PDA

View Full Version : Jehovah And The Tetragrammaton



Adelphos
09-04-2008, 08:45 PM
First, the evidence is absolutely clear cut, as there is not a SHRED of doubt about how the Masoretes viewed the pronunciation. Only a blind man could miss it.

And as I stated in my article, I had no intention of being comprehensive with regard to every single detail, and certainly not with regard to your straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, for the fact is, neither you nor anybody else has ever offered a SCINTILLA of data refuting the clear way the Masoretes viewed the correct pronunciation, regardless of what date you assign to the Masoretes.

Rather, I presented actual EVIDENCE for the traditional and straight-forward pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, as opposed to the COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE for the absurd humanistic pronunciation of modern manifeslty unregenerate biblical scholars who have demonstrated how utterly ignorant they are of even BASIC facts, such as the ignorant assertion that the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced, ad nauseam.

Secondly, while you may not consider my statement "helpful", that is utterly beside the point and completely irrevelant, for in like manner the Pharisees didn't consider Jesus' statement's "helpful" either, or Paul's, or anyone else who is GENUINELY indwelt by the Holy Spirit, for, while this is unbeknownst to modern unregenerate Christendom, one absolute trademark of the Holy Spirit is to offend the flesh of men.

For the fact is, whether you like it or not, that statement is actually a truth that the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears witness to in ALL whom he indwells -- there are NO excpetions -- and further, no genuinely born again Christian would accept the fallible ASSUMPTIONS of man in altering the written Word of God and the PRESUMPTIONS of modern humanistic biblical scholarship which has shown itself to be ignorant to the core.

Not ONE genuinely born again Christian would do so. If you have a problem with that, then take it up with Jesus Christ, for the truth is, I have absolutely no fear of having to retract a single, solitary syallable of that article or this post on the day of judgment. I happen to know Jesus Christ that intimately, and I happen to know that the Lord Jesus Christ HIMSELF will say the AMEN to what I've written.

Finally, it is my website, and I'll write what I see fit, which is to say, I'll continue to write what the Holy Spirit HIMSELF leads me to write, and I really don't care who considers it to be "helpful" or not.

My business is to be a faithful witness to Jesus Christ, not a man-pleaser.

David Kummerow
09-04-2008, 09:08 PM
For what it's worth, here's my opinion and then I'll bow out.

In my opinion, whether one is a born-again Christian/indwelt by the Spirit/regenerate (I'm picking up the language used above here) is tied inextricably to their confession of Jesus as their personal saviour and master -- not in whether they happen to have the "correct" pronunciation of God's personal name in the OT.

Like I said, the evidence may not be as clear-cut as you depict, and this would then reinforce my view that it is not best to be so dogmatic as to say that a born-again Christian/indwelt by the Spirt/regenerate can only hold to the view that the name is to be pronounced "Yehovah" and nothing else and that if they do hold to, say, "Yahweh" that they are not a born-again Christian/indwelt by the Spirt/regenerate. In any case, what you present above is rhetoric and does not add to what was said in the essay. I pointed out a couple of areas that the essay did not deal with where the evidence may actually point away from the conclusion of the essay. This is the evidence of names themselves, just the same type of evidence as you used to present the argument for the pronunciation "Yehovah". There's no altering on my part or assumptions of modern humanistic biblical scholarship that I am at least aware of. I'm simply raising the additional language evidence untreated by the essay that could point in a different direction, which would then make black-and-white statements of the kind I pointed out simply too black-and-white if the language evidence itself is not so clear-cut.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-04-2008, 09:26 PM
In my opinion, whether one is a born-again Christian/indwelt by the Spirit/regenerate (I'm picking up the language used above here) is tied inextricably to their confession of Jesus as their personal saviour and master -- not in whether they happen to have the "correct" pronunciation of God's personal name in the OT.

Like I said, the evidence may not be as clear-cut as you depict, and this would then reinforce my view that it is not best to be so dogmatic as to say that a born-again Christian/indwelt by the Spirt/regenerate can only hold to the view that the name is to be pronounced "Yehovah" and nothing else and that if they do hold to, say, "Yahweh" that they are not a born-again Christian/indwelt by the Spirt/regenerate.

You will not find a SINGLE statement by me for your allegation. Not a SINGLE one. You will not find a SINGLE statement by me that a person is not born again if he doesn't hold to the pronunciation of Jehovah for the Tetragrammaton. Not a SINGLE statement. Not ONE.

As is usually the case with modern biblical scholarship, you can't follow an argument. Instead of dealing with what is actually written, you insert a false argument into the mix, a strawman that doesn't even exist.

To be very blunt, you have only demonstrated yet again the feeble-mindedness of modern bible scholars, for you have made an utterly erroneous assertion. UTTERLY erroneous, and one that you CANNOT back up AT ALL with quotations from me.

The operative and qualifying phrase is "once he understood the dynamics involved." The vast majority of Christians today do not understand the dynamics involved.

And yet, your behavior is par for the course for modern biblical scholarship, such as the ignorant assertion that the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced, ad nauseam.

Nor have you -- still -- offered a SINGLE refutation to the Masoretic view of the pronunciation. All you have done is ASSERT that my argument may not be as clear-cut as I make it out to be. Well, you can ASSERT all day long, but you can't PROVE, and that's all a man with a sound mind is interested in.

Finally, your view of whether or not a man is born again is also utterly erroneous and utterly unbiblical.

I strongly encourage you to read the following if you want to know what really constitutes a genuinely born again Christian --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/great_gamble.htm
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/regeneration_&_the_holy_spirit.htm

As well as others on my website.

And finally, I really hope you will come to the CERTAIN realization that he who is NOT TRULY born again not only will NEVER set foot in heaven, but will instead suffer EVERLASTING TORMENTS and EVERLASTING MISERY, for which there will be NO reprieve. Not EVER.

You and every other reader of this thread ought to take that to heart, for the time is truly at hand.

David Kummerow
09-04-2008, 09:42 PM
Sorry, last post from me if you don't take up the issues and explain them in some fashion instead of putting forth more rhetoric.

As I've claimed, your essay only deals with names compounded with the divine name where it is in initial position, eg /yehonathan/. This may be evidence for an initial reduced /e/ vowel.

But there is also the evidence of names compounded with the divine name where it is in final position, eg /ma`aseyahu/ or shortened /ma`aseyah/. This, then could point to an initial /a/ vowel.

Then we also have the short form /yah/, which could also point to an initial /a/ vowel.

So there's more language evidence than just compound names with the divine name in inital position which were treated in the essay.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-04-2008, 09:54 PM
As I've claimed, your essay only deals with names compounded with the divine name where it is in initial position, eg /yehonathan/. This may be evidence for an initial reduced /e/ vowel.

And as I said at the VERY beginning of that essay --

1) I had no intention of dealing with every possible grammatical permutation.

2) I stated that the DEMONSTRATION would answer most, if not all, of those assertions, which it clearly does for anyone who actually understands the demonstration.

3) I stated that the Jewish Masoretes viewed the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as Yehovah.

4) I stated that nobody has EVER produced actual EVIDENCE to refute that.

As usual, you have the utterly mistaken view that grammatical speculations by modern humanistic bible scholars overrides the CLEAR testimony of what is written and what has been HANDED DOWN.

And as I said, there isn't a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who would side with the ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMPTIONS of modern humanistic bible scholars over the CLEAR EVIDENCE of what is written and has been HANDED DOWN.

Not one.

But then, this argument typifies just one of the MANY reasons why Jesus' very words will be confirmed, that is, that so FEW will be saved.

"For strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it." Matthew 7:14

He who has an OUNCE of wisdom will take Jesus at his PLAIN word there and will give Jesus Christ no rest until Jesus Christ PERSONALLY introduces HIMSELF to him, and indwells him, and makes him a new creature.

He who does that is the ONLY man that gets saved. ALL, ALL, ALL others will spend eternity in torment and everlasting darkness.

David Kummerow
09-04-2008, 11:25 PM
And as I said, there isn't a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who would side with the ASSUMPTIONS and PRESUMPTIONS of modern humanistic bible scholars over the CLEAR EVIDENCE of what is written and has been HANDED DOWN.
Scott, I'm not raising or dealing with their assumptions, presumptions, or hermenutic. I've never sided with that school and God-willing will never do so. What I am simply raising is some internal language evidence bearing on the issue which could be taken as pointing in an alternative direction, ie that the first vowel is not an /ə/ but rather an /a/. I realise, of course, that from the outset your aim was not to deal comprehensively with all the evidence. And that's fine. But then you can't say (well you can and have done so, but it runs counter to the logic) that your essay has demonstrated convincingly the correctness of the pronunciation "Yehovah" vis-a-vis to, say, "Yahweh". Especially when that additional language evidence when used in the same fashion to support an initial /ə/ points not to /ə/ but to /a/. The evidence of compound names with the divine element as final and the short /yah/ form are not grammatical speculations, but a feature of the biblical text, just as compound names with the divine name as initial are. I'm not making anything up here or speculating. The fact of the matter is that there are /yah/ forms in the text and names like /ma`aseyahu/ etc. as well as names like /yehonathan/.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 12:10 AM
Scott, I'm not raising or dealing with their assumptions, presumptions, or hermenutic. I've never sided with that school and God-willing will never do so. What I am simply raising is some internal language evidence bearing on the issue which could be taken as pointing in an alternative direction...

Yes, but your entire approach is flawed and misses the point.

First off, the Masoretes were fully aware of these different forms and combinations, but that didn't affect their CLEAR position that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced Yehovah.

Ergo, you seem not to comprehend the fact that the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was already settled HUNDREDS of years ago by the Jewish keepers of the Scripture, who actually understood their language a whole lot better than modern bible scholars who don't even understand the BASICS of the matter.

Thus, your "interesting language evidence" has, in the first place, no bearing, for the Masoretes, who were FULLY AWARE of these other forms and combinations, have ALREADY pronounced sentence. And in the second place, your assertion that these different forms and combinations somehow affect the standard four-letter appellation is PURE SPECULATION. And that is ALL it is -- PURE SPECULATION. You don't have a SHRED of actual EVIDENCE; rather, all you have is your own INTERPREATION of grammatical SPECULATIONS.

In other words, you don't have any EVIDENCE at all, and furthermore, the actual EVIDENCE, as demonstrated in my essay, TOTALLY CONTRADICTS YOU.

That's a simple fact whether you like it not.

To simply say that because there are different forms and combinations of the word in other places and therefore that this somehow overturns not only the PLAIN decree of the Masoretes as well as the PLAIN straightforward pronunciation of what is actually WRITTEN in the standard form of the four-letter appellation, i.e., YEHOVAH, is just plain foolish.

Moreover, I am VERY confident that the Jewish Masoretes knew FAR more about how their own words were pronounced than modern biblical scholars do, especially when these modern geniuses didn't even know the BASICS of the rules governing the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton in the first place.

In short, no matter WHAT form of the word you pull up, it does NOT change the FACT that the Jewish Masoretes CLEARLY held to the pronunciation of Yehovah.

Until you can overturn the CLEAR testimony of the Jewish Masoretes who preserved the text HUNDREDS of years before today, you haven't a leg to stand on. All you have is your interpretations and specuations of various word forms and combinations, buttressed only by your own intepretation and opinion of what they might mean, while totally disregarding the LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE of the Masoretes.

I realize that most people today don't even understand what actually constitutes EVIDENCE, much less how to regard it, but the fact is, the EVIDENCE that has been presented is extremely formidable, and it would take FAR FAR FAR MORE for the truly regenerate man than "SCHOLARLY GUESSES" and GRAMMATICAL SPECULATIONS to replace it.

But you see, the regenerate person who understands the dynamics of this issue already knows that this isn't possible, for the regenerate man knows that God has already CENTURIES AGO handed down this written Word and kept it pure, and the old way in which the Jewish Masoretes pronounced the Tetragrammaton CENTURIES AGO is the correct way, and that it would be easier for heaven and hell to pass away and never exist again than for God to change it.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 01:17 AM
You will not find a SINGLE statement by me for your allegation. Not a SINGLE one. You will not find a SINGLE statement by me that a person is not born again if he doesn't hold to the pronunciation of Jehovah for the Tetragrammaton. Not a SINGLE statement. Not ONE.

Sorry, I didn't mean to inadvertently seem to put words in your mouth. To clarify, what I meant was that such statements as the following

And of course, no regenerate mind would buy into such nonsense, for the sheer blasphemy of FABRICATING the word Yahweh out of thin air and substituting it for what has been divinely handed down in the Scriptures, Jehovah, is branded so strongly as BLASPHEMY by the Holy Spirit in EVERY truly regenerate man he indwells that no truly born again Christian would fall for it for one second once he understood the dynamics involved. And of course, he who denies that is he who has never actually experienced the witness of the Holy Spirit. He has no clue as to how the Holy Spirit bears witness to his written Word. None.
However, if you ever become born again (and you never will as long you rest in all these modern humanistic philosophies of men), but if you ever become born again, you will change your position on this and so many other matters related to the written Word of God, for you will -- if you ever become born again -- have the infallible witness of the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. In the meantime --

Let the born again Christian who can clearly see the Pre-Incarnate Christ, even Yehovah, who is Yehoshua, who is Yeshua, who is Jesus, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, stick to the old pathsare so strong that to suggest that a genuine Christian could actually have a different view to your own on the issue would be incongrous. That is, your expectation is that a genuine Christian will affirm the same position as you ("Let the born again Christian who can clearly see the Pre-Incarnate Christ, even Yehovah, who is Yehoshua, who is Yeshua, who is Jesus, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, stick to the old paths".).

My opinion is that you have not demonstrated the authenticity of the pronunciation "Yehovah". We both agree that the name was spoken, as the evidence of the Talmud etc. suggests. The problem, though, is that, to the best of my knowledge, we do not get an unambiguous statement as to the pronunciation itself, just that it was in fact uttered.

So we have the evidence of the biblical record itself. That's where we then have the disagreement. Your essay only deals with some of the evidence. In fact, evidence that would support your conclusions as of course it is easier to argue for a pronunciation of "Yehovah" based on compound names starting with /yəho-/ rather than compound names ending with /-yahu/ and the stand-alone /yah/. Why favour the one over the others as you have done? What is the criteria by which you are able to disregard the one over the other? If the answer is that "Yehovah" is the correct pronunciation and so the other evidence is in fact not evidence and does not witness to the correct pronunciation, then the reasoning here is rather circular. I'm not saying I have answers to these questions myself, only that the issue is not so black-and-white and so the expectation that a genuine Christian (even one "understanding the dynamics involved") should solely affirm the pronunciation "Yehovah" is unrealistic given the evidence. And it remains a feature of the text which essentially remains untreated and difficult to reconcile with your position.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It's pushed me to think on the issue again.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 08:19 AM
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It's pushed me to think on the issue again.

1) Everybody who reads the Tetragramaton AS IT IS WRITTEN will pronounce it as Yehovah, for that is how IT IS WRITTEN.

2) The proper names of so many people are direct derivatives of the Tetragrammaton, and they ALL testify to Yeho--

3) The Jewish Masoretes shortened the names of the above in an effort to protect the Tetragrammaton, and in EVERY CASE WITHOUT EXCEPTION they did so by altering the ONE portion that modern scholars peremptorily deny -- the he-holem, i.e., the --HO--

Conclusion: Not one single solitary SHRED of actual EVIDENCE has EVER been presented against these FACTS IN EVIDENCE. Not a single, solitary SHRED. Not a NANO-PARTICLE, not a SCINTILLA of actual EVIDENCE has EVER been brought to bear against the above PLAIN declarations. Not a GRAIN.

Instead, the PLAIN rendering of the Tetragrammaton has been replaced by a "scholarly guess" from scholars, no less, who have demonstrated that they are complete ignoramuses on the matter in the first place, as well as by yet another corrupt Egyptian manuscript that produces nothing but slurs and grossly occultic material, again without a SHRED of actual EVIDENCE tying it to the preserved, handed down Hebrew Text and Masorah.

There is not a regenerate person on this planet who -- knowing these facts -- would EVER adhere to pronuncation of "Yahweh".

Not one, for there are certain characteristics of the Holy Spirit that are common to ALL believers, and one of those characteristics is a foundation of discernment and a SUPERNATURAL CAPABILITY to understand the TRUE written Word of God.

EVERY -- not some, not most, not many -- but EVERY genuinely born again Christian on this planet has EXPERIENCED the Holy Spirit SUPERNATURALLY bearing INFALLIBLE WITNESS to the written Word of God. There are NO exceptions.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit NEVER -- and I mean NEVER -- bears witness to anything EXCEPT the TRUE written Word of God. The Holy Spirit bears witness ONLY to the TRUE written Word of God. The Holy Spirit NEVER bears witness to the FALSE written Word of God. Not EVER.

As Tozer accurately stated --

"To understand a Bible text it takes an act of the Holy Spirit equal to the act that inspired the text in the first place. A revelation of the Holy Spirit in one glorious flash of inward illumination would teach you more of Jesus than five years in a theological seminary." The Tozer Pulpit, Vol II

He who is truly born again has EXPERIENCED EXACTLY what Tozer just said, and he who has NOT actually EXPERIENCED EXACTLY what Tozer just said is he who is deluding himself if he thinks he's born again, and is deluding himself if he thinks he's heaven-bound, for it will never be. Not in ten thousand creations.

There isn't a genuinely born again Christian on this planet, after having been shown the distinctions on the above, along with so many other Scriptures, such as I Timothy 3:16, who would still adhere to the pronunciation of "Yahweh" -- especially since the Tetragrammaton is BOUND in a NUMBER of ways to the name of "Yehoshua", i.e. "Jesus" -- or who would omit "God" from the above verse. Not one.

He who thinks otherwise doesn't have the FIRST CLUE as to the Holy Spirit bearing witness to his written Word. Not the FIRST CLUE. He who thinks otherwise has NEVER actually EXPERIENCED the supernatural miracle of the new birth, for, as I said, there are certain BASIC communications of the Holy Spirit that take place INSTANEOUSLY in EVERY SINGLE PERSON he regenerates.

And EVERY genuinely born again Christian who reads this knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and he who doesn't is in for a very rude awakening unless he repents and becomes born again.

As Jesus said, it is FEW that will be saved, and that means that every man who has an OUNCE of wisdom and who wants to escape certain eternal MISERLY should fall on his face immediately before Jesus Christ and give Jesus Christ no rest until Jesus Christ PERSONALLLY introduces himself to him, and indwells him, and makes him a new creature.

He to whom Jesus Christ does not PERSONALLY introduce himself, and indwell, and make a new creature, will hear these rending words come judgment day --

"I never knew you. Depart from me." Matthew 7:23

The ONLY man who will escape those words is the man who can HONESTLY and LEGITIMATELY testify that Jesus Christ has PERSONALLY introduced himself to him, and indwelt him, and made him a new creature.

Thus, the way is set before all who have an opportunity to hear the words of Jesus Christ... but after all, FEW there be that find it.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 03:07 PM
Hi,
I've read the post above and the lenghty one pointed in the last message...

And I'll only say, first, that while it is your OPINION that certain matters are wrong, you have, like all the others, not provided a SCINTILLA of actual EVIDENCE to support another pronunciation.

Nor can you.

And it is a grave error to mistake your own OPINION for actual EVIDENCE, for it isn't, but this is an error that most aspiring scholars make.

Secondly, I'll ask you and everyone else who has asserted that the Tetragrammaton is wrong AS WRITTEN, this very simple question --

Who TOLD you that the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN is wrong?

Unlike you, I KNOW who told you that the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN is wrong, and unlike you, I am not ignorant of his devices.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Who TOLD you that the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN is wrong?
Well, no one needs to tell me because the name as it is written is really quite odd: yəhvah. So in the end, speculation is still required of your position -- contrary to the assertion that it does not -- in that you have to speculate that the name is wrong in its majority of occurances "as it is written", since it "should be" written (even though it is predominantly not written this way) as yehovah.

In any case, you have not provided convincing evidence that the name is written right if indeed it should be yehovah. See my post in the original thread to yugu. Indeed, if the pronunciation of it as yehovah is correct in that the vowels from adonai have not been transposed onto it, why when we get "yhwh adonai" in the text, we don't find "yehovah adonai" but instead "yehovih adonai" or "yehvih adonai" (there's one instance of yəhvah adaonai of which I am aware). Furthermore, you seem to consistently balk at assessing the additional evidence of final /-yahu/ and stand-alone /yah/. It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile it with your position, so I guess I don't find it surprising that you haven't integrated it into your analysis. However, for your arguement to have some weight, it should also treat these language facts in some way. Specifically the questions I raised before, viz. the favouring of prefixing the divine name over the instances of suffixing it and the criteria by which this favouritism is made.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 09:18 PM
Well, no one needs to tell me because the name as it is written is really quite odd: yəhvah.

Ahem... I'm CLEARLY talking about the RECEIVED TEXT, not the Leningrad Codex, and in the RECEIVED TEXT the name as it is written is YEHOVAH.

The FACT that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced as YEHOVAH in the days of Jesus, i.e., IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, is a FACT that is absolutely FATAL, that is utterly LETHAL, to the grammatical SPECULATION shool.

I would say the inability to recognize that FACT can only be attributed to the willfully blind.

The only thing that is achieved by throwing out grammatical SPECULATIONS is to obscure the issue, for the fact is, NOBODY who opposes the traditional pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton -- and I mean NOBODY -- can offer a SINGLE SHRED of actual EVIDENCE for another pronunciation. None.

Moreover, the fact that you don't understand certain grammatical constructions has NOTHING to do with the FACT that the Tetragrammaton is WRITTEN with the straight-forward pronunciation of YEHOVAH, and your insecurity about GRAMMAR is not only NOT sufficient to overturn what is PLAINLY WRITTEN, but your grammar rules THEMSELVES are the INVENTION of men AFTER THE FACT. Get that? INVENTION AFTER THE FACT.

You may not understand how significant that is, but others certainly do.

But it gets worse for modern scholars who oppose the traditional pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and who were so embarrassingly ignorant that they didn't even know that the Tetragrammaton was actually pronounced.

You see, the FACT that the Tetragrammaton IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD was pronounced as YEHOVAH is utterly FATAL, is absolutely LETHAL, to modern scholars. The FACT that the High Priest IN THE DAYS OF JESUS pronounced the Tetragrammaton as YEHOVAH is DEVASTATING to the ignorant assertions and grammatical SPECULATIONS of modern biblical scholarship. Absolutely DEVASTATING.

Actually, the actual EVIDENCE takes us back even to the FIRST TEMPLE PERIOD, but there's no need to go there. In fact, the actual EVIDENCE for the FACT that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced as YEHOVAH in the SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, i.e., in the days of Jesus, is so mountainous that it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's start with one of the small quotations from the Rabbinic Literature in my brief essay --

"In the temple they pronounced the Divine Name AS IT IS WRITTEN, but in the country by its substitute." Mishna - Tamid 7:2, Talmud - Tamid 33b

You see, that little phrase -- AS IT IS WRITTEN -- is one of MANY, and I mean MANY, pieces of actual EVIDENCE that they pronounced the Divine Name as YEHOVAH, for YEHOVAH is EXACTLY how the Tetragrammaton is WRITTEN.

Let's just state that again -- YEHOVAH is EXACTLY how the Tetragrammaton is WRITTEN, and they "PRONOUNCED THE DIVINE NAME AS IT IS WRITTEN."

Unfortunately for the grammatical SPECULATION school, that FACT is a FACT that cannot be gainsaid, no matter how much the grammar of certain combinations trouble you.

Actually, as I said, we could even take this all the way back to Rahab and her children, but we don't need the overkill.

The truth is, Ginsburg spent several hundred pages just dealing with the history of WHAT IS WRITTEN, and it is so securely fastened together that the actual EVIDENCE is insurmountable --

"We can thus see that the registration of anomalous forms began during the period of the SECOND TEMPLE. The words of the text, especially of the Pentateuch were now finally settled, and passed over from the Sopherim or the redactors to the safe keeping of the Massorites. Henceforth the Massorites became the authoritative custodians of the traditionally transmitted text. Their functions were entirely different from those of their predecessors the Sopherim. The Sopherim as we have seen were the authorized revisers and redactors of the text according to certain principles, THE MASSORITES WERE PRECLUDED FROM DEVELOPING THE PRINCIPLES AND ALTERING THE TEXT IN HARMONY WITH THESE CANONS. Their province was to safeguard the text delivered to them by "building a hedge around it", to protect it against alterations..." Ginsburg, Massoretical-Critico Edition, p 421. (emphasis added)

In the SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD (and even in the FIRST TEMPLE PERIOD), and even in the days of Jesus, the priests PRONOUNCED the Tetragrammaton as YEHOVAH, and the actual EVIDENCE for that FACT is so mountainous as to be utterly CONCLUSIVE.

And by the way, the actual TEXT that Ginsburg is tracing is the RECEIVED TEXT, and that is also EASILY demonstrated by the actual EVIDENCE.

And that, as I said, is utterly FATAL and absolutely LETHAL to the grammatical SPECULATION school.

And all your bluster and clamor about grammatical constructs that you don't even understand CANNOT even REMOTELY overturn this FACT.

Finally, while I could certainly take issue with several of your grammatical confusions (and others have done so in the past), that would only throw sand in the eyes and confuse the issue, for -- once again -- the FACT that in the SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, i.e., IN THE DAYS OF JESUS, that they pronounced the Tetragrammaton as YEHOVAH so conclusively defeats your SPECULATIONS that no further EVIDENCE is necessary.

The Tetragrammaton, as IT IS WRITTEN, is NOW, and has ALWAYS been, pronounced YEHOVAH, as the actual EVIDENCE irrevocably testifies, and all the grammatical SPECULATIONS in the world CANNOT alter that FACT, and the FACT that those VERY SPECULATIONS come from critics who are so ignorant on the matter that they didn't even know that the Tetragrammaton was actually PRONOUNCED is merely a further nugget dropped into the mix undoubtedly by God so as to show those who have eyes to see with just how absurd modern SPECULATORS truly are.

Oh... if I get testy that's because the Holy Spirit HIMSELF gets absolutely INCENSED when fleshly men, egged on by Satan, attempt to destroy God's written Word, and if you don't know that that is EXACTLY what is behind this attempt, then -- respectfully -- you need to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 10:37 PM
Your arguement remains unconvincing, at least to me as yet. All that the quotations prove is that the name was pronounced -- not what the pronunciation was. Given a consonantal text, of course it was pronounced with the consonants yhwh -- but the vocalisation of this cannot be stated. So we're back to the internal evidence of the OT, only some of which you take into account in your analysis, consistently dodging all of what I have brought up and reponding with capitalised rhetoric.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 10:41 PM
Your arguement remains unconvincing, at least to me as yet. All that the quotations prove is that the name was pronounced -- not what the pronunciation was.

If you don't understand that the Masoretes pointed the text according to the way it was actually pronounced by the Priests and Rabbis, that there was a correlation between the two, as each word was carefully registered, then it's no wonder you are clueless on this matter.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 11:10 PM
If you don't understand that the Masoretes pointed the text according to the way it was actually pronounced by the Priests and Rabbis, that there was a correlation between the two, as each word was carefully registered, then it's no wonder you are clueless on this matter.
I admit I'm clueless on the matter because I have yet to see evidence that the Massoretes indeed pointed the name as it was originally spoken rather than substituting the vowels from adonai. I have yet to see evidence that the original pronunciation, preserved in the speech of rabbis and priests, was that of yehovah. I happy to remain open on the issue, sure. But I also need treatment of the other language evidence I've raised which is difficult to reconcile with the position that "yehovah" is the original pronunciation.

Thanks,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 11:48 PM
I admit I'm clueless on the matter because I have yet to see evidence that the Massoretes indeed pointed the name as it was originally spoken rather than substituting the vowels from adonai. I have yet to see evidence that the original pronunciation, preserved in the speech of rabbis and priests, was that of yehovah

I've no doubt whatsoever that YOU and many others have yet to see the evidence. No doubt at all.

I am equally certain that you are in the majority and that there are only a FEW of us who are truly convinced in this matter, and who know why we're convinced.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 11:56 PM
Then if you have the evidence, please show me! I want to know more.

Thanks,
David.

Adelphos
09-06-2008, 12:37 AM
So the issue seems to be previously settled by you, which is then why you consistently fail to interact with any of the language evidence I've raised.

This is getting tiresome. It was Ginsburg -- NOT me -- who stated that the names were shortened so as to protect the Tetragrammaton. It was Ginsburg -- NOT me -- who stated that a certain school of redactors did this so as to protect the Tetragrammaton.

Thus, I did not make any statements about Ginsburg or attribute any conclusion to him or from him that he himself didn't EXPLICITLY state.

This is why I doubt you yourself have the book. You can correct me if you care to, but I suspect you obtained those quotes via email from someone else.

To begin, if you want to assert that the Masoretes would have pointed the text differently in the year 1 AD than they did in 1000 AD, and that the Received Text would have been pointed differently in 1 AD than it was in 1000 AD, and therefore that the Tetragrammaton was likewise pointed differently in these same demarcations, be my guest.

Also if you then want to assert that in the Received Text the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN is not actually pronounced as YEHOVAH, again be my guest. No ostrich could do better with such an assertion, for I don't know of anybody anywhere who would make such an assertion, but you never know.

Either way, the undeniable, conclusive FACT is, in the Received Text we have today, whose manuscripts can be dated back a thousand years or so, in the Received Text we have today the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN is pronounced YEHOVAH.

Nobody in his right mind can doubt that.

Accordingly, this means that if the Priest in the Second Temple Period had a Received Text manuscript, he ALSO pronounced the name as YEHOVAH when he pronounced the Divine Name AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Now if you don't believe that the Received Text we have today, with manuscripts dated at about 1000 AD, i.e., one thousand years earlier than today, is the same text that the Priest had in the Second Temple Period, then that is your prerogrative.

Of course, I can be 100% dogmatic in testifying that if that is your position, you are by no means indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But you work out your own salvation.

In short, in the Received Text, HOW is the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN pronounced?

Answer: YEHOVAH. It is pronounced -- AS IT IS WRITTEN -- as YEHOVAH.

Do you understand that at LEAST as far back as a thousand years ago, in the Received Text the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN was pronounced as YEHOVAH?

For that is EXACTLY how the Tetragrammaton is pointed in the manuscripts of the Received Text.

So again, do you understand that at LEAST as far back as a thousand years ago, the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text was pronounced as YEHOVAH?

If you can't understand that, then something is VERY wrong.

Do you understand what the Rabbi meant in the Talmud when he said that "In the TEMPLE they pronounced the Divine Name AS IT IS WRITTEN..."???

Do you understand that he is NOT referring to Adonai, but to the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN, and that in the Received Text AS IT IS WRITTEN means YEHOVAH?

The correct pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text is YEHOVAH.

If the Received Text goes back to the Second Temple Period, the Priest in the Second Temple Period pronounced the Tetragrammaton as YEHOVAH because that is EXACTLY how the Tetragrammaton appears in the Received Text AS IT IS WRITTEN.

If you can't see that this evidence therefore overrides ALL after-the-fact grammatical SPECULATIONS, then there is nothing more I can do for you on this issue.

It will just have to be what I said above, i.e., that one of us sees and one doesn't.

As for me, I have my answer from both an evidentiary AND a spiritual source.

While I have only scratched the surface with regard to the amount of evidence that exists, it nevertheless is similar in category and dimension to what has already been shown, and thus, frankly, if you haven't seen enough evidence to convince you at this point, then I don't think there is enough evidence to convince you at any point, not unless and until there is a spiritual change.

David Kummerow
09-06-2008, 01:37 AM
This is getting tiresome. It was Ginsburg -- NOT me -- who stated that the names were shortened so as to protect the Tetragrammaton. It was Ginsburg -- NOT me -- who stated that a certain school of redactors did this so as to protect the Tetragrammaton.

Yes, but then use his work so as to state that the original pronunciation was "yehovah", but all you can logically conclude from Ginsburg's work is that the pronunciation of consonants yhwh with the vowels of adonai was protected so that it was not pronounced. He states (pp.367-368):

"Throughout the Hebrew Bible whereever יהוה occurs by itself, it has not its own points, but those which belong to אֲדֹנָי Lord, only that Yod (י) has the simple Sheva instead of the Sheva Pathach = Chateph Pathach (יֲ) and is pronounced Adonaī = Κὑριος, and when אדני יהוה occur together, יהוה is pointed in the Massoretic text יֱהוִֹה with the vowel points which belong to אֱלֹהִים God."

Therefore, it is wrong to draw from Ginsburg's work here that it is proven that the correct pronunciation was originally "yehovah": all Ginsburg is saying is that the name was held in such high regard that even the pronunciation of the consonants yhwh with the vowels of adonai were protected in the tradition (but something which is open for debate, as I raised earlier).


As for me, I have my answer from both an evidentiary AND a spiritual source.What on earth does "spiritual souce" mean?


Now if you don't believe that the Received Text we have today, with manuscripts dated at about 1000 AD, i.e., one thousand years earlier than today, is the same text that the Priest had in the Second Temple Period, then that is your prerogrative.

Of course, I can be 100% dogmatic in testifying that if that is your position, you are by no means indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But you work out your own salvation.Sorry, but I fail to see the causative link between a view on the received text and the issue of whether I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit or otherwise. My opinion is that I'm not saved by my view on the Received Text, but by faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for me. It is not my faith plus a supposedly "correct" view on the Received Text, but my faith alone.

I still await the evidence you said you had, as well as interaction with the Hebrew language evidence I've continued to raise.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-06-2008, 02:59 AM
Yes, but then use his work so as to state that the original pronunciation was "yehovah", but all you can logically conclude from Ginsburg's work is that the pronunciation of consonants yhwh with the vowels of adonai was protected so that it was not pronounced. He states (pp.367-368):

I'm not going to address the Ginsburg accusations because you clearly don't understand Ginsburg and how his demo relates to my essay, nor do you understand my argument, nor do you even know about source and user conclusions, or understand that sound conclusions can be drawn in the abstract without towing the line of the source itself.

And it is CERTAIN that you don't understand Ginsburg AT ALL, for as I said in a previous post, Ginsburg held that the correct pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton is YEHOVAH, so if we follow your warped logic it is YOU who can't use Ginsburg, not me.

Nor do you understand that I don't even NEED Ginsburg, as I have demonstrated in spades in the previous couple of posts.


Therefore, it is wrong to draw from Ginsburg's work here that it is proven that the correct pronunciation was originally "yehovah":.

There you go again. I don't HAVE to draw from Ginsburg with regard to YEHOVAH; I only have to READ what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Bible, i.e., in the Received Text where the Tetragrammaton is used because it is pronounced AS IT IS WRITTEN as YEHOVAH in the VERY HEBREW TEXT ITSELF.

You clearly don't have a CLUE as to WHAT IS WRITTEN actually means. Not a CLUE.

In fact, the Received Text goes all the way back to the First and Second Temple Periods, and there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who is familiar with this issue and who doesn't know this. Not one.

That's because the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears infallible witness to this fact in his elect.

And although you clearly still don't understand this simple matter, the fact is, the Tetragrammaton AS IT IS WRITTEN is pronounced as YEHOVAH in the Received Text, and it is that very Received Text that the Priests and Rabbis used in the First and Second Temples, and it is those very Priests and Rabbis who likewise pronounced the Tetragrammaon AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text as YEHOVAH.

There isn't a single person who is genuinely indwelt by the Holy Spirit and who is familiar with this matter who doesn't know that.


What on earth does "spiritual souce" mean?

It means the Holy Spirit. I have the testimony of the Holy Spirit on this matter. That's what I mean by spiritual source.


Sorry, but I fail to see the causative link between a view on the received text and the issue of whether I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit or otherwise. My opinion is that I'm not saved by my view on the Received Text, but by faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for me. It is not my faith plus a supposedly "correct" view on the Received Text, but my faith alone.

Of course you fail to see it. It is difficult for the carnal mind to understand something so simple due to blindness.

Everyone who is actually indwelt by the Holy Spirit knows that God has preserved his written Word in the Received Text, and that the Received Text is the very Text that Jesus used, that Paul used, that Peter used, that the Reformers used, and so on.

He who doesn't know that and who is familiar with this matter is clearly not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit HIMSELF bears INFALLIBLE witness to this truth in his elect. The unregenerate don't understand this, of course, but it's absolutely BASIC for the regenerate. And it will be borne out even to the unregenerate on the day they stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ to give an account of themselves, and when they see his elect who have maintained his cause on this matter abundantly rewarded for so doing.

Thus, if a person who has even a rather basic knowledge of this issue actually rejects the Received Text, you may be INFALLIBLY certain that such a man is not born again.

You see, you've got it backwards -- it is not believing in the Received Text that gets you to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, rather, a person who supernaturally believes in Jesus and who is genuinely indwelt by the Holy Spirit is a person who gravitates like a magnet to the Received Text.

He who has a relative knowledge of this issue and yet who does NOT gravitate to the Received Text is he who is deluding himself if he thinks he's indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, in your statement above, you once again have demonstrated that you don't know even the BASICS of biblical salvation and the new birth.

I strongly encourage you once again to read the two articles I directed you to earlier. Here they are again --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/great_gamble.htm
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/regeneration_&_the_holy_spirit.htm

David Kummerow
09-06-2008, 03:42 AM
It means the Holy Spirit. I have the testimony of the Holy Spirit on this matter. That's what I mean by spiritual source.
So this just means that you've set yourself up in such a position that you can't be challenged, for in disagreeing with you I'm in effect disagreeing with God! So sin does not play a part in your life such that you may be wrong on something, or that dialogue is need to weigh truth from error? So I see the link: the Holy Spirit has told you what the name is, so you don't need to deal with any conflicting evidence that I've continued to raise? I'm challenging the unchallengable because you've unfortunately set yourself up as a prophet on the matter.



Everyone who is actually indwelt by the Holy Spirit knows that God has preserved his written Word in the Received Text, and that the Received Text is the very Text that Jesus used, that Paul used, that Peter used, that the Reformers used, and so on.


Thus, if a person who has even a rather basic knowledge of this issue actually rejects the Received Text, you may be INFALLIBLY certain that such a man is not born again.
That is simply not true. Every Christian will have areas of inconsistency and sin in their life until the resurrection of the dead. But their salvation does not depend on their own efforts or their view on the Received Text, but by their faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for them (Rom 3:21-26; 4:24-25).


I strongly encourage you once again to read the two articles I directed you to earlier. Here they are again --
Sure I read them and I find them to be exceedingly unhelpful. I wish you would withdraw them, in fact, because they're potentially disasterous for some people to read. It is not whether someone can recount some over-the-top subjective conversion experience which testifies whether they are a Christian or not, but whether they are currently trusting Jesus' death and resurrection for them. You seem to have made your own conversion experience to be normative for every other Christian. However, I prefer personally to trust in Jesus' death and resurrection for me for the source of my salvation, not in the "type" of my conversion experience. For how much does one have to "feel" before it is to be evaluated by you as a "true" conversion? Indeed, such a view would rule out young children and the mentally ill from salvation, for they are not able to recount such an experience. In my own experience, very few people can witness to the exact moment which you expect; but this does not make them more or less a Christian since their status before God rests not in themselves but in the work of God in Jesus' death and resurrection which they put their trust and confidence in.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-06-2008, 07:20 AM
So I see the link: the Holy Spirit has told you what the name is, so you don't need to deal with any conflicting evidence that I've continued to raise?

You don't even know what evidence is, much less how to analyze it. The fact that you are too feeble-minded to understand what AS IT IS WRITTEN actually means, is completely revealing.

Nor does the significance of the fact that you and the others who hold your position were so ignorant of this issue that you didn't even know the Tetragrammaton was pronounced, for if you actually understood the SIGNIFICANCE of the FACT that the Tetragrammon actually WAS pronounced -- indeed, if you actually understood the SIGNIFICANCE of that FACT -- you would understand just how untenable your position is.

It may take awhile, but others who think it through and who come to understand the SIGNIFICANCE of the FACT that the Tetragrammaton was actually pronounced will by this one point alone come to see your folly in toto.


That is simply not true. Every Christian will have areas of inconsistency and sin in their life until the resurrection of the dead. But their salvation does not depend on their own efforts or their view on the Received Text, but by their faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for them (Rom 3:21-26; 4:24-25).

I see once again that in the first part of your allegation you have erected a strawman instead of addressing what I actually stated. Here's a clue for you -- I never once stated that a person's salvation hinged on their view of the Received Text. Once again, your mind just isn't working.

And all you keep doing with your many statements is demonstrate that you haven't a clue as to how the Holy Spirit operates. Not a CLUE. Born again Christians can tell very well how the Holy Spirit operates, and there is a common pool in the Spirit's operation among those he indwells, and not ONE truly regenerate person is ignorant of it. Not one.


Sure I read them and I find them to be exceedingly unhelpful. I wish you would withdraw them, in fact, because they're potentially disasterous for some people to read. It is not whether someone can recount some over-the-top subjective conversion experience which testifies whether they are a Christian or not, but whether they are currently trusting Jesus' death and resurrection for them.

I don't doubt you found the articles unhelpful. But no, I won't remove them because other people have found Jesus Christ in them. Moreover, the countless number of men I quote in those papers also knew that a professed salvation without a MANIFEST SUPERNATURAL EXPERIENCE is a counterfeit salvation, and, like Spurgeon said, and as all the others echoed, if there isn't something SUPERNATURAL about your religion it will be a millstone about your neck to sink you into hell for all eternity.


I prefer personally to trust in Jesus' death and resurrection for me for the source of my salvation, not in the "type" of my conversion experience. For how much does one have to "feel" before it is to be evaluated by you as a "true" conversion? Indeed, such a view would rule out young children and the mentally ill from salvation, for they are not able to recount such an experience. In my own experience, very few people can witness to the exact moment which you expect; but this does not make them more or less a Christian since their status before God rests not in themselves but in the work of God in Jesus' death and resurrection which they put their trust and confidence in.

Sorry, but this, along with so much else you've written, just shows that you know absolutely nothing of the supernatural miracle of the new birth.

Moreover, those of us who are saved don't actually trust in Jesus' death and resurrection; rather, we trust in Jesus HIMSELF, and as ALL genuinely born again Christians know, the difference between the two is greater than the span of the universe. I realize you don't understand that or know what it truly means, but it's a fact.

Next, you say, "very FEW people can witness to the exact moment," but isn't that a coincidence? Hmm.

Jesus Christ taught it is FEW that shall be saved; and then you say very FEW can witness to the exact moment. Yes, some "coincidence" indeed.

You've just refuted yourself and you don't even know it. And Jesus will be shown to have told the truth on judgment day.

Furthermore, genuine men of God, such as Whitefield, Spurgeon, Bunyan, and others all taught that the truly born again Christian CAN and DOES "witness to the exact moment", and the fact is, (excluding babies, naturally, which I would have thought you would have understood, but alas), but the fact is, he who CANNOT "witness to the exact moment" is he who is deluding himself if he thinks he's born again.

Your own words repeatedly testify against you. You apparently don't understand the warnings of Pink as given in my article, nor do you have even a CLUE that saving faith is a SUPERNATURAL faith given from above, not a fleshly faith, nor an act of the will, and once again, you apparently did not understand Spurgeon one iota when he made a strong comment in my article on this very matter.

I could go on, but it's not worthwhile at this point, except to say that you also don't have a clue as to what constitutes false faith, fleshly faith, which will cause Jesus to say to countless multitudes who thought they believed in Jesus, "I never knew you".

And so yes, and unfortunately for you at this point, EVERY genuinely born again Christian can "witness to the exact moment," and he who can't will not set foot in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Fair warning.

David Kummerow
09-06-2008, 07:36 AM
Moreover, those of us who are saved don't actually trust in Jesus' death and resurrection; rather, we trust in Jesus HIMSELF,
Of all that you've written, I find that to be the most worrisome thing you've written and frankly it greives me.

In any case, since you seem not to have the evidence I expectently asked for and nor do you seem inclined to interact with the Hebrew language evidence I raised, I bow out of this discussion.

Thanks for your time.

Regards,
David.

SCSaunders
09-06-2008, 11:15 AM
Your arguement remains unconvincing, at least to me as yet.And to me as well.

David, for what it's worth I appreciate the demonstration of two things in this thread.

1) The demonstration of your knowledge of the Hebrew language. I always learn when I read your posts. For this content, thanks for posting. Please don't stop.

2) Your demonstration of mature Christian conduct. I have to say, I cringed every time you added another post. I couldn't see how it would benefit you. But now, in the long run, I see crystal clear. It benefited others. Thanks!

SCSaunders

Christopher S Wiley
09-06-2008, 09:30 PM
I am absolutely amazed at the patience David has. I would have left this conversation long ago. Thanks again David for your insight.

Adelphos
09-07-2008, 03:02 PM
A classic example of arguing a position in place of defending the truth?

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think I remember you stating that you are an adherent of the Received Text.

If so, then that means you believe the Received Text goes back to the Second Temple Period.

The Tetragrammaton in the Received Text AS IT IS WRITTEN is pronounced YEHOVAH.

"In the TEMPLE they pronounced the Divine Name AS IT IS WRITTEN, but in the country by its substitute." Mishna - Tamid 7:2, Talmud - Tamid 33b

This means, if you believe the Received Text goes back to the Second Temple period, that when the Priest and the Rabbis PRONOUNCED the Divine Name AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Temple in the Second Temple period, they pronounced it as YEHOVAH, for that is EXACTLY how IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text.

Of course, if you don't believe the Received Text goes back to the Second Temple period, then you don't have to believe that they pronounced the Tetragrammaton this way.

But then, all you have left is the "scholarly guess" of modern biblical scholars who were so ignorant of this issue that they didn't even know that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced at all.

TerraformerOfLight
09-15-2008, 07:46 AM
YHWH is pronounced:
Y=Yod,
H=Hey,
W = Wow,
H = He

Broken down through history is has been translated to
YHWH
Yodheywohe
Yohewhe
Yahweh

In the original Hebrew writing there were no vowels on written text although vowels were spoken, not written so if I were to write the word "pronounced" as the english written hebrew format is would be spellt as PRNNCD, due to a mix of superstition and a misunderstanding of how to translate the name resulted in the pruduction of such rendetions as mixing the name of God with the vowles from the name Addonai (Lord)
to make = Yahowah

Which has been altered by the English around 400 years ago to make the word Jehovah. even though there is no "J" sound in Hebrew which they completely changed from the "Y", also changing the "W" lettering and sound to a distinctive "V". Hova In Hebrew is actually Howa and Howa (1943 'Strongest Strongs Concordance') or Hawwa however pronounced, means = ruin, evil, desire or craving, destruction, corruption, calamity, wickednes, mischief, iniquity (lawlessness), calamity, perverse, woe.

Shocking I know...

God has none of those qualities and therefore His name CANNOT be Jehovah it as if the Hova in Jehovah means those things above which they indeed do it sounds more like it connotates the devil than it could ever God.

So as for Yahowah and Definately Jehovah; This is a mistranslation from mixing a rererence name of God Addonai (which means Lord and refers only to God but IS NOT God's actual name) and mixing it with the name of God which he spoke to Moses on the mountain from the Burning Bush which means '"I AM"' '"YHWE"' is the third person form of '"I AM"' literally meaning HE IS, aka HE IS: The everpresent One the Eternal God who is outside of time and always has, is, and will be, as He always IS BEEN, never had a beginning and never an end, the Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent Benevolent Holy God who is all in all and in all, who spoke the first and last words framing the bounderises of time and space itself, the Perfect never changing, The Great I AM, The Lord, GOD.

Remember, Yah Jireh_Yah = God, Jireh = Provider - Yah Nicci_Yah = God, Nicci = Victory - HalleluYah, Hallel = Praise Yah = God

Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshua or just like Joshua is actually Yoshua. You see...

so for the name of God the best we can do as easy to pronounce as possible is.

Yahweh BLESS HIS HOLY NAME!!!!
and BLESS the Lord Yeshua aka Jesus Christ and our wonderful Holy Spirit.

I hope this is useful to you brother.

Blessings

Adelphos
09-15-2008, 12:02 PM
Notwithstanding the nonsense in the preceding post, here is just another piece of information for those who might actually be interested in the truth of this matter. The following partial quote was just posted on b-hebrew a few days ago in response to the Roman Catholic declaration that Rome will now no longer pronounce the Tetragrammaton --

"This is interesting, especially when not all Yuhudhim refrain from using the name of Yohowah. There are some of us, who refuse to replace the name of our deity with descriptive pronouns during our readings of the Torah, due to the fact that we think if the name is written within the text of the Torah, then when reading the Torah, in silent or aloud, we are to pronounce the name. There are also some of us, who think that during prayer we should make an effort to use the name of Yohowah. There are also some of us, who like are ancestors think we should greet and bless each other in the name of Yohowah. I happen to be one who follows the above standard."

For the full quotation go to --

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2008-September/036222.html

David Kummerow
09-15-2008, 06:57 PM
However, again that is not evidence for the originality of the pronunciation "Yehovah", so it adds nothing to the debate.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-15-2008, 07:16 PM
However, again that is not evidence for the originality of the pronunciation "Yehovah", so it adds nothing to the debate.

It just further demonstrates the rapt ignorance of modern biblical scholarship who ignorantly asserted that the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced at all, an ignorant assertion that has been repeated ad nauseam by Hebrew teachers who should have known better.

With regard to YEHOVAH, the evidence is utterly conclusive that in the Received Text the Tetragrammton is pronounced as YEHOVAH, which is EXACTLY how IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text, and which is exactly how the Jews I have known have PRONOUNCED it, notwithstanding the rapt ignorance of modern biblical scholars who ignorantly asserted that the Tetragrammton was not pronounced at all.

David Kummerow
09-15-2008, 07:47 PM
But again you've produced no evidence as to the originality of the pronunciation: just rhetoric concerning the Received Text.

Now, sure, in the Received Text manuscripts we have the name written as you assert. But this is not evidence concerning the originality, only evidence for that sequence of consonants and vowels at the time the manuscript was written. You have not presented evidence that overturns taking the consonants as original and vowels as aids to reading adonai. Further, you still persist in speculating concerning the Received Text rather than treating the actual Hebrew language evidence I've continued to point you to.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-15-2008, 07:55 PM
Further, you still persist in speculating concerning the Received Text rather than treating the actual Hebrew language evidence I've continued to point you to.

Do you know what AS IT IS WRITEN means???

"In the TEMPLE they pronounced the Divine Name AS IT IS WRITTEN, but in the country by its substitute." Mishna - Tamid 7:2, Talmud - Tamid 33b

Grammar has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Tetragrammaton in the Received Text AS IT IS WRITTEN.

I am well aware of your obsession with debating Hebrew grammar. You've had your head handed to you numerous times on b-hebrew over the past year or so in your obsession with grammar.

But unfortunately for you, AS IT IS WRITTEN utterly obliterates ANY discussion of grammar.

In case you're still not able to comprehend this -- IT IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE -- AS IT IS WRITTEN -- YEHOVAH in the Received Text is AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Surely you're not going to deny that YEHOVAH is EXACTLY how IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text???

Just go to Genesis 2:4 -- IT IS WRITTEN -- YEHOVAH. Any beginning Hebrew student can see it in black and white that that is EXACTLY how IT IS WRITTEN in the Received Text.

Now, as to the Received Text, as I have stated before, if you don't want to believe that the Received Text goes back to the Second Temple period, then don't believe it.

I do. And so does the Holy Spirit so testify.

David Kummerow
09-15-2008, 08:10 PM
I am well aware of your obsession with debating Hebrew grammar. You've had your head handed to you numerous times on b-hebrew over the past year or so in your obsession with grammar.

So it seems you'd rather defame rather than present and argue actual evidence. Snide comments like these do you no good and they're quite offensive. Last time I checked, my head was quite intact. In any case, I am at a loss to even discern what you're trying to allude to and I contend that they are without basis.


And so does the Holy Spirit so testify.I do find such comments to be truely sad. For one who goes on about being born again, regenerate, etc etc, I just wish there was more actual evidence of that which the Bible actually points to: not some position the Received Text, but things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-15-2008, 08:14 PM
I do find such comments to be truely sad. For one who goes on about being born again, regenerate, etc etc, I just wish there was more actual evidence of that which the Bible actually points to: not some position the Received Text, but things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Right. Chuckle.

One thing is for certain... ONE of us is FATALLY -- and I mean FATALLY -- deceived. And I am content to leave it there.

Heman
12-08-2013, 01:15 PM
Grammar has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Tetragrammaton in the Received Text AS IT IS WRITTEN. Received Text? You mean the one with the Johanne Comma? Hardly trustworthy as a legimate source.

Isa 26:4 Trust ye in the ha-yah [I EXIST] for ever: for in the ad-on-ai ha-yah [I EXIST] is the everlasting side:



אֲדוֹנָי


http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_10.jpghttp://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_14.jpghttp://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_06.jpg


a-do-nai


Lord


1083-C (N)


136






היה


http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_05.jpg


ha-yah


Exist (V)


1097-M (V)


1961



http://ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_01.htmlhttp://ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_01.html

Heman
12-08-2013, 01:16 PM
Grammar has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Tetragrammaton in the Received Text AS IT IS WRITTEN. Received Text? You mean the one with the Johanne Comma? Hardly trustworthy as a legimate source.

Isa 26:4 Trust ye in the ha-yah [I EXIST] for ever: for in the ad-on-ai ha-yah [I EXIST] is the everlasting side:



אֲדוֹנָי


http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_10.jpghttp://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_14.jpghttp://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_06.jpg


a-do-nai


Lord


1083-C (N)


136






היה


http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/files/heb_early_05.jpg


ha-yah


Exist (V)


1097-M (V)


1961



http://ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_01.html

Lee
12-09-2013, 06:04 PM
Just because הָיָה is pronounced "ha-yah" does not mean that יְהוָה should be pronounced "ha-yah."

Heman
12-10-2013, 11:09 AM
Just because הָיָה is pronounced "ha-yah" does not mean that יְהוָה should be pronounced "ha-yah." This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "Qere" ( marginal reading of the Masorites) Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently ( 6,823 times ) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh ( יהוה), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility.היה The correct name is I EXIST





ha-yah

Exist (V)

1097-M (V)

1961


http://ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_01.html (http://ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_01.html)
1. Explanation of the reprint of the 1866 Letteris Edition of the Hebrew Bible. (http://www.rakkav.com/kdhinc/pages/books.htm) (http://www.rakkav.com/kdhinc/pages/books.htm)
2. The Online Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906: Name of God / YHWH. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N) (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N)
3. Transcription Guidelines for the B-Hebrew forum. (http://www.ibiblio.org/bhebrew/) (http://www.ibiblio.org/bhebrew/)

Heman
12-11-2013, 10:06 AM
Where is my post from 12/10/2013??? Why are you slow in responding?

bobvenem
12-11-2013, 10:34 AM
Where is my post from 12/10/2013??? Why are you slow in responding?

The original thread is five years old. Why are you beating a dead horse?

Heman
12-20-2013, 09:54 AM
The original thread is five years old. Why are you beating a dead horse?

I guess time does do away with all exegesis if you set a limit?
This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "Qere" ( marginal reading of the Masorites) Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently ( 6,823 times ) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh ( יהוה), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility.היה The correct name is I EXIST

brainout
12-20-2013, 12:38 PM
I guess time does do away with all exegesis if you set a limit?
This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "Qere" ( marginal reading of the Masorites) Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently ( 6,823 times ) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh ( יהוה), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility.היה The correct name is I EXIST

Well, actually, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, 'I will and did always exist', or better: 'I always was and will be Who (asher) I always was and will be'. That's profound, when you think about it. Statement that GOD WILLS His Own Existence in every aspect. Don't know if you realize this, but that statement from the literal Hebrew shoots down all REFORMED and CATHOLIC depictions of God; especially the Calvinist-Reformed, who are constantly shackling God's Sovereignty by calling Him 'constrained' by His Attributes. Ooops.

As for the vowel pointing, YehWah is the most common, over 5000 times, per my BibleWorks 5 search (I didn't check it yet in my BW8 or BW9 to see if the hits changed). This matters a bunch, for in Hebrew meter you count syllables. Isaiah 53, for example, uses YehWah, and that's how I learned its perfect meter, playing on the meter of Psalm 90 (see my http://www.vimeo.com/channels/psalm90 for proof in Bible, using UNALTERED BW5 Hebrew text).

bobvenem
01-09-2014, 09:45 AM
I guess time does do away with all exegesis if you set a limit?

Your demand for a response seemed outdated, since the person you are arguing with (Adelphos) hasn't to this thread in over five years. It's like you're fighting a straw man. (Interesting take, though).