- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David, your question about the “” J “” was answered in my Articles, but you seem to ignor them.
Why don't you do some research on the letter ” J “.
David,
Here is some secular History from others on the letter ” J “, and on the correct name of ” Yahweh ” and the Hybrid form name of ” Jehovah “.
“”
Quote The 'J' Didn't Exist
One of the most obvious reasons that “Jesus” and “Jehovah” are incorrect is found in their common initial letter, J. Most comprehensive dictionaries and encyclopedias demonstrate that the letter J is of recent derivation. The Encyclopedia American contains the following on J:The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.
The letter J developed from the letter I and was used to avoid confusion. Chamber's Encyclopedia says that in medieval handwriting the small i was liable to be confused with one of the strokes of a preceding or following u. Therefore an oblique stroke and later a dot was often made over the i. Alternately, the i was prolonged below the line.The J and its I sound is still used in the German language. In the names of the months of January, June, and July, the German keeps the “ee” sound much like our Y. For example, July is pronounced “Yulee.”
Note the substantiating comments of the Encyclopedia Americana regarding the letter J:
It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of “Y” (as in maior, pronounced “mayor”)
At a later stage, the symbol “J” was used for distinctive purposes, particularly when the “I” had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another “I”). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of “Y” (as in year) so that the Latin pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was though the spelling was “Yanuarius.” While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), “J” has the phonetic value of “Y.”
Because the letter J derived from the I, and had the same sound, it was classed a vowel. The letter I comes from the Greek “iota,” which is the Hebrew “yothe.” Both have a vowel sound. There is no “J” sound in the Anglo-Saxon, let alone Hebrew, and no Roman form to work from. The J was first pronounced as the I until the printing press was introduced. Gradually, the letter J acquired its own sound through French influence.Webster's Universal Dictionary (1936) discloses the early relationship between I and J
As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with “i,” both letters having originally the same sound; and after the “j” sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.
The New Book of Knowledge demonstrates that the I was derived from the Hebrew “yothe.” The yothe is the same Hebrew letter that begins Yahweh's Name. It also begins the Savior's Name Yahshua. The sound of the yothe is “ee” or “eh.” (More on the sacred Name later in this booklet.)The printing press soon replaced the laborious copying by the scribes the longhand editions of the Bible. The initial copies of the King James Version did not use the letter J for the Savior's Name. No evidence has come to light that shows the letter I ever had the consonantal sound of the letter J. This is shown in the New Funk and Wagnall Encyclopedia:
Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611 for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge.
This is corroborated by the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary concerning the letter J, “The Jj types are not used in the Bible of 1611….”——————————————————————————–
Writing Followed Speech
The Oxford English Dictionary is acknowledged as the most authoritative work on the origins and meanings of words in the English language. A 12-volume work, the dictionary took 50 years to produce.Under the entry “J,” this dictionary explains how the J received its sound:
Some time before the 6th century, this y-sound had, by compression in articulation, and consequent development of an initial 'stop,' become a consonantal dipthong, passing through a sound (dy), akin to that of our di, de, in odious, hideous, to that represented in our phonetic symbolization (dz). At the same time, the original guttural sound of G, when followed by a front vowel, had changed to that of palatal g (gy), and then, by an advance of the point of closure, had passed through that of (dy), to the same sound (dz); so that i consonant and the so-called g 'soft' came to have, in the Romanic languages, the same identical value.
The Encyclopedia Britannica shows that the sound of the letter J was the same as the letter I:The original consonantal sound represented by the letter was the semi-vowel or spirant “I” (the sound of y in yacht). This passed into dy and later into the sound dz which the letter represents today.
Along with the changing pronunciation, there came the change in the alphabet to accommodate the alteration. Webster's New International Dictionary explains:J is a comparatively late variant from the Latin I which was used indifferently as a vowel or consonant, its consonantal value being that of English Y in yet. The form J was developed from i during the Middle Ages, and it was long used in certain positions in the word merely without regard to the sound as a consonant or vowel. But the lengthened form was often initial, and the initial was usually consonantal, so the j gradually became differentiated from i in function as well as form. It was not, however, until the 17th century that the distinction of j as a consonant and i as a vowel was fully established and the capital J introduced. In English, the regular and practically uniform sound of j as in “jet” (dzh), the same as g in “gem,” dates from the 11th century, that being the sound represented by i when consonantal in words then introduced from Old French.
——————————————————————————–
J Sound Same as I Sound
In his book, Triumph of the Alphabet, author A.C. Moorhouse explains how the Y and the I (hence the J also) were all related in sound. Furthermore, he cites how one language will borrow from another to bring the same sound across. Note his comment on page 128:The Semitic alphabet had no vowels, but it was essential for intelligibility that the Greek alphabet should have them. This it did by using Semitic letters which represented sounds unknown to the Greek. Semitic yod stood for the semivowel y, and it is easy to use it in Greek for the related vowel i.
Written language develops from spoken. Even today, missionaries are challenged to reduce a tribal language in some remote area to writing. It is difficult to bring across into English every vocalization in a foreign tongue using our alphabet.The New Book of Knowledge confirms the findings of Moorhouse:
The early history of the letter “J” is the same as the history of the letter “I.” “I” is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter “yod” and the Greek letter “iota.” The Phoenicians gave the yod a semiconsonant sound pronounced like the “Y” in yellow. While the loser case “J” of modern type was
derived directly from medieval manuscripts, the capital “J” is virtually a printer's invention. The sound “J” as we know it in English today was derived when the “Y” sound eventually passed into a “dy” sound and later into the “J” sound as in juggle.
Eventually, all modern languages picked up the new sound from Latin. Under the topic “J,” Collier's Encyclopedia shows how this happened:Introduced as a sign for the consonantal sound of “i” in Latin words, the letter j was soon used in English, French, and Spanish to represent the sound that developed out of Latinic consonantic i in each of these three languages. This was a certain improvement, since these three sounds (y, z, dz) which all developed out of the Latin consonant i, did not exist in Latin, and the Latin alphabet had no sign for them.
If the letter J and its sound (dz) did not exist until shortly before the printing of the King James Version of the Bible, what were the names of the Heavenly Father and His Son before that time?——————————————————————————–
The Actual name
The Creator's Name Yahweh derives from the Tetragrammaton YHWH, the English equivalent of the Hebrew letters yothe, hay, waw, hay. The Tetragrammaton — “four letters” is found in ancient Bible manuscripts. Early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria transliterated it into Greek as IAOUE. (Transliterate means to carry the actual sound of a word from one language to another.) The Tetragrammaton is made up of four Hebrew letters having the force of vowels, as Hebrew primers readily show. Josephus says that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the High Priest's miter (hat) and consisted of four vowels. Wars, Book V, chapter V, 7.In Greek, the I has an “ee” sound as in machine. When we pronounce the Tetragrammaton IAOUE we get the sound “ee-ah-ou-eh.” Saying it rapidly we produce “Yah-way,” which appears as Yahweh in English. The Tetragrammaton appears 6,823 times in Hebrew Scriptures.
The short form of the sacred Name appears in one place in the King James Version: “…extol Him that rideth upon the heavens by His name JAH, and rejoice before Him,” Psalm 68:4. As we have seen, the J should be a Y.
Hebrew names are transliterated into our English Bible as evidenced by many common names. Many names of Old Testament writers such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah, end with this first part (Yah) of the sacred Name. Note that they retain the “ee” sound of the I in “iah.”
Numerous secular as well as religious scholars attest that Yahweh is the correct, original Name of the Heavenly Father. Following is a listing of some of each, taken right from reference works and materials available in nearly every public library.
Secular Scholars
The New American Encyclopedia: “Jehovah — (properly Yahweh) a name of the God of Israel, now widely regarded as a mis-pronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH.The Encyclopedia Britannica: “…the letters YHWH used in the original Hebrew Bible to represent the name of God.”
The Oxford Cyclopedic Concordance: “Jehovah — the name revealed to Moses at Horeb. Its real pronunciation is approximately Yahweh. The Name itself was not pronounced Jehovah before the 16th century.”
American Heritage Dictionary: “Yahweh — A name for God assumed by modern scholars to be a rendering of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.”
Webster's new World Dictionary: “Yahweh — God, a form of the Hebrew name in the Old Testament. See Tetragrammaton.
New Century Dictionary:
“Jehovah — the common European rendering of Heb. JHVH (or YHWH), representing, without vowels Heb. Jahweh (or Yahweh), a divine name… regarded by the Jews as too sacred for utterance and hence replaced in the reading of the Scriptures by Adonai or Elohim; the form Jehovah being due to a mispronunciation of Heb. JHVH with the vowels of the associated Heb. Adonai. A name of God in the Old Testament, being the Christian rendering the 'ineffable name,' JHVH in the Hebrew Scriptures.
A History of Christianity, Kenneth Scott Latourette (p.11):Israel regarded their god, Yahweh, a name mistakenly put into the English as Jehovah, as the God of the universe, the maker and ruler of heaven and earth. Other peoples had their gods, but Yahweh was regarded by these monotheists as far more powerful than they.
Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol.10):Yahweh — the personal name of the God of the Israelites…The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that Yhwh should be pronounced Yahweh.
Religious Scholars
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: “Jehovah — the imperfect of Jahve (Yahwe or Jehovah or Jahwe (Yahweh)). He is self existing.” Vol. 3, p. 901.Jewish Encyclopedia: “Rabbinical Literature — The name Yahweh is considered the Name proper.” Vol. 9, p. 162.
Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary: “And the name above all others that was looked upon as the name, the personal name of God, was YAHWEH.” Vol. 1, p. 172.
The International Bible Encyclopedia of the King James Version: “Jehovah — It is believed that the correct pronunciation of this word is 'Yahweh.' “
New Standard Bible Dictionary: “Jehovah — properly Yahweh…the form 'Jehovah' is impossible, according to the strict principles of Hebrew vocalization.”
Davis Dictionary of the Bible: “Jehovah — The Tetragrammaton is generally believed to have been pronounced Jahweh, Yahweh…”
A Greek-English Lexicon: “Kurios — equals 'Yahweh.' ” p. 1013.
Jewish Quarterly Review: “In the biblical period Yahweh was a proper name, the God of Israel, an ethnic God.” April 1969, Dr. Zolomon Zeitlin.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2:
In the OT the words el, eloah, and elohim, from related roots, are generic designations of God. Alongside and alternating with them stands the individual personal name Yahweh.
Review and Herald, December 16, 1971:Yahweh is the name that identifies the God of the Hebrews. Where the Philistines worshipped Dagon, the Egyptians, Amon, and the Ammonites, Milcom, the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh. The title 'god' (elohim) is applied to false deities in the Scriptures as well as to Yahweh, hence is not a term by which one can be distinguished from the others. When the voice said, ' I am Yahweh,' there was no doubt in any listener's mind as to the identity of the speaker. He was the god of the Hebrews. So far as is known, no other peoples called their god by this name.
——————————————————————————–
'Jehovah' Wrong From the Start
“Jehovah” is a hybrid name manufactured as a result of a fear to pronounce the sacred Name Yahweh.In chapter 4 of the introduction to The Emphasized Bible, Joseph Rotherham explains how the sacred Name was avoided:
It is willingly admitted that the suppression has not been absolute; at least so far as Hebrew and English are concerned. The Name, in its four essential letters, was reverently transcribed by the Hebrew copyists, and therefore was necessarily placed before the eye of the Hebrew reader. The latter, however, was instructed not to pronounce it, but to utter instead a less sacred name — Adonay or Elohim. In this way the Name was not suffered to reach the ear of the listener.
Jehovah is the result of a further derailment in the convoluted efforts to avoid the Name Yahweh.Scholars all know that Jehovah could not be the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH used for the Creator in the oldest available manuscripts.
In the preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, pp. 6-7, is the following about “Jehovah”:
The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.
A note on Exodus 3:14, taken from The Authorized Catholic Bible, says:3:14. I am who am: apparently this utterance is the source of the word Yahweh, the proper personal name of the God of Israel. It is commonly explained in reference to God as the absolute and necessary Being. It may be understood of God as the Source of all created beings. Out of reverence for this name, the term Adonai, “my Lord,” was later used as a substitute. The word LORD in the present version represents this traditional usage. The word “Jehovah” arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text.
More proof is found on page 15 of the preface to The Bible, An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed:As nearly as we can now tell, the Hebrews called their Deity by the name Yahweh, and in a shorter form, Yah, used in relatively few cases. In course of time they came to regard this name as too sacred for utterance. They therefore substituted for it the Hebrew word for “Lord.” When vowels were added to the text, the consonants of “Yahweh” were given the vowels of “Lord.” Somewhere in the fourteenth century C.E. Christian scholars, not understanding this usage, took the vowels and consonants exactly as they were written and produced the artificial name “Jehovah” which has persisted ever since.
The Oxford English Dictionary succinctly demonstrates exactly how the word “Jehovah” became an erroneous substitution for the sacred Name Yahweh (Hebrew alphabetical characters omitted from original text):Jehovah [The English and common European representation, since the 16th c., of the Hebrew divine name (YHWH). This word (the 'sacred tetragrammaton') having come to be considered by the Jews too sacred for utterance, was pointed in the O.T. by the Masoretes with the vowels of (adonai), as a direction to the reader to substitute ADONAI for the 'ineffable name'; which is actually done by Jerome in the Vulgate translation of Exodus vi. 3, and hence by Wycliff. Students of Hebrew at the Revival of Letters took these vowels as those of the word (IHUH, JHVH) itself, which was accordingly transliterated in Latin spelling as IeHoVa(H), i.e. Iehoua'h. It is now held that the original name was IaHUe(H), i.e. Jahwe(h), and one or other of these forms is now generally used by writers upon the religion of the Hebrews. The word has generally been understood to be a derivative of the verb hawah to be, to exist, as if 'he that is', 'the self-existent', or 'the one ever coming into manifestation'; this origin is now disputed, but no conjectured derivation which has been substituted has found general acceptance.
The O.E.D. is supported by the New English Bible. On page 16 of this Bible's introduction, we read:This personal name, written with the consonants YHWH, was considered too sacred to be uttered; so the vowels for the words 'my Lord' or 'God' were added to the consonants YHWH, and the reader was warned by these vowels that he must substitute other consonants. This change having to be made so frequently, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to put the consonants of the new reading in the margin…YHWH was read with the intruded vowels, the vowels of an entirely different word, namely 'my Lord' or 'God.' In late medieval times this mispronunciation became current as Jehova, and it was (unwittingly) taken over as Jehovah by the Reformers in Protestant Bibles.
Notice the History on the Letter ” J ” and ” Jehovah “.
David,
You asked “”
Quote I responded by simply showing you that, no names don't remain the same. Perhaps they should. But they don't seem too. I really have wondered about this. Why do all those Hebrew names that started with the “Y” sound now have the “J” sound? Your answer.
“”
Quote The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.
The letter J developed from the letter I and was used to avoid confusion. Chamber's Encyclopedia says that in medieval handwriting the small i was liable to be confused with one of the strokes of a preceding or following u. Therefore an oblique stroke and later a dot was often made over the i. Alternately, the i was prolonged below the line.The J and its I sound is still used in the German language. In the names of the months of January, June, and July, the German keeps the “ee” sound much like our Y. For example, July is pronounced “Yulee.”
Note the substantiating comments of the Encyclopedia Americana regarding the letter J:
It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of “Y” (as in maior, pronounced “mayor”)
At a later stage, the symbol “J” was used for distinctive purposes, particularly when the “I” had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another “I”). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of “Y” (as in year) so that the Latin pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was though the spelling was “Yanuarius.” While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), “J” has the phonetic value of “Y.”
Because the letter J derived from the I, and had the same sound, it was classed a vowel. The letter I comes from the Greek “iota,” which is the Hebrew “yothe.” Both have a vowel sound. There is no “J” sound in the Anglo-Saxon, let alone Hebrew, and no Roman form to work from. The J was first pronounced as the I until the printing press was introduced. Gradually, the letter J acquired its own sound through French influence.Webster's Universal Dictionary (1936) discloses the early relationship between I and J
As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with “i,” both letters having originally the same sound; and after the “j” sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.
The New Book of Knowledge demonstrates that the I was derived from the Hebrew “yothe.” The yothe is the same Hebrew letter that begins Yahweh's Name. It also begins the Savior's Name Yahshua. The sound of the yothe is “ee” or “eh.” (More on the sacred Name later in this booklet.)The printing press soon replaced the laborious copying by the scribes the longhand editions of the Bible. The initial copies of the King James Version did not use the letter J for the Savior's Name. No evidence has come to light that shows the letter I ever had the consonantal sound of the letter J. This is shown in the New Funk and Wagnall Encyclopedia:
Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611 for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge.
This is corroborated by the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary concerning the letter J, “The Jj types are not used in the Bible of 1611….”Writing Followed Speech
The Oxford English Dictionary is acknowledged as the most authoritative work on the origins and meanings of words in the English language. A 12-volume work, the dictionary took 50 years to produce.Under the entry “J,” this dictionary explains how the J received its sound:
Some time before the 6th century, this y-sound had, by compression in articulation, and consequent development of an initial 'stop,' become a consonantal dipthong, passing through a sound (dy), akin to that of our di, de, in odious, hideous, to that represented in our phonetic symbolization (dz). At the same time, the original guttural sound of G, when followed by a front vowel, had changed to that of palatal g (gy), and then, by an advance of the point of closure, had passed through that of (dy), to the same sound (dz); so that i consonant and the so-called g 'soft' came to have, in the Romanic languages, the same identical value.
The Encyclopedia Britannica shows that the sound of the letter J was the same as the letter I:The original consonantal sound represented by the letter was the semi-vowel or spirant “I” (the sound of y in yacht). This passed into dy and later into the sound dz which the letter represents today.
Along with the changing pronunciation, there came the change in the alphabet to accommodate the alteration. Webster's New International Dictionary explains:J is a comparatively late variant from the Latin I which was used indifferently as a vowel or consonant, its consonantal value being that of English Y in yet. The form J was developed from i during the Middle Ages, and it was long used in certain positions in the word merely without regard to the sound as a consonant or vowel. But the lengthened form was often initial, and the initial was usually consonantal, so the j gradually became differentiated from i in function as well as form.
It was not, however, until the 17th century that the distinction of j as a consonant and i as a vowel was fully established and the capital J introduced. In English, the regular and practically uniform sound of j as in “jet” (dzh), the same as g in “gem,” dates from the 11th century, that being the sound represented by i when consonantal in words then introduced from Old French.
David,
You also said “”
Quote I'm wondering if you refer to Jeremiah as Yarimyah? I'm wondering how all those names I listed and the many more I didn't come to have a “J” instead of a “Y.” Beacuse the modern translators of the English versions never done the following proper transliteration of those names as quoted by ONE SPIRIT of…
“”
Quote By the way, “Yahweh” is not a Hebrew word. It is an English transliteration of a Hebrew word. That is how native English speakers transfer proper names from a foreign tongue into their own. Why should this principle suddenly be dropped when it comes to the Creator of the universe? Names are to be properly ” transliterated ” and NOT ” translated ” as the modern English translation made that error.
David You also asked, “”
Quote And, I'm wondering if anyone out there can answer Brandon's actual question on the original pronunciation of God's name. Are we certain it was Yahweh? Yes we are certain, as many Scholars testify to this fact.
“””
Quote Yahweh — the personal name of the God of the Israelites…The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that Yhwh should be pronounced Yahweh.
Religious Scholars
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: “Jehovah — the imperfect of Jahve (Yahwe or Jehovah or Jahwe (Yahweh)). He is self existing.” Vol. 3, p. 901.Jewish Encyclopedia: “Rabbinical Literature — The name Yahweh is considered the Name proper.” Vol. 9, p. 162.
Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary: “And the name above all others that was looked upon as the name, the personal name of God, was YAHWEH.” Vol. 1, p. 172.
The International Bible Encyclopedia of the King James Version: “Jehovah — It is believed that the correct pronunciation of this word is 'Yahweh.' “
New Standard Bible Dictionary: “Jehovah — properly Yahweh…the form 'Jehovah' is impossible, according to the strict principles of Hebrew vocalization.”
Davis Dictionary of the Bible: “Jehovah — The Tetragrammaton is generally believed to have been pronounced Jahweh, Yahweh…”
A Greek-English Lexicon: “Kurios — equals 'Yahweh.' ” p. 1013.
Jewish Quarterly Review: “In the biblical period Yahweh was a proper name, the God of Israel, an ethnic God.” April 1969, Dr. Zolomon Zeitlin.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2:
In the OT the words el, eloah, and elohim, from related roots, are generic designations of God. Alongside and alternating with them stands the individual personal name Yahweh.
Review and Herald, December 16, 1971:Yahweh is the name that identifies the God of the Hebrews. Where the Philistines worshipped Dagon, the Egyptians, Amon, and the Ammonites, Milcom, the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh. The title 'god' (elohim) is applied to false deities in the Scriptures as well as to Yahweh, hence is not a term by which one can be distinguished from the others. When the voice said, ' I am Yahweh,' there was no doubt in any listener's mind as to the identity of the speaker. He was the god of the Hebrews. So far as is known, no other peoples called their god by this name.
The testimony concrning the false Hybrid “” Jehovah “”.
“””
Quote The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.
A note on Exodus 3:14, taken from The Authorized Catholic Bible, says:3:14. I am who am: apparently this utterance is the source of the word Yahweh, the proper personal name of the God of Israel. It is commonly explained in reference to God as the absolute and necessary Being. It may be understood of God as the Source of all created beings. Out of reverence for this name, the term Adonai, “my Lord,” was later used as a substitute. The word LORD in the present version represents this traditional usage. The word “Jehovah” arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text.
More proof is found on page 15 of the preface to The Bible, An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed:As nearly as we can now tell, the Hebrews called their Deity by the name Yahweh, and in a shorter form, Yah, used in relatively few cases. In course of time they came to regard this name as too sacred for utterance. They therefore substituted for it the Hebrew word for “Lord.” When vowels were added to the text, the consonants of “Yahweh” were given the vowels of “Lord.” Somewhere in the fourteenth century C.E. Christian scholars, not understanding this usage, took the vowels and consonants exactly as they were written and produced the artificial name “Jehovah” which has persisted ever since.
The Oxford English Dictionary succinctly demonstrates exactly how the word “Jehovah” became an erroneous substitution for the sacred Name Yahweh (Hebrew alphabetical characters omitted from original text):Jehovah [The English and common European representation, since the 16th c., of the Hebrew divine name (YHWH). This word (the 'sacred tetragrammaton') having come to be considered by the Jews too sacred for utterance, was pointed in the O.T. by the Masoretes with the vowels of (adonai), as a direction to the reader to substitute ADONAI for the 'ineffable name'; which is actually done by Jerome in the Vulgate translation of Exodus vi. 3, and hence by Wycliff. Students of Hebrew at the Revival of Letters took these vowels as those of the word (IHUH, JHVH) itself, which was accordingly transliterated in Latin spelling as IeHoVa(H), i.e. Iehoua'h. It is now held that the original name was IaHUe(H), i.e. Jahwe(h), and one or other of these forms is now generally used by writers upon the religion of the Hebrews. The word has generally been understood to be a derivative of the verb hawah to be, to exist, as if 'he that is', 'the self-existent', or 'the one ever coming into manifestation'; this origin is now disputed, but no conjectured derivation which has been substituted has found general acceptance.
The O.E.D. is supported by the New English Bible. On page 16 of this Bible's introduction, we read:This personal name, written with the consonants YHWH, was considered too sacred to be uttered; so the vowels for the words 'my Lord' or 'God' were added to the consonants YHWH, and the reader was warned by these vowels that he must substitute other consonants. This change having to be made so frequently, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to put the consonants of the new reading in the margin…YHWH was read with the intruded vowels, the vowels of an entirely different word, namely 'my Lord' or 'God.' In late medieval times this mispronunciation became current as Jehova, and it was (unwittingly) taken over as Jehovah by the Reformers in Protestant Bibles.
Yes we can be sure of the name of ” YAHWEH “.
There is ALL your questions answered David.
Eliyah C.
Also, the short contracted form of the name Strongs Hebrew Num.3050=Yah (N.K.J.V.) and Jah ( O.K.J.V.) Psalms 68:4, as Yah with the ” Y ” is the correct transliteration letter, as there was NO letter ” J ” until about 5 hundred years ago.
Also, in the Appendix Page 1562, of the N.W.T. concerning the short form of the divine name testifies to the fact of the short form name of ” Yah ” that is first used in Exodus 15:2 by Moses in the Masoretic text as ” YAH “.
Now, can we not be certain concerning the short form Name of Yah ?
Another fact that is testified to on the same page of 1562 in the Appendix of N.W.T. under 1B is concerning 134 scribal changes to the Creator's Name from YHWH to Adonia meaning ' lord ', as also does E.W. Bullinger in his companion B-ble, which absolutely proves Yah's Words true and correct concerning ( Jer.8:8) where it was prophesied concerning alteration of scriptural texts.
Most ALL the English Translations have violated MANY Commandments of Yah by so doing this, and in turn have caused MANY Honest people to go astray from Yah's Commands.
There is a terribly indictment by Yah against modern Priests, Pastors, Ministers, and so-called Evangelists today which says 1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith YAHWEH.
2 Therefore thus saith Yahweh the El of Israel I against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith Yahweh.
19 Behold, a WHIRLWIND OF YAHWEH IS GONE FORTH IN FURY, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.
20 The anger of Yahweh shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart( mind): IN THE LATTER DAYS YE SHALL CONSIDER IT PERFECTLY.
21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear( understand) my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings( Jer.23:1-40).
And in ( Jer.23:13,26-27) He explicitly says that these modern religionists have caused the people to forget His true Name BAAL=lord.
For are we not in the LATTER DAYS TO CONSIDER IT PERFECTLY( Jer.23:20) ?
Eliyah( Elijah) Collette
The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah́, Yehwih́, and Yehowah́. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yehowah́. (Ge 3:14, ftn)
ELIJAH IS RIGHT IN SAYING THAT Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Halelu-Yah́ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehoh́, Yoh, Yah, and Yáhu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as Iabé and Iaoué, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh.STILL, THERE IS BY NO MEANS UNANIMTY AMONG SCHOLARS on the subject, AS ELIJAH CLAIMS.
These are some versions (transliterations and translations) of the divine name.
YHVH YHWH Yahweh Yahveh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jehovah Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah Yahowah Jahowa Jahowah Yahavah Jahavah Yahowe Yahoweh Jahaveh Jahaweh Yahaveh Yahaweh Jahuweh Yahuweh Jahuwah Yahuwah Yahuah Yah Jah Yahu Yahoo Yaohu Jahu Yahvah Jahvah Jahve Jahveh Yahve Yahwe Yauhu Yawhu Iahu Iahou Iahoo Iahueh
Type one of them into google. See what it says.
And of the son:
Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu, Yeshu, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua, Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Yawhushua,Yahawshua, Jahshua, Jahshuah, Jahshuwah, Jahoshua, Jahoshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yahshuah, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahuahshua, Yahuahshuah, Yahoshua, Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah, Yauhushua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, Iahushuah, YAHO-hoshu-WAH
“There are a number of differing schools of thought on what the true pronunciation of God's name might be other than “Yahu-eh” as mentioned above. Some believe it is “Yahweh”, others believe it is “Jehovah”. Consequently, there are many differing ideas as to what the Messiah's true original full name is. Some would say it is “Yahweh-shua”. Some take the (J) and the (O) from Jehovah and come up with “Joshua”. Others, realizing there is no (J) sound in Hebrew, replace it with (Y) and come up with “Yeho-shua” and the list goes on and on. The differences are many and one could go on in a multi-paged discussion of the pros and cons of each theory.” (www.judaismvschristianity.com)
Elijah claims that we can be certain “Yahweh” is how the divine name was originally pronounced. All I’m saying here is that, no, scholars do not agree, which is what Brandon asked. They just don’t.
Many names of people and places mentioned in the Bible contain an abbreviated form of the divine name. Is it possible that these proper names can provide some clues as to how God’s name was pronounced?
According to George Buchanan, professor emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., the answer is yes. Professor Buchanan explains: “In ancient times, parents often named their children after their deities. That means that they would have pronounced their children’s names the way the deity’s name was pronounced. The Tetragrammaton was used in people’s names, and they always used the middle vowel.”
Consider a few examples of proper names found in the Bible that include a shortened form of God’s name. Jonathan, which appears as Yohnathań or Yehohnathań in the Hebrew Bible, means “Yaho or Yahowah has given,” says Professor Buchanan. The prophet Elijah’s name is ́Eliyah́ or ́Eliyáhu in Hebrew. According to Professor Buchanan, the name means: “My God is Yahoo or Yahoo-wah.” Similarly, the Hebrew name for Jehoshaphat is Yehoh-shaphat́, meaning “Yaho has judged.”
A two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as “Yahweh” would not allow for the o vowel sound to exist as part of God’s name. But in the dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms, as in Jehonathan and Jonathan. Thus, Professor Buchanan says regarding the divine name: “In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as ‘Ya,’ but never as ‘Ya-weh.’ . . . When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was ‘Yah’ or ‘Yo.’ When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been ‘Yahowah’ or ‘Yahoowah.’ If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been ‘Yaho.’”—Biblical Archaeology Review.
These comments help us understand the statement made by 19th-century Hebrew scholar Gesenius in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures: “Those who consider that י?ה?ו?ה? [Ye-ho-wah] was the actual pronunciation [of God’s name] are not altogether without ground on which to defend their opinion. In this way can the abbreviated syllables י?ה?ו? [Ye-ho] and י?ו? [Yo], with which many proper names begin, be more satisfactorily explained.”
In truth, scholars are by no means in agreement that the form “Yahweh” represents the original pronunciation.
The Catholic Douay Version, which does not use God’s name in its main text, says in its footnote to Exodus 6:3: “Some moderns have framed the name Jehovah . . . the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse, is now quite lost.”** THE FACT IS THAT while God preserved the spelling of his name “YHWH” over 6,000 times in the Bible, he did not preserve the pronunciation of it that Moses heard on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:2) THEREFORE, the pronunciation is not of the utmost importance at this time. **
In Vetus Testamentum (Oct. 1962) Dr. E. C. B. Maclaurin stated: “It should be repeated that there is no conclusive early evidence that the name was ever pronounced Yahweh but there is plenty of early evidence for Hūu’, Yah, Yo-, Yau-, -yah and perhaps -yo.” Dr. M. Reisel, in The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., said that the “vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeHūuàH or YaHūuàH.” Still, Canon D. D. Williams of Cambridge held that the “evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that Jahweh was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, . . . The Name itself was probably JĀAHÔH.”—Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. 54.
After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.
Concerning the form “Jehovah,” a Jesuit writer says: “It is disconcerting to see the divine name written as Jehovah, a 16th-century . . . error for Jahweh.”—America, Nov. 27, 1971, p. 460.Webster's New World Dictionary: College Edition
Yahweh or Yahwe (yä’we, -wa-) n. [[Heb, hypothetical reconstruction of the Tetragrammaton YHWH: first component, ya, Yahu, god < older Canaanite name]] God: a form of the Hebrew name in the old testament: … : also Yah've or Yahveh (yä've, -va-)Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in F
rench.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.
(See Elijah’s often quoted Etymology dictionary online which says that “Yahweh” is a “hypothetical” reconstruction of the divine name.)The Biblia Hebraica, (editor Rudolph Kittel) published in Stuttgart in 1951, vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read “Yehwah́.”
ROTHERHAM?
* * Even more to the point is what the noted English Bible scholar J. B. Rotherham has to say on this subject. ELIJAH MADE A POINT OF SAYING THAT Rotherham called the name “Jehovah” a monstrosity. Especially is Rotherham of interest in view of the fact that he might be said to have been one of the pioneers in using the form “Yahweh” in transliterating the Tetragrammaton. His Emphasised Bible was published in 1897, whereas his Studies in the Psalms were not published until 1911, after he had died. IN HIS LATTER WORK ROTHERHAM RETURNED TO THE USE OF “JEHOVAH,” which is all the more remarkable in view of how strongly he objected to the form “Jehovah” in the introduction to his Emphasised Bible. In explanation of his reasons for returning to the form “Jehovah,” he says in the introduction to his Studies:
“Jehovah—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name [Exo. 3:18] in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahweh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended. . . . As the chief evidence of the significance of the name consists not nearly so much in its pronunciation as in the completeness with which it meets all requirements—especially as explaining how the Memorial name was fitted to become such, and to be the preeminent covenant name that it confessedly is, it has been thought desirable to fall back on the form of the name more familiar (while perfectly acceptable) to the general Bible-reading public.”–(London, 1911), p. 29.In a similar vein S. T. Byington in his Preface to The Bible in Living English notes that “the spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a personal name. There are several texts that cannot be properly understood if we translate this name by a common noun like ‘Lord.’”
The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name י?ה?ו?ה?. Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: “Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree, ‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”–Introduction to the Old Testament, Robert H. Pfeiffer, 1952, page 94
In his over 600-page Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Jesuit Professor Joüon writes: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yirmeyah́, Isaiah would become Yesha`yáhu, and Jesus would be either Yehohshúa` (as in Hebrew) or Iesouś (as in Greek).
*The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested Hebrew pronunciations. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them.
Today the name for Jesus is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hessooś). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djayzoó). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yaýsoos).
Must we stop using the name of Jesus because most of us, or even all of us, do not really know its original pronunciation?In Europe the form “Jehovah” has been widely recognized for centuries and is used in many Bibles, including Jewish translations. It appears countless times on buildings, on coins and other objects, and in printed works, as well as in many church hymns. So rather than trying to represent the original Hebrew pronunciation, the New World Translation in all its different languages uses the form of God’s name that is popularly accepted. This is exactly what other Bible versions do with all the other names in the Bible.
Webster’s New International Dictionary (1955) says concerning “Jehovah”: “The Supreme Being; God; the Almighty . . . A Christian form given the Tetragrammaton.”How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?
“Yahweh” is obviously a transliteration, whereas “Jehovah” is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated. A transliteration usually sounds strange to the ears of those speaking the tongue into which the proper name has been transliterated.
Most languages have a customary way of spelling and pronouncing God’s name, and it varies from language to language. In Italian it is Geova, in Fijian it is Jiova, and in Danish the name is Jehova. Why need anyone insist that all persons today should strive to imitate some ancient Hebrew pronunciation on which even authorities cannot agree?
This is a sensible view, for it allows persons to use a widely known pronunciation that still clearly identifies the Creator and God who urges us to use his name. (Isa. 42:8; Rom. 10:13) Many theologians, though, have, instead, chosen to quibble over technicalities and fallen into the trap of shunning God’s name.Praise Jah, you people.
Its not Praise Jah with a “J “ Daivid, as there was no letter ” J ” untill about 5 hundred years ago.
It is Yah as in HalleluYAH, which means Praise you Yah.
You seem to ignor any information on the modern English letter ” J ” and the origination of the name Jehovah and how it was arrived by combining YHWH with Adonia meaning ' l-rd '.
Furthermore, the true Name Yah of the Creator was not translated and by no means was correctly transliterated at all, but was substituted with other nation's idol pagan titles in most all the English translations of scripture.
Even your own N.W.T Translation Appendix Page 1562, of the N.W.T. concerning the short form of the divine sacred name testifies to the fact of the short form name of ” Yah ” that is first used in Exodus 15:2 by Moses in the Masoretic text as ” YAH “.
Now, can we not be certain concerning the short form Name of 'Yah ' ?
You made other errors, and I will let them slide for now, but maybe you should stop ingesting that ol nasty stuff as you reminded me in a previous post.
Eliyah C.
Ps My Name does not mean “” my g-d is Yah “”, but it means my ALL MIGHTY IS YAH.
David, I do not know for sure, but you seem to be quoting from some other Organization's writings.
However, I will point out this ONE more error in the writing ABOVE according to scriptures.
Of “”
Quote ** THE FACT IS THAT while God preserved the spelling of his name “YHWH” over 6,000 times in the Bible, he did not preserve the pronunciation of it that Moses heard on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:2) THEREFORE, the pronunciation is not of the utmost importance at this time. ** If that is true, then WHY do the JWs go to so much trouble and effort to point out that His Name is ' Jehovah ' in much of their literature?
However, that statement absolutely contradicts scriptures, and 4 main scriptures in particular which are ( Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Acts 4:10-12; Rom.10:9-14), which states explicitly that KNOWING their( Yah and Messiah's) true Names are the first for people to hear and know for people to call upon for salvation in repentance of sins for to even be saved.
Their true Names was a first part of Peter's Repentance Message at the beginning( Acts 2:17-38) and also explicitly stated by Paul in ( Rom.10:9-14).
Paul explicitly stated and asked the questions which I still ask today…
“” 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Messiah Yahshua, and shalt believe in thine heart( mind) that Yah( El) hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. ( See Isa. 28:16).
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Yah over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of YHWH=Yah shall be saved. ( See original of Joel 2:32 for the Name)
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?I think that is perfectly plain to see.
Eliyah C.
There is a movement called the Sacred Name Movement that believes that one must use the original Hebrew pronunciation of the name of God. It has been estimated by some that there are about 7000 in the U.S. who submit to this.
The spelling and pronunciation of the Name used by one group will differ greatly from that used by another group. Some call him Yahweh, some YHWH, Yah Veh, Yah, Yahway, Yaohu Ul, Yahvah, Yahuwah, Iahueh, YHVH, Yahuah, etc.
It's true that you can find a scholar that says “Yahweh” is the correct pronunciation. But you can find another that favors “Yahuwah” or “Yah Veh.” There is no unanimity. There is not agreement. If there was, people would all agree, wouldn't they? They don't.
About half prefer Yahweh. This form of the name is spoken by some sacred name people as if it were spelled YAH-WAY. By others it is said with stress on the EH, thus YAHW-EH’. Some pronounce it YAH-WAH, so that the last syllable rhymes with the first. While still others say, YOH-WAH.
Other groups belittle the use of Yahweh and refuse to bring the four letters into English with any vowels. “If the Hebrews didn't use any vowels, then neither are we.” These people use only the four English consonants, YHWH. Then, as individuals they pronounce the word in a myriad of ways. Other say the divine name should not be brought into English at all. Taking their logic to its extreme, these folks use only the Hebrew, h w h y.
So there is not even agreement for the way “Yahweh” should be pronounced. I know someone could quote a scholar as saying: 'This is the right way.' But there are lots of scholars out there.
Though this spelling (Yahweh) was certainly known and used among scholars earlier, it was popularized during the later nineteenth century by J. B. Rotherham in his Bible translation, The Emphasized Bible. (We remember of course that he eventually returned to favoring the of “Jehovah,” as was quoted in an earlier post.) The 1960’s Catholic sponsored translation, The Jerusalem Bible , guaranteed continuing popularity for this form.
So today, many favor Yahweh (pronounced YAH WAY). Perhaps this is how God's name was originally pronounced. Perhaps not. If I were Hebrew, I would most likely use this pronunciation, just because it's the more popular and therefore understandable of the many possible Hebrew pronunciations. While the Bible repeatedly stresses the importance of using God's name, it seems the pronunciation of that name is presently lost, uncertain.
So once again, Brandon, in answer to your question, the answer is definitely, unequivocally, undeniably….what was the question again? Oh ya. We are not sure how the divine name was originally pronounced.
I would suggest using whatever form of the divine name that is used in your language (that is understandable to the people in your area) for the purpose of telling people about the Almighty in a way they can understand.David.
I miss Nick saying:
'Yes, but have you been born of holy spirit yet?'David.
David,
I do not belong to any Group or Organization, but what you say about some of the sacred name movements are not true either as it is not so much the exact pronounciation that is important, but the correct transliteration for the true names, they do believe in using the true correct transliteration Names of Yah( Psalms 68:4) and Messiah Yahshua for salvation, and I must agree, as do the scriptures also( Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Acts 4:10-12; Rom.10:9-14).
You seem to be denying the correct short form name of Yah , and I find that strange you quoting Protestants ( As you did before of Wade Cox from the C.COG) against the true Name of the Creator, when your own Organization has defended and upheld YHWH=Yah( See in N.W.T. Appendix, Page 1562) in very many articles against such people.
Or, do you want me to post some of those Articles as I did before?
But this has nothing to do with ” movements ” or ” Organizations “, but with the truth of scriptures concerning the true Names to believe in for salvation, which you did NOT answer my questions asked above either.
Furthermore, the true Name Yah of the Creator was not translated and by no means was correctly transliterated at all, but was substituted with other nation's idol pagan titles in most all the English translations of scripture.
Even your own N.W.T Translation Appendix Page 1562, of the N.W.T. concerning the short form of the divine sacred name testifies to the fact of the short form name of ” Yah ” that is first used in Exodus 15:2 by Moses in the Masoretic text as ” YAH “.
Now, can we not be certain concerning the short form Name of 'Yah ' ?
Eliyah C.
This isWHY I use the short form first syl. contracted Name of Yah , it is pronounced with the first letter “ Y ” as there was no letter ” J “, and the “ a ” is pronounced with a short a sound as in ah= Yah as this was used by Moses in Exodus 15:2 and was explicitly used in Psalms 68:4 in the English translations of scriptures.
However, I will defend the truth of scriptures no matter WHO quotes it, and even when and if the JWs do also, as I have shown before.
Furthermore, the true Name Yah of the Creator was not translated and by no means was correctly transliterated at all, but was substituted with other nation's idol pagan titles in most all the English translations of scripture.
Even your own N.W.T Translation Appendix Page 1562, of the N.W.T. concerning the short form of the divine sacred name testifies to the fact of the short form name of ” Yah ” that is first used in Exodus 15:2 by Moses in the Masoretic text as ” YAH “.
Now, can we not be certain concerning the short form Name of 'Yah ' ?
You bet, and even your own Organization and its own N.W. Translation Appendix, Page 1562 will back me up on it too, whether you want to or not.
Eliyah C.
CAN THE ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON CAN BE DETERMINED WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?
Yes or No?
And yes, I know there was no “J” sound in the Hebrew language. There's little point in repeatedly repeating things you've said several times before that I already know and that don't really answer the question above.
What I'm asking and I think what Brandon asked at the beginning of this topic was:
Can we be sure how YHWH was pronounced?So just so we're clear, I'll ask it one more time:
CAN THE ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON CAN BE DETERMINED WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?
Yay or Nay?Sure it might be this or that….but, are you able to answer the above question with a “Yes” or “No” answer Elijah?
david
OK, I meant to ask:
CAN THE ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON BE DETERMINED WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?Yes David, and I've already given enough on it to line the wall of your living room, but you never answered my questions.
Furthermore, the true Name Yah of the Creator was not translated and by no means was correctly transliterated at all, but was substituted with other nation's idol pagan titles in most all the English translations of scripture.
Even your own N.W.T Translation Appendix Page 1562, of the N.W.T. concerning the short form of the divine sacred name testifies to the fact of the short form name of ” Yah ” that is first used in Exodus 15:2 by Moses in the Masoretic text as ” YAH “.
Now, can we not be certain concerning the short form Name of 'Yah ' ?
You bet, and even your own Organization and its own N.W. Translation Appendix, Page 1562 will back me up on it too, whether you want to or not.
Here is a short quote from…Heinz Schmitz's Response to Lynn Lundquist's “The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures” of the JWs own Organization concerning against a nameless Creator.
Quote Is relying on Versions for how we translate the Divine Name solely an NWT practice. No it is not. Take note: “In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as “LORD”..” New International Version Preface
The RSV, NRSV and the Good News Bible read much the same, along with note indicating an incorrect understanding of the ancient LXX.
Most others appeal to tradition, not on any text, for their exclusion of the Divine Name.
Yet it seems that the NWT is always unfairly singled out in its zeal to promote the name of the almighty God Jehovah.
( Note thee Above)
I think the question that everyone SHOULD be asking, is why has the Divine Name, used in the Hebrew text 6828 times, more than all other divine titles put together, and more than any other name,… completely disappeared?
( Note the question asked .)
Moving along though, any discussion on textual criticism inevitably involves including the Ante-Nicene Fathers (hereafter, ANF). How did they feel about God's name?
“God has no name, for everything that has a name is related to created things.” Aristides (c. 125, E) 9.264
“He has many virtues as are distinctive to a God who is called by no proper name.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.165
“To the Father of all, there is no name given” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190
“As to the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe,… if anyone dares to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E) 1.183
“God cannot be called by any proper name. For names are given to mark out and distinguish various subject matters, because these matter are many and diverse. However, no one existed before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself. For He is one and unique… On this account, He said to Moses, “I am the Being.” By the participle *being,* He taught the difference between the God who is and the gods who are not. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.281
“If we name Him, we do not do so properly.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E) 2.464
“The name of God the Father had been published to no one.” Tertullian (c. 198, W) 3.682
“Neither must we ask for a name of God. God is His name. We have no need of names when a multitude are to be separated into individuals…To God, who is alone, the name “God” is the whole. Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W) 4.183
“We say the name Sabaoth, Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, do not apply to any ordinary created things. Rather, they belong to a secret theology concerning the Framer of all things.” Origen (c. 248, E), 4.407
“Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names that divine scriptures applies to God.” Origen, 4.653
“God's own name also cannot be declared, for He cannot be conceived….For the name is the significance of whatever thing can be comprehended from a name.” Novatian, 5.615
“Neither must you ask the name of God. God is His name. Where a multitude is to be distinguished by the appropriate characteristics of names, there is a need of names. However, to God – who alone is – belongs the whole name of God.” Cyprian 5.467
Here, despite the fact that the Name occurs so many times in the Hebrew text, there is evident hostility towards the name. Is it because of the Name's association with the Jews the early Christians were trying to disassociate and distinguish themselves from?
“the Torah is not the itself the name of God but the explication of the Name of God. To him (the Kabbalist] meant exactly what it meant for Jewish tradition, namely the tetragrammaton YHWH. And this is the true meaning of “God's Torah.” on The Meaning of the Torah/On the Kaballah and Its Symbolism, by Gershom Scholem, p.42The Jews and the Name were solidly bound together. Perhaps, this is why the ANF were not only hostile to the Name, but to the people of the Name.
“In Christian sources, the charge of Jewish hate is unrelieved. St. Justin (A.D. 100-65), in his Dialogue with Trypho, returns again and again to the point. On one occasion he confronts Trypho the simple declaration, 'You hate and (wherever you have the power), you kill us.” Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-c. 222) labels Jews 'the seed-plot of all calumnies against us;' and in the early fourth century, Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-37) said, 'Let us have nothing to do with the most hostile Jews.'
Taken from many available accusations, these few samples convey the seriousness of the charge. The answer has been made that the accusers, having entertained few relations with real Jews, constructed a theological abstraction having little relation to reality.”
What did this lead to?
“In steering a course between the extremes of Judaeo-Christianity and the anti-Judaism of Marcion and the Gnostics, that Church had to prove to the gentiles – and to the Jews – that it was the true Israel, that Judaism was a pretender that refused to abdicate a lost kingdom – and all this from Judaistic sources….Exegetical disputes inevitably arose between the apologists and the rabbinate. The latter accused the former of mutilating the text of the Septuagint…and replaced it with several new Hebrew translations. Christian polemicists countered with charges of textual suppressions by the Jews.” Anguish of the Jews, Edward Flannery, p. 32
Do you see that the fighting between the two factions initially involved allegations of textual corruption?
The move away from Judaism, the formation of a new religion and the great apostasy foretold in the NT was enough fuel to create “wholesale” changes in the text. This was helped in part by the abbreviations of divine names and titles. You recommend the Book, The Jesus Papyrus by Carston Thiede, which says:
“With the first Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, YHWH acquired the visible form of an abbreviation – initially, because the Hebrew consonants were inserted in the Greek text wherever “God” appeared. This custom was continued into the Middle Ages and had its variations, which made the abbreviating nature of the exercise more obvious – such as writing only the first letter of the Hebrew word yod, doubling to to look like a twinfold z and drawing a horizontal bar through the middle of both letters. A find from Qumram dating from the period just before the 'birth' of the first Christian texts documents the use of Greek rather than Hebrew letters to abbreviate God's unpronounceable name.
In a fragmentary Greek papyrus scroll discovered in Cave 4 – Pap4QLXXLev
b, with parts of Leviticus – “God” is written neither with the full Greek word theos nor with the Greek translation of Adonai, kyrios ('Lord'), but with the Greek vowels alone (!) iota/alpha/omega, to sound something like Ya-oh or Ya-ho. In brief, by the time the first Christians wrote their own Greek manuscripts rather than copying Old Testament texts, they were already accustomed to the concept of contracting the name and title of God. We do not know if kyrios was already contracted as this earliest stage, the period of the scrolls. It could have been abbreviated in Greek consonants (KS) or with the Hebrew tetragrammaton or with the Greek vowels IAO. But we have no direct Christian manuscript evidence of this word dating from this period. However, if the identification and reconstruction of 7Q4 as 1 Timothy 3:16 – 4:3 is any indication of standard practice, the word 'God' itself, theos, was apparently not abbreviated, nor was another extant nomen sacrum…Let us suppose then, that the first (Jewish)-Christian scribes initially did what they had always done as Jews, resisting the temptation – if temptation it was – to break with the traditional practice.As we see above, in fact, as we see often, divine titles are usually abbreviated. But the Divine Name is substituted for a circumlocution. We will come back to this later.
Unquote of the JWs Article.
He talks about the early Protestants having a nameless Creator, and he defends for the name of Jehovah.
David, like I said before, its strange that your Organization defends the name of Jehovah as its certainty, then you are here quoting from Protestants against me, because I defend and know for certain concerning the pronounciation of the short form name of ' YAH ' as your own N.W.T. in Appendix Page 1562 will prove too.
Like I said, and BrandonIke can be absolutely sure of this…””Furthermore, the true Name Yah of the Creator was not translated and by no means was correctly transliterated at all, but was substituted with other nation's idol pagan titles in most all the English translations of scripture.
Even your own N.W.T Translation Appendix Page 1562, of the N.W.T. concerning the short form of the divine sacred name testifies to the fact of the short form name of ” Yah ” that is first used in Exodus 15:2 by Moses in the Masoretic text as ” YAH “.
Now, can we not be certain concerning the short form Name of 'Yah ' ?
You bet, and even your own Organization and its own N.W. Translation Appendix, Page 1562 will back me up on it too, whether you want to or not.
And this WHY I said, “” This isWHY I use the short form first syl. contracted Name of Yah , it is pronounced with the first letter ” Y ” as there was no letter ” J “, and the ” a ” is pronounced with a short a sound as in ah= Yah as this was used by Moses in Exodus 15:2 and was explicitly used in Psalms 68:4 in the English translations of scriptures.
BrandonIke can certainly be sure of that, or can he not?
Eliyah C.
Its a strange thing, that when ye have a JW boxed in concerning the pronounciation of the short contracted name of ' Yah ', which is also undeniablly written in thee Appendix Page 1562 of his own N.W.T., then he will start using the Protestants quotes and excuses to defend against it, but he will defend the name of ' Jehovah ' against the Protestants views ?
David, if you can't be certain on the pronounciation of the short form of ' Yah ',( which is written in the Appendix Page 1562 of N.W.T.) then you certainly should not be using and promoting the Hybrid butchering name of ” Jehovah ” that was arrived at by combining YHWH with Adonia meaning ' lord ' either.
Eliyah C.
hmmm. I don't feel boxed in a corner. I feel more like I'm talking to a wall. I don't remember ever saying not to use “Yah.” I've never said that, anywhere.
Use “Yah” as Jehovah's shortened name and by all means, use “Yahweh” if you feel that it's important to use the original pronunciation and if you feel that that is the original pronunciation of his name.
However, don't proclaim that we are certain that “Yahweh” with the (Yah Way pronunciation) is the absolute certain way that it was pronounced in Hebrew originally. Scholars disagree. I know you can find scholars that say: “Yahweh” is the right pronunciation. Guess what? Scholars aren't perfect. They are men. They disagree. Some say one thing, others another thing. They make educated guesses. They aren't inspired. There are scholars who are absolutely certain that Yahouh or Yahveh or 20 other variation are the correct pronunciation. Scholars are the ones that came up with the now common form of God's name “Jehovah” that you are so fond of.
I did ask several times:
CAN THE ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON (4 letters, not 2) CAN BE DETERMINED WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?The answer is 'No.' And what does that imply?
Yes, you'll go on to say that there was no “J” sound in the Hebrew language, which has nothing to do with what I'm asking you. Great.
And you'll try to make it seem like there is no question in anyone's mind that “Yahweh” (particularly with the 'Yah Way' pronunciation) is the proper way to pronounce the divine name, despite the mountain of uncertainties.The tetragrammaton was confirmed by God to Moses more than three thousand years ago. In the intervening time, the Hebrew language has used at least two alphabets. It ceased to be the language of the Jewish people and then was revived. Hebrew was mixed with Spanish and became Lindie. It was mixed with German to form Yiddish. These are only a few of the major changes. Within the time span of the writing of the OT, the spelling of the name of Joshua the son of Nun changed three times.
The people in England a thousand years ago spoke English. However, if you could be there and hear them, you could understand little if any of what they said. Language changes. Spellings and pronunciations evolve from place to place and from time to time.
What I'm saying is that we can't be certain of how God's name (the tretragrammaton) was definitely pronounced in Hebrew originally.And a bit of your own logic:
You have quoted from your NWT Bible more than I have. Did you know this is a Bible that uses the name “Jehovah” as the divine name Elijah? Yet you argue that this same book you repeatedly quote from is wrong in it's use of the name “Jehovah.” Ooch. Hurts when your own reasoning bites you back. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of with Protestant quotes. I guess you must now feel boxed in a corner, if you think I did before.I'm wondering where everyone is?
I will be gone for the next few days Elijah, so you may contradict this post and attempt to give it another slant and go off in some other direction at free will without anyone to interfer. Have fun.
david
David,
I'm NOT saying that all Scholars are infallable, but what I am saying, is that the short contracted form of the Name Yah is indisputable, even in the Appendix Page 1562 of the N.W.T., which you so-claim that you believe and follow.
I can understand an ignorant( not knowing) person in Protestantism arguing against the correct Name of the Creator, however, a claiming to be JWs witness arguing and even quoting Protestant written views concerning it, would be unbelievable to some of the reputable people at the Watchtower Society.
I quoted the N.W.T. Appendix Page 1562 because it does not deny the correct short contraction Name Yah , which you seem to argue against and deny.
Also, I was quoting the ” letter J “ not only that it was not used in Hebrew, but that it( The Letter 'J ') was not used in the English Language untill 5 or 600 years ago, and that it ( The Letter 'J' ) is of recent origin added to the English Alphabet, which you also ignor.( Then you talk about talking to a brick wall?)
And Yes, I have quoted so-called reputable people in the JWs Organization that testify to the facts of my own research in these matters, which you seem to be ignorant of concerning this.
I also intend to quote some more of their writings later( and others not affiliated with the JWs) which you seem to be ignorant of concerning these matters.
You seem to not even know your own Organizational teachings, or are you asleep at their Theocratic Ministry School every week?
Do you also know the latest news concerning the JWs filing a recent lawsuit against a website that quotes ONLY JWs own literature and has been doing so for a long time ?
That's another strange thing, the JWs will walk door to door in many Countries to hand out their literature to each houshold that will accept it, then they turn arround and file a lawsuit against a website that quotes and promotes only JWs own literature?
It makes a person wonder what's so damaging to them in the JWs own literature that they do not want another website( that has been doing this for a long time) to quote from its own literature that they themselves distribute freely from door to door to many households?
And I will end this post by saying, that when you use the word ” interfer “, you are doing exactly that against your own Organizational teachings as you have also done in the past by quoting Wade Cox's modern bull worship article.
Eliyah C.
David,
I ended my post with this:
Quote However, I am not overly concerned with misrepresenting Yarimyah's or Ya'aqobh's names, as they are mere men, whom I neither worship nor serve. On the contrary, I do concern myself with trying to get the Almighty's name, and the name of His chosen one, as accurately as possible. It's a simple matter of reverence. How about you? Do you give “Lee-Ping” from China greater respect and courtesy than you give your Maker?
It appears that you completely missed it, or decided to dodge the question. Well, let me ask another clarifying question for you to choose to dodge, or not to dodge.
Can we be sure that “Jehovah” is not the pronounciation of the Almighty's name? Can we be certain that it is an inauthentic transliteration of the Hebrew word?
(By the way, I will remind you for the second time that “Yahweh” is no more a Hebrew word than “Jehovah”. They are both English words that attempt to transliterate the Hebrew version. However, one of the two is clearly more accurate than the other.)
David,
Out of curiosity, what name do you use, in place of “Jehovah”, when you are witnessing to someone in Chinese?
Very interesting questions indeed ONE Spirit, and I await his answers, if he even will answer them.
However, here is another interesting bit of information concerning the name ” Je'hovah ” when you look at the suffixes of this name and its definition and meaning in original Hebrew.
The suffix of ” hovah “ in the Strongs Exaustive Concordance Hebrew Dictionary is S.E.C.H.D. Number 1943= hovah, ho-vaw; another form for 1942; RUIN:- MISCHIEF, and Number 1942 = hav-vaw; from 1933( in the sence of eagerly coveting and rushing upon; by implication of FALLING; desire; ALSO RUIN;- calamity, INIQUITY, MISCHIEF, MISCHIEVIOUS THING, NAUGHTINESS, NAUGHTY, NOISOME, PERVERSE THING, SUBSTANCE, VERY WICKEDNESS end of quote from the definitions of Strongs Hebrew Concordance.
Isn't that an eye opener and very interesting definition and meaning concerning the meaning of that name?
Who does those definitions and meanings really correspond to and fit?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
