Q: Qs: - Is the existence of Yahweh acknowledged, or mentioned, in any Hindu religious document, corpus, tradition, etc.?
Ans: - From what I can remember, yahwah is one of the names of mithraa in the vedas. Like the 33 devaas, there are 33 angels in jewish scriptures.
It has been noted that indra(king of gods; god of lightning) is worshipped a lot in the ancient times; under different names like Mithra (who is god of heavens in vedas), Zeus and Ju-Piter(derived from dyaus pitr, a deva of vedas). So it might be possible that yahwah came to be from Vedas.
Is the Hindu right about the origin of Yahweh? Does the name Yahweh have any connection with names of Hindu gods?
A: Interesting questions. Unfortunately, there are some very uniformed and speculative ideas that need to be addressed within your question.
Yahweh is the unique name given to the God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament. The word is called the “Tetragrammaton” -- the name formed by four characters. They are the four Hebrew letters: Yodh, He, Waw, He. Sometimes this name is abbreviated “Yah.” The common exhortation “Hallelujah” contains the name in short version (Jah) and means “give praise to God.” This form has a relation to the verb “to be” in Hebrew. When God gave his name to Moses it is recorded that He said, “I am who I am.” The Hebrew would read backwards, from right to left, and the symbols looked somewhat like an apostrophe, followed by an upside down U with a flat top, followed by a 1 with a flag on the left side, followed by another upside down flat U. (hwhy)
The idea of placing phonetically similar words next to each other can produce some very interesting results. This can happen somewhat like the numerical games people can start to play when letters are given corresponding numbers and codes and links are looked for. Given the phonetic possibilities of languages, the number of gods in many pantheons, the flow of history and the multiplying of gods, the cognate language alternate names for these gods, it must be assumed that there will be some similar phonetic links between the names of gods or God. The question is not if there is a similar sounding name for God in different traditions or texts, the main question is if the description and nature of the God or gods is the same, or more directly if there is a clear and stated link between the two in the original texts, not in the minds of those who read these texts centuries or millennia later. In the supposed link of the nature of the gods or God, it is also not enough to say something vaguely such as “this God was viewed as an energy,” or, “This God was seen as a sky God,” because most Gods are viewed as having energy, and most gods are viewed in some way as living “up.”
Is Yahvah the same as Yahweh? Well, let us ask the question more correctly, “Is hwhy the same as यह्व?” Can you read these two? Do you know what they say? Is there a linguistic tie between the two? Is the “H” of Hebrew represented here (there are two “H” sounds in Hebrew) the same as the “h” in Sanskrit? Are the vowels the same? The vowels aren’t even written in Hebrew, so we can’t easily know if they are the same as the Sanskrit ones. The “v” of Jahvah and the “w” of Yahweh —are we sure they are the same? In English they are quite different—one is a fluid and one is a fricative, and they represent completely unique sounds in English. “Wow” and “Vow” are completely different words and though they could be connected phonetically, we still do not identify them as the same words. Do they represent different sounds in Hebrew and Sanskrit? For someone to link these two together phonetically by ‘sounding similar’ becomes a fairly thorny object by mere supposed phonetic linking. This kind of thing can easily go awry and get strange, viz. Is ‘Jehovah Jireh’ referenced by the song of the Ink Spots and the Manhattan Transfer ‘Java Jive'?
I ran a search on the Rig Veda to discover if “Yahvah” is present. It comes up only once. It is in Rig Veda Book 4.58.6 “यह्वा” and has the meaning ‘swift’ and is an adjective describing Ghjrta, the holy oil of sacrifice which flows “swiftly.” I also would run the word “Yahwah” except that there is no “w” in Sanskrit. I then ran a search of the more common appearance of this word (swift, restless, active, flowing), “Yahva” (“यह्व”) and found the following: Rig 10.110.3 (swift or quickly), 5.1.1 (rising or flowing), 10.92.2 (swift), 4.58.7 (vigorous/swift). Conclusion: the claim that there is a deity referred to in the Rig by the name of Yahva or Yahvah is simply not true. If this person would give any credence to this claim, then he or she must give the reference and an explanation that demonstrates there is a genuine link. Otherwise this person is merely speculating in ignorance.
The idea that there are 33 angels in the Jewish scriptures as there are 33 devas is also a very strange statement. First of all this person does not even say what “Hebrew scriptures” are that he is referring to. Does he mean the Old Testament? The Midrash? The Talmud? Why doesn’t he give a reference to show that he knows what he is talking about? If he is referring to the Old Testament, he is clearly wrong. This idea of 33 angels as a link between Judaism and Vedic teaching is really quite strange and shows this person is quite off base.
Again, it seems like I need to give, ‘A Guide to Avoiding Rumors, Hearsay, Fables and Opinions’ advice. First, make certain the statement on any original source is given a clear and valid reference. If someone says, “The Vedas say that…” --if there is not a reference, then either completely disregard what they say (hard to do) or stop reading or listening, as you are likely in the realm of fantasy and amateur imaginations. If a person gives a reference, and you look it up and it is not there (and you are certain you looked it up correctly), then write them and ask them for the correct reference and if they cannot give it to you, then disregard it and know that you are dealing with a fabricator of mere opinions. The principle is that when a person makes a point, those who are reading it are supposed to be able to confirm that what the person is saying has a basis in truth and others are able to look up the source and verify what is being said. Secondly, when a person makes a claim as though it were fact and it turns out to be theory and opinion, you know that you are dealing with someone who is willing to bend the truth. How many times have I read, “Biblical Scholars all agree,” and the point they are making is something I have never heard of and do not agree with,-- I have been a Biblical scholar for 30 years, and I don’t agree with what is being said! In the age of the internet and the ease of the circulation of errors and opinions in the name of truth and fact, it is hard to be too careful in the weighing of claims. Thirdly, if a person hinges an argument on a point, and that point is unverifiable, they are asking you to “take their word for it.” Don’t.
Jesus is in the Vedas, Mithra is the same as Yahweh, Moses ruled Egypt as one of the Pharoahs, the moon is made of blue cheese, Yahweh is the ancient God of Java or coffee, Anubis is the real God because he is a dog and "dog" is "god" backwards, aliens are taking over the earth-- are all “true” statements in a communications world where there are no references and no sources, where opinion walks in the dress of truth, and an expert turns out to be a person with internet access and some time on their hands.