Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Jehovah And The Tetragrammaton

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default Jehovah And The Tetragrammaton

    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-04-2008 at 08:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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/Sco...eat_gamble.htm
    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Sco...oly_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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-04-2008 at 09:31 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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 paths
    are 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.
    Last edited by David Kummerow; 09-05-2008 at 05:48 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-05-2008 at 08:43 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yugu View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •