Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Jehovah And The Tetragrammaton

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-05-2008 at 10:54 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Then if you have the evidence, please show me! I want to know more.

    Thanks,
    David.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-06-2008 at 12:53 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kummerow View Post
    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/Sco...eat_gamble.htm
    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Sco...oly_spirit.htm
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-06-2008 at 03:14 AM.

Posting Permissions

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