|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Hmmmmm ... so even the first letter of God's own proper name has evolved during the relatively recent past ... linguistically speaking.
"... clearly, I say clearly ..." Buzz Bullwinkle Saw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: Whether or not the vowel points of "adonai" were applied to "YHWH" as the result of "superstition" is irrelevant. The fact remains that the Name itself was not intended to be pronounced with those vowel sounds. As to "Y" versus "J", I was merely explaining how the "J" vocalization originated. Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Interesting. Abshalom, I think you are familiar with the subject, can you give me the original Hebrew/Aramaic(or whatever langage it was first written) text for those verses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
"... clearly, I say clearly ..." Buzz Bullwinkle Saw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Are you going to yada and insult, Abshalom, or are you going to answer my question in post 120? ------------------The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7042 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Wow, now that's quite the change. For once, I get to see Buzsaw bother someone else to try and get an answer to his questions. The end must be nearer than we thought.... ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Whether or not the vowel points of "adonai" were applied to "YHWH" as the result of "superstition" is irrelevant. The fact remains that the Name itself was not intended to be pronounced with those vowel sounds. That the Jews did not write vowels does not mean theat they did not speak them phonetically. So what vowels would they have spoken so as to translate YHWH? Yaweh fits the ticket for speaking the consonent Hebrew name. They did btw speak as well as write the name YHWH before the superstition emerged, which included most of their history.
As to "Y" versus "J", I was merely explaining how the "J" vocalization originated. You were also contending that using the J is miss-pronunciation which I factually refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Wow, now that's quite the change. For once, I get to see Buzsaw bother someone else to try and get an answer to his questions. The end must be nearer than we thought.... Well, Rei madear, but Abshalom chose the low insultive road in response rather than to either remain silent or concede to the facts. Then too, if A. chooses not to answer my question for whatever reason, I'll do the Christian thing and not bug him/her adnausium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: I have supplied the exact vowels that would be used for the most likely pronunciation of Yahweh in my post #112. Please let me know if you have trouble understanding the vowel points and I will further explain any part that is causing you difficulty.
quote: Indeed it does. Isn't that what I said in post #112? This is beginning to get tedious. Namaste' Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I see I need to clarify my question. What vowels would have been phonetically spoken before the taboo of speaking the name prevailed, that is when they were actually both speaking and writing the name?
What I am driving at here is that since you claim the vowels a and e were derived from the taboo, borrowing the vowels from adonai, I'm saying adonai had nothing to do with the usage of a and e in phonetically speaking or translating the name, as they would have been always the normal natural vowels spoken phonetically. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7042 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Praise be to Yihawaha; hallowed be His name. When we call out in our time of need, Yuwheh hears us. When we rejoyce, Yahiwuhi rejoices with us; for Yihwihu is the Lord our God. Praise be to Yuhuwh, the highest; praise be to yahuwuhi the all-powerful; praise be to the Lord Yihiwihi.
C'mon, Buz- how was it originally pronounced? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Most English scholars use the Yahweh spelling and pronunciation because it is phonetically suited rather than that the vowels were borrowed from another word. I would assume the Hebrews would have done likewise, but admittedly that can not be proven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi buzsaw,
I understood your question fine. The vowels are there in post #112 as I indicated. I will reproduce the relevant section below:
quote: IOW, יַהְוֶה is how it would have probably been pointed (had there been no reluctance to pronounce the Name aloud) because this is how it was probably pronounced by the ancient Jews in its original unpointed form. Note the vowel points: (ַ){patah} = "a" as in car (ְ){sheva} = This is a "silent sheva"; no vowel break. (ֶ){segol} = "e" as in met Ergo, the pronunciation - "Yahweh" When the vowel points of אֲדֹנָי (adonai) were inserted into יהוה (YHWH), however, it resulted in the final form יְהֹוַה Note the vowels: (ְ){sheva} = This is a "vocal sheva" and is pronounced as the first "e" in "severe". (ֹ){cholem}= "o" as in row (ַ){patah} = "a" as in car Ergo, if the Name were improperly pronounced using these vowels (as opposed to substituting "adonai" as the later Jews did) the pronunciation would be Yehovah. Note also, that in post #112 I stated that it was the vocalizing of the vowel sounds of "adonai" while pronouncing the consonantal sounds of YHWH that was misquided (and it was). The second sentence of my paragraph simply stated that it was the later ambiguity regarding "Y" and "J" that led to the modern (though still mispronounced) form of "Jehovah". Hope that helps. Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-12-2003] [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
In Post #120 Buzsaw asks, "Pronounced by whom in English-speaking nations?"
Answer: By anyone who wishes to perpetuate the traditional pronounciation of their family name, for instance: Johannson. Should a person who lives in Wisconsin (locally pronounced "Wiz-kahn-zin" or alternately "Ouiz-ghan-zuhn" by some Canadiens)change their the spelling of their name to "Yoe-hahn-zin" simply because the English-speaking residents of Wisconsin pronounce Johannson that way? If they move to Nawlins, Loo-wee-zee-anna, should the Johannson family change the spelling of their name to "Yahw-haan-sun?" I have friends who's family names are Jochim, Joest, and Jaeger, and have been spelled that way for generations. Should these folks now change their names on all official documents and in the telephone listings to Yochum, Yost, and Yeahgur simply to satisfy the "official proper letter" usage? Must the music industry reprint all the title blocks on sheet music to reflect the official English pronounciation of Yoe-hahn Sea-bass-chun Bock? Names are important to people, Buzsaw, just as you pointed out when I made light of your forum handle ... and I apologize for that. Apparently even your cyber-handle is important to you. Now, as your post #119, your assertation that "Jehovah is used around 6000 times" in reference to the Diety in the Bible is most likely based upon your count taken from an English translation edition. That's fine if you place all your stock in that particular translation. But let's look at your apparent argument that the sheer weight of usage constitutes an absolute confirmation of its veracity. By the same argument you would have to acknowledge, for example, the Muslem ascertion that simply because Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, it must be the correct religion. I use this only as an example of the type of argument you advance. By the same token, I could have said that simply because more people incorrectly use "irregardless" than the correct usage, "regardless," makes the mistaken usage valid. With regard to the original construction of "Jehovah," please refer once again to Amlodi's superb, informative, and IMHO irrefutable Post #112, wherein the correct background info is provide even including Hebrew font! Excellent work! Post #112 also contains the correct and commonly accepted reason for the original construction of "Jehovah" in order to remind "the pious" to speak "Adonai" when reading the Tetragrammaton. Buzsaw, you can see that this is not a stretch from your own probable religious education that taught you not to take "God's Name in vain." This admonishment is not restricted to using the name of one's diety in a string of curses ... that is a more vile offense yet. "Taking the Lord's Name in vain" could be as simple for some pious obervants as saying, "God almighty, this weather is gonna kill me!" The point here is that over the centuries, individuals committed to developing what they feel is correct verbal behavior for religious observance have created neat little observances, and actually they were not all created in "English-speaking nations," or spelled out in the alphabetic characters pursuant to Angliophiles. Now as to your idea "that the superstitious idea emerged after the fact of the original texts the name YHVH shouldn't be spoken does not make them right and deteriorates/liberalizes the purity and literacy of the original intent of the text." That is a lot of stuff to deal with at one time. 1) Do you categorize the pious attempt to preserve the sanctity of The Name as "superstition?" 2) Do you actually believe that God delivered the content of the original text to Moses in King James version English as "Jehovah?" 3) Do you really categorize what appears to the rest of the theological world as a "conservative" measure to remain "orthodox" in the observant reading of a holy text as "liberalization?" Chew on that, respond if you like, or totally ignore it while I unravel or return to the subject of taking the name of a diety in vain. Again, it is only an opinion; but I think the Exodus story clearly shows that Moses, in his openly defiant and insistent arguments with his Lord (think about that one for a moment), demanded that his Lord supply him with a unique Name by which no one else previously had known this Lord. The obvious purpose for Moses' insistence on knowledge of the most secret and sacred Name is that it would empower Moses in his appointed task to 1) Return with protection to the scene of his capital crime, 2) Rebel with impunity against the supreme secular and civil authority of the Pharoah, 3) Evoke and demonstrate that his magic was more powerful than the well-known and potent magical powers of all the priests of all the gods of Egypt, 4) Convince or otherwise frighten the entire Hebrew population of Egypt to follow him into a wasteland on a hastily planned, forty-year trek, and 5) Divest the Egyptian royalty and economy of a huge workforce and tons of gold, silver, and jewelry. Moses knew ahead of time that he would be asked by everyone he encountered or encouraged to heed his demands, "Dude, in whose name do you beseach us to do these incredibly rediculous things?" Or, "where the hell are you coming from, man?" You know, something along the lines of "Look you crazy bush-league upstart, you sure better have a supernatural pitching arm, because Pharoah Steinbrenner has all the gods of Egypt in his starting line-up." Okay, so it worked out for Moses. Why? Because he asked and received the most Almighty Name with which to evoke a Power that superceded all the lesser powers of Egypt ... or so the story goes. Now, in that light, Buzsaw, do you find it "superstitious, liberalizing, deleterious, or impure" for subsequent devotees to the Lord of Moses' established religion to take measures to protect The Name from potential misuse or abuse? And in closing, Buzsaw, may the Hollidaj Season bring ju and jour familj much Yoj and Happiness. A'shalom, L'cHaim, and Allallujah! [This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Rei, as you must well know by now, "the future's uncertain, and the end is always near." (J. Morrison, RIP)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Buzsaw, I just came across your Post #127.
1) I again apologize for "taking the low, insultive road" by calling you Bullwinkle. At the time your phrasing of the sentence simply called to mind a signature phrasing used by that particular comic character. No real insult was intended, but that does not lessen the offense on my part. Again, sorry. 2) The reason I took so long to respond to your Post #120 is that I had a document to prepare for a public meeting this coming Monday, and by the time I got home, I inadvertently scrambled my forum password last night. Oh well. 3) Whether your future actions or responses are colored by your "Christianity" is up to you, but please be assured that I actually enjoy a lively interaction of ideas regardless of how absurd they may be on either your part or mine. 4) Re: "ad nauseum": Please be reassured that it takes a lot to turn my stomach; however, the "Y" vs. "J" exchange indeed is approaching putrification in some respects. Again, Peace to you and yours [This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-12-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024