YAHWEH, The Name
He made one post on his list announcing this:
The Information On YAHWEH's Name Is The Key To Summoning
He gets this name from two specific sources we have identified, the first,
probably using the second.
We believe that Prophet Yahweh is taking this concept from this hypothetical 19th Century articulation on the names of God. You will notice the "J" document concerns the name Yahweh. He says the name Jehovah is satanic so falsely claims the "scholars" changed the letter to "Y". He clearly mentions the "E document" was about El, which gives us evidence this is the source. This would make his "destruction" of the ancient "Y" document, as he claims highly unlikely. We have posted the relevant parts of this essay .
The full presentation of the research on this site is here: YAHWEH
The Torah in Modern Scholarship
The following was taken from the above document:
The Torah is also a valid object of literary analysis. The current and most popular system, at least among Christian scholars, for analyzing the Torah is called the documentary hypothesis. In this essay, I wish to show that the documentary hypothesis is the product of faulty literary analysis.
The documentary hypothesis, as it was articulated by Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, theorizes that the Torah is actually four documents edited into one. These four documents are identified primarily by the name that is used for God and by their writing style. The four are as follows:
J document
The hypothetical J document
was characterized primarily by the use of ‘Yahweh’
as God’s name. This document also contains lively narratives of God’s
providence to Israel. This document is supposed to be the product of a scribe
living in Solomon’s time and was motivated by the desire to preserve the old
traditions.
E document
The hypothetical E document was characterized primarily by the use of ‘Elohim’
to designate God. This document contains lively stories about old heroes, and is
supposed to be the product of the northern tribes, sort of the northern
counterpart of J.
P document
The hypothetical P document was the priestly code. It is a collection of
laws and rituals and was supposed to have been drawn up by the priests during
the Babylonian exile to preserve the priestly traditions that would have been
lost during the captivity, when there was no Temple in which to carry them out.
D document
The hypothetical D document, which is primarily Deuteronomy, was supposed to
be the product of a religious reform movement during the reign of King Josiah.
The documentary hypothesis was formulated in the nineteenth century before
the bulk of the archaeological discoveries in the Holy Land. For example, as
Wellhausen worked, there was no evidence for the existence of the Hittite
empire, which the Old Testament depicts as a major world power. Since then, the
Hittite empire has been discovered and it is even possible to study the Hittite
language in German universities.
The Lack of Hard Evidence
In the real world of archaeology, J,
E, D, and P do not exist. Their existence is purely theoretical. The
recent publication entitled The Book of J is a modern theoretical
reconstruction, not the publication of an actual ancient document. The identity
and content of J, E, D, and P vary from scholar to scholar. Even the number of
source documents varies, depending on whose book you read. If the documentarians
are detecting the historical facts about the composition of the Torah, we should
expect that, with time, their views should converge upon a single set of facts,
and would be increasingly validated by archaeological data. Instead,
documentarians grow more diverse and are increasingly at odds with historic
facts.
This article was inspired by Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, Thomas Nelson, 1993.