merneptah stele)
This "Stele of YHWH in Egypt" is, from referencing, The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush. Another proof of the "oldest historical mention" of the "tetragrammaton" in Egypt.
The Vatican has had in its position a reference of Yahwe from about 490CE that they just released about 2 years ago.
What matters, God does have a personal name, and it should be used. That thing about God's name being forbidden is a man-made thing.
Keep in mind that "Nehemia Gordon" found a specific instance of God's name with the (Y) Yahovah. 

Since John in John 10:10 is referring to Jesus being the good shepherd, how can this passage be interpreted?
Once again, the word “destroy” is used. What bible example can we link with John?
Jeremiah 23:1 New International Version (NIV) The Righteous Branch 23 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord.
Ezekiel 34:3 English Standard Version (ESV) 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. English Standard Version (ESV)
So, what’s the theme in John? God’s sheep. We know Jesus sacrifice was to benefit mankind, so the evil intent of a thief could not benefit from that sacrifice.
The word "destroy" is losing its biblical value by being overplayed. This is why I like the Danker, Greek NT Lexicon. It brings a fuller application to the bible.
 

We have to be mindful when using certain words, especially when using a lexicon.
Take for instance the word Abbadon. We can see it is linked to destroyer. However, can the word "destroyer" actually be applied to an intent. Instead, we would have to think of the proper intention as "destruction" or "ruin."
There are many ways to express it without damaging the context.
ABADDON [Heb ˒ăbaddôn ( אֲבַדֹּון )]. Derived from Heb ˒ābad, ―became lost,’’ ―be ruined, Destroyed, ”perish,” Abaddon has a variety of nuanced meanings.
A poetic synonym for the abode of the dead, meaning ―Destruction,‖ or ― (the place of) destruction.’’ Abaddon occurs in parallel and in conjunction with Sheol (Job 26:6 and Prov 15:11; 27:20). It is also found in conjunction with Death (Job 28:22) and in parallel with the grave (Ps 88:12—Eng 88:11).
Although a place of mystery which is hidden from human eyes, Abaddon is clearly known by God (Job 26:6; Prov 15:11). It is twice personified: (1) along with Death, it speaks (Job 28:22); and (2) along with Sheol, it is insatiable (Prov 27:20). It is also remote: in Job 31:12, adultery becomes ―a fire that consumes unto [as far as] Abaddon.” See also DEAD, ABODE OF THE.
In Rev 9:11, the word ―Abaddon‖ is personified as ―the angel of the bottomless pit.‖ It is also identified as the king of the demonic ―locusts‖ described in Rev 9:3, 7–10, and is explained for Greek-speaking readers as Apollyon (Gk apollyōn), “destroyer.” The LXX usually translates Heb ˒abaddon as Gk apōleia, ―destruction‖; the Vg renders it as Latin
perditio, ―ruin, destruction‖ (whence Eng ―perdition, ‖ which ordinarily means “hell”); in Syr (Peshitta), the cognate word means ―destruction, ‖ and is sometimes used in the Psalms to render ―the Pit, ‖ which is another OT synonym of Sheol. In rabbinic literature, the word has come to mean the place of punishment reserved for the wicked.
Current English versions render this word variously in the OT: “Abaddon,” ―Destruction/destruction, ‖ “he place of destruction,” ―Perdition/perdition, ‖ ―the abyss, ‖ ―the world of the dead.‖ In the single NT occurrence, the word is consistently transliterated as ―Abaddon.‖ HERBERT G. GRETHER
Then, according to the bible, Jesus will cause the destruction of all evil on earth, and will ruin Satan in the process. Some Bible dictionaries have a simple notation. This is why, the best evidence is a complete descriptive. Then we can see the word "destroyer" is not being used in its proper syntax.
The word "destroyer" alone has an evil intent. That's not Christ. Jesus intent is to purify the earth again from evil, as God the father intended.

I need to warn you that there are apostates on here - unfortunately. ....they twist things very much.  I am glad to see that you stand up to them in such an admirable way and correct any deviant thoughts.  Satan is a deceiver - so a thing may look right but on closer inspection it is leading the one without discernment astray.
I nevertheless have used this forum to find subjects to think about - and often do.... It is interesting to see things from your perspective.... 

Of course not. The Org has made it clear where, separations should be made. But's that's not what's happening here, isn't it. Even the lexicons are being misapplied. 
There's no such thing as God being evil. The lexicons are not giving that impression by certain words. We are making the bible out to be confusing.

Summary of Nehemia Gordon (Scholar regarding the name Yehovah):   I  am often asked whether God’s name, Yehovah, is related to the Hebrew word for "disaster". The question starts off with the observation that the Hebrew word hovah means "disaster, calamity".
This word “hovah” appears three times in the Tanach, once in Isaiah and twice in a single verse in Ezekiel: "Evil is coming upon you which you will not know how to charm away; disaster (hovah) is falling upon you which you will not be able to appease; coming upon you suddenly is ruin of which you know nothing." (Isaiah 47:11) "Calamity (hovah) shall follow calamity (hovah), and rumor follow rumor. Then they shall seek vision from the prophet in vain; instruction shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the elders." (Ezekiel 7:26) Since hovah means "disaster" or "calamity", I am often asked, doesn't this mean that Yehovah also means "disaster" or "calamity".
I guess this makes sense to those innocent of basic Hebrew grammar, but in the Hebrew language this makes no sense. This would be like saying that the English word "assume" is derived from the word "ass" because when you ass-u-me you make an ass of you and me. Someone actually said this many years ago, and they were dead serious. Of course, an examination of any historical English dictionary will reveal that "assume" actually comes from the Latin verb "assume(re)" and not from the English word for a donkey.
Let's look at some Hebrew basics before we get ourselves in trouble assuming. With a few exceptions, every word in the Hebrew language has a three-letter root, something proven in the 11th century by the Spanish rabbi, Yonah Ibn Janah. Modern linguistics have confirmed this, observing that the three-letter root is a basic characteristic of all Semitic languages.
Whole Roots:
Most Hebrew roots are "whole" roots meaning all three letters of the root are present regardless of how the root is used in different grammatical forms. For example, the Hebrew root SH.M.R. has the basic meaning "to guard". Hebrew can use this root in dozens of ways, each with a different shade of meaning, such as the verbs SHaMaRti "I guarded" and hiShaMeR "be careful" (be on guard), the noun miSHMeRet meaning "duty" (which a person has to be on guard to keep), and the names SheMeR and SHoMRon. As a "whole" root, the letters shin, mem, resh, are always present in words derived from this root.
Hollow Roots:
The opposite of a "whole" root, is a "hollow" root. In "hollow" roots, one or more of the three letters of the root can be absent in certain grammatical forms. For example, the root BNH "to build" loses the third letter of the root in the verb baniti (spelled BNYty) "I built". In this form of the verb, the H of BNH drops and is replaced by a Yod.
If you didn't know about hollow verbs, and saw the word baniti, you might think the root was BNY, when in fact it is BNH.  .............Yehovah is from a Hollow Root. The name Yehovah derives from the three-letter root HYH which means "to be". We know this from Ex 3:14 in which the Almighty explains his name as "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh". The word Ehyeh is an "imperfect" verb from the root HYH meaning "to be". In later Hebrew, the "imperfect" form took on the meaning of "future", but in Biblical Hebrew it primarily expresses a repetitive action. In plain English, Ehyeh means "I am now and I will continue to be in the future". This is why Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh can be translated as "I am that which I am", but also as "I will be that which I will be". Both of these translations are correct, even if they are a bit inaccurate. An accurate translation would be: "I am now, and will continue to be in the future, that which I am now, and will be continue to be in the future". That's quite a mouthful, and you can see why most translations prefer to dumb it down.
I just remembered - One of the first things I realized when I studied Arabic (also a Semitic language with 3 root consonants in most words) ...is that most verbs already assume that an existing person is carrying out the verb. So one does not say : I am playing this or that.  Most sentences are: I play..... the AM is not in the sentence. 
This is why a rare form of hollow root is used to express the I AM when speaking of Jehovah.

Not true.  More than enough evidence has been provided by Nehemia Gordon. He personally went and investigated each occurrence of the name in the  extant, manuscripts in the Hebrew language.

Thank you for the extra information.

Nehemia Gordon, Blotting Out the Name  2020
Scribal Methods of Erasing the Tetragrammaton in Medieval Hebrew Bible
Abstract
Part 2. Early rabbinic interpretation of Deut 12:4 prohibited erasure of the Tetragrammaton, which required Jewish scribes to employ creative methods to resolve extraneous instances of the divine name. This may be foreshadowed in the writing of divine appellations in Paleo-Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Medieval Jewish scribes employed diverse methods to deal with errors involving the Tetragrammaton. In codices this involved marking God’s name with dots, rectangles (also used in liturgical scrolls), lines, and supralinear circelli. Some scribes indicated the Tetragrammaton’s erasure by leaving
it unpointed and recording a correction (usually Adonai) in the margin, without any additional notation. A special procedure involved a nonstandard usage of the Qere notation. All of these methods were performed in accordance with rabbinic strictures. Part 2 of this study will consider exceptions to the rule and the special case of liturgical
Torah scrolls.
Abstract
Part 1 of this study considered how the rabbinic prohibition against erasing the Tetragrammaton led to scribes performing diverse procedures to resolve scribal errors. In part 2 it will be shown that special procedures were performed in Torah scrolls, namely, skiving, excision, and removing sheets. Washing off the divine name was not found in the corpus examined. Despite the rabbinic prohibition, medieval Jewish scribes occasionally marked the Tetragrammaton with a strikethrough or erased it through abrasion. This may have been the handiwork of Karaite scribes who did not see themselves bound by the midrashic interpretation of Deut 12:4. The scribes who wrote the Aleppo Codex may have abraded erroneous instances of the Tetragrammaton in order to create a model codex. Scribes in the isolated Jewish community of Kaifeng, who erased erroneous instances of the Tetragrammaton, may not have been familiar with rabbinic strictures.
 
〈The scribe who〉 was supposed to write the 〈divine〉 name, 〈mistakenly〉 wrote “Judah” with intention, but had not yet placed the dalet; he erases it and writes the 〈divine〉 name. Rabbi Judah says, “He traces over it with
the pen and sanctifies it …

I have never tried to contact him, but in his own comments, and his writing, videos, interviews, etc, he has already answered every specific  question I would have wanted to ask of him.