Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread.
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 298 (60016)
10-07-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Prozacman
10-07-2003 7:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Prozacman
Two different groups of people got together with their stories and a Redactor combined the stories, and that's why there are different names for God. That's the history. Anyone care to comment on this?
I'll comment on it . . . you're right!
Also, some notes on the name of God:
Elohim is plural in form, but normally functions as a singular noun. For instance in the opening lines of Genesis, "Bereshith bara Elohim", the verb "bara" is in the Qal masculine singular form.
As has been mentioned, no one is completely sure of the original pronunciation the "YHWH". Because it was, at some point, considered ineffable, the Masoretic scribes pointed the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowel sound indicators of "a-o-a(i)" to remind the Jewish reader to pronounce "adonai" whenever YHWH appeared in the text.
The Germanic translations substituted "J" for the "Y" sound simply because they pronounce the letter "J" as "Y".
Thus, it was the Germanic substitution of "J" for "Y" coupled with the Masoretic vowel indicators "a-o-a(i)" that resulted in the misapprehension that the tetragrammaton should be pronounced as "Jahovah".
There are strong indications that "El" served as an original name of God. Quite possibly of Canaanite origin.
There are also indications that the use of "baal" to refer to God in the generic sense was popular in Hebrew culture before the term was used among the Canaanites for one of their gods. This is apparent in the altered names of some persons in the OT. For example "Ishbosheth" was originally "Ishbaal". The "baal" part of the name was later changed to "bosheth" which translated means "a shameful thing".
It is also possible that the plural form Elohim is a reflection of a pre-monotheistic Hebraic ideology.
One sure thing, it is a complex topic.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Prozacman, posted 10-07-2003 7:49 PM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:20 PM Amlodhi has replied
 Message 38 by Prozacman, posted 10-08-2003 11:47 AM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 298 (60022)
10-07-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 10:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
Genesis 1 is a sequential record of the creation and Genesis 2 is not sequential, nor is it contradictory to Genesis 1.
Without getting into whether Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are contradictory; which I do think is arguable. The fact that there is an abrupt and glaring switch from "Elohim" to "YHWH Elohim" precisely at the break beginning with Ch. 2 vs. 4, is at the very least intensely curious and suggestive of multiple authorship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 10:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 298 (60026)
10-07-2003 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by sidelined
10-07-2003 10:53 PM


Hello sidelined,
quote:
Originally posted by sidelined
I am curious as to how genesis 3:5 is to be explained.All the variations I have seen translate the first elohim as God (singular) and the second elohim as gods(plural)Why do the translators all make that same distinction?
The KJV has "gods" in the second instance, but many other versions translate both occurances as "God".
The translation of "gods" in the KJV is untenable in the light of Gen. 3:22, "And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil . . ." While the "us" in this verse does denote plurality (or as some would have it, the Trinity), it is nevertheless clear that (in one form or another) YHWH Himself is included here.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 10:53 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 298 (60112)
10-08-2003 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 11:20 PM


The name game
Hello buzsaw,
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
My understanding is that this was not the case with the earlier scribes. They were very meticulous to copy every jot, tittle and letter exactly as written in the manuscript of scripture they copied from. The vowels would be determined by tradition and were likely traditionally determined by the phonics of the consonents.
As I say, no one really knows for sure and your argument can't be disregarded. At an early stage in the development of the language, some consonants did indeed begin to function as vowel indicators. These were primarily "Heh" (to indicate "a" class vowels); "Yod" (to indicate "e" & "i" class vowels) and "Vav" (to indicate "o" & "u" class vowels. Hebrew grammarians even coined the term "matres lectionis" (mothers of reading) to refer to these consonants. Tradition also played a large part in determining pronunciation.
There are however, specific rules of vocalization and syllable divisions that govern the vowel pointing. Applying the vocalization of "adonai" to the tetragrammaton necessitates changing the compound sheva under the non-gutteral yod to a simple sheva. The resultant form is: Yod (pointed with simple sheva), Heh (pointed with {c}holem; Vav (pointed with qame{t}s); then the final Heh. Thus, the apparent pronunciation of YeHoVaH from a form in which the Jewish reader pronounces adonai. This transliteration of YeHoVaH (pronounced the same but spelled "JeHoVaH" in the German language)did not actually come into use until the time of the Protestant Reformation.
Were it not for the proscription against pronouncing the Name, the grammatical rules of vocalization would most likely have resulted in the vowel pointing of: Yod (pointed with pata{c}h}; Heh (pointed with silent sheva); Vav (pointed with segol) then Heh; thus pronounced as either "Yah-weh" or "Yah-veh".
quote:
buzsaw:
It was solely the unfounded superstition of the Jews who had departed from good standing with God that they enjoyed in the earlier history of the nation before this superstition existed, imo.
This is too uncharitable. It is quite likely that the Jews did not originally refrain from speaking the Name of God due to any superstition. They were, rather, so intensely concerned with not transgressing the Mosaic law that they would avoid even approaching the outer boundary of transgressing these laws; later sages would term this practice "building a fence around the law". Thus, in the sense of "playing it safe", they refrained from speaking the name lest they inadvertantly blaspheme or use the Name in vain.
quote:
buzsaw
. . . my purpose in this thread has been to sort out all the misconceptions about this topic and to dispel them by factual information from the credible sources I've drawn. . .
That's a tall order. It should be worth at least an honorary doctorate if you're successful.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 298 (60114)
10-08-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 11:33 PM


say again?
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
. . . one explanation for this may be that as no other gods were in the picture during evenings and mornings of creation, it would be assumed that the god/elohim of creation was Jehovah without reference to the name.
But the abrupt name change occurs at the Gen. 2:4. What other gods were "in the picture" during the events of chapters 2 & 3?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 298 (60137)
10-08-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Prozacman
10-08-2003 11:47 AM


Hi Prozacman,
quote:
Originally posted by Prozacman
Thankyou Amlodhi; I'll have to study what you've just written because I am obviously a freshman on this subject while you're apparently a senior!
I am fast approaching senior status, unfortunately however, it is not in the same sense of senior that you so kindly intended. But thank you anyway.
I have combined points #1 and #4 and will deal with them last.
quote:
Prozacman:
2. Why were ancient Jews(& even Jews nowadays)not allowed to say the name of YHWH? What's so incredibly cosmically important about the "name" of a god?
In case you overlook my previous answer to buzsaw, I will reproduce the thought here:
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
It was solely the unfounded superstition of the Jews who had departed from good standing with God that they enjoyed in the earlier history of the nation before this superstition existed, imo.
This is too uncharitable. It is quite likely that the Jews did not originally refrain from speaking the Name of God due to any superstition. They were, rather, so intensely concerned with not transgressing the Mosaic law that they would avoid even approaching the outer boundary of transgressing these laws; later sages would term this practice "building a fence around the law". Thus, in the sense of "playing it safe", they refrained from speaking the name lest they inadvertantly blaspheme or use the Name in vain.
quote:
Prozacman:
3. Thanks for setting me straight on "J&Y". During my life as a Gigantopithicus several thousand years ago, I read about the German translation of Y into J(somewhere),& then I forgot all about it. I'll have to find that reference.
Jah, mein Herr? Ein Gigantopithicus? Ach du Leiber!
quote:
Prozacman:
5. Can you elaborate on how, when, and why, for example, "Ishbaal became Ishbosheth?
The term "baal" simply meant "master" or "lord" and was one of the generic terms used as an honorific for the Hebrew God. Because the word became particularly associated with the Canaanite gods, the practice was discontinued and names containing the term were either altered (or later edited) to reflect the change.
Compare I Chr. 8:33 ". . . and Saul begat . . . Esh-baal."
with: II Sam. 2:10 "Ish-bosheth, Saul's son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel . . ."
II Sam. is a polyglot of earlier and later sources so I'll leave it to you to work out the implications of the comparative dating. Good luck.
quote:
Prozacman:
1. I have heard that 'Elohim' contains a feminine aspect. Do you know anything about this?
4. I'm aware of the Canaanite name 'El' for God. Do you possibly know some history behind how 'El' ended up in the OT?
As I mentioned to buzsaw, this subject is extremely controversial and complex.
As to #1: Basically, "-im" is a masculine plural suffix. It has been contended that it is constructed from "Eloah". The "-ah" suffix usually (but not always) indicates feminine gender.
As to #4: As is the case with "baal", there are various contentions. One is that "El" was originally the Name of the God worshipped in the Semitic Middle East. Another is that "el" was a generic term for God which was later adapted as a proper name for a particular diety (i.e. El or sometimes Bull El) by some Semitic groups.
Add to this the further confusion that has been precipitated by the conjectured connection between El and Allah.
Though I don't read Arabic, some scholars say that Allah is constructed from "al" (the) - "Ilah" (god). Not only is there a similarity between "Ilah" and "Eloah" but also, an alternate spelling of "El" is "Il".
In addition:
quote:
(Excerpted in its entirety from cite link provided below):
"The root al, the root of the word Aleim, as a verb or it its verbal form, means to mediate, to interpose for protection, to perserve; and a noun, a mediator, an interposer. In its feminine its has two forms ale, and alue. In its plural masculine it makes alim, in is plural feminine aleim."
The similarity between "aleim" and "elohim" being obvious.
For further interesting information regarding these etymologies, I have included the following link from which the above excerpt was taken:
Plim Report Welcome
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Prozacman, posted 10-08-2003 11:47 AM Prozacman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2003 12:30 AM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 298 (60349)
10-09-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
10-09-2003 12:30 AM


Paranoia?
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
I don't know how much Biblical history of Israel you know or whether you are aware of the warnings God gave about when they as his people disobeyed. . .
I've read a book or two. We can discuss it if you'd like, but I don't see it as being relevant to this issue.
quote:
buzsaw:
. . . paranoia . . . groundless superstition.
P.S. The prejudicial terms and adjectives that color your rhetoric reveal much about you.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2003 12:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2003 11:37 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 298 (60371)
10-10-2003 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
10-09-2003 11:37 PM


Re: Paranoia?
quote:
Previously posted by buzsaw
4. As I've said before and I repeat, until the Jews had moved away from their close relationship they once enjoyed with their god that they developed this reluctance from speaking his name . . .
quote:
Most recently posted by buzsaw
Yah sure, and personal insultive inuendos add nothing to augment your arguments, nor do they refute my factual statements, do they?
Two observations:
1)Your point #4 reproduced above is not a "factual statement". It is an unsupported assertion.
2)Why would you consider my comment an insulting inuendo? You did use the prejudicial terms "paranoia" and "groundless superstition" in regard to Jewish religious practices; didn't you?
You would not, then, consider me to be prejudiced if I were to say that you only practice the tenets of your religion because of your "paranoia" and that your religious practices are based on "groundless superstition"?
Or would your own words, aimed back at yourself, have more of a sting?
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2003 11:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2003 8:24 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 298 (60428)
10-10-2003 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Prozacman
10-10-2003 11:45 AM


Hello Prozacman,
Please excuse the interjection, but the term "paranoia" indicates a condition of either psychosis or (at best) extreme irrationality.
Also, John has provided a link to some information in regard to when speaking the Name first began to be avoided. The theories concerning this are based on whether or not the name appears in certain books of the bible and the relative dating of these (or parts of these) books. There are also references regarding the proscription of using the Name in some of the later rabbinical writings.
According to these estimations, while by 300 b.c. the Name was no longer spoken, it is suspected that the disuse of the Name began in the last years of the Babylonian exile.
Two possible reasons given for this avoidance are, "(due) to reverence . . ." (so Geiger); and "to guard against desecration . . ." (so Dalman).
There has been no support given for the assertion that it was a "falling away" from God that precipitated the disuse of the Name.
A far more likely explanation is that this practice began as a result of the Jews being resident in a foreign country, coupled with the fact that their religious services would consequently take the form of "synagogue" meetings and "rabbinical discussions" of Mosaic law as opposed to the former temple worship conducted by the priests.
Regardless of one's opinions regarding this, however, the unsupported assertion that these Jewish religious sentiments and practices were due to "paranoia" (psychosis, irrationality) and "groundless superstition" is both prejudicial and inflammatory.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Prozacman, posted 10-10-2003 11:45 AM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Prozacman, posted 10-10-2003 3:04 PM Amlodhi has not replied
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2003 8:54 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 298 (60489)
10-10-2003 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
10-10-2003 8:24 PM


Re: Paranoia?
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
I've had it that after the Babylonian exile, they had one short lived time of mediocre revival and pretty much went downhill and into obscurity from then on with the norther tribes (Israel) dispersing and Judah delving in to much of the idolatry that did Israel in. Then as Jesus and the prophets prophesied, Judah became dispersed all over the planet. The prophets all warned them it would be so and indeed it was. Where'm I goin wrong here with my history?
Well, to begin with, the northern tribes (Israel) were already dispersed and long gone by the time of the Babylonian exile. Assyria conquered and dispersed Israel in 722 b.c. Shalmaneser had just died and Sargon II finished the job. It was this period after 722 b.c. that Judea (the southern kingdom) fell into idolatry and followed after the ways of Israel.
The destruction of Solomon's temple and the Babylonian captivity didn't occur until 136 years later in 586 b.c. It was then in c. 538 b.c. that Cyrus conquered Babylonia and issued the decree for the Judeans to return to their homeland and build the second temple.
Thus, if the Jewish avoidance of speaking the Name began to occur in the last decades of the exile, we are looking at c. 558 -538 b.c. After this point, from the building of the second temple through the Hasmonean period, not only was there no specified "falling away", but (once again) the verbal avoidance regarding the Name had already begun.
In fact, in the years immediately following the captivity, in the time of Ezra, there was a strong return to adherence to the law; including the requirement that the Judeans who were married to foreign wives were to "put them away". It would be quite easy to suspect that it was during this "return to the law" campaign that the avoidance in speaking the Name became solidified.
And of course, the later "prophesies" concerning the fall of the second temple in 70 a.d. are completely irrelevant.
There is the history for you. If you would like to present some support for your assertion (such as; When did this "falling away" occur? And how was it different than, say, Judea's falling away in the 6th century b.c.?), I will be happy to listen. Until such support is provided, however, your assertion remains, ipso facto, unsupported.
quote:
buzsaw:
Ok, ok. Paranoia was not the right word.
It's not a federal case. Just something many people need to be more conscious of.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2003 8:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 10-15-2003 1:27 AM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 298 (72227)
12-11-2003 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
12-10-2003 8:43 PM


Re: Reply to your simple question for Buzsaw
Hi buzsaw,
Abshalom is correct about the vowel indicators being transposed from the term "adonai", however, it was not originated by a cult, eggheaded or otherwise.
יהוה is the tetragrammaton indicating the covenant Name of God. At some point in the history of the Jewish people it began to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced. Thus, pious readers would pronounce "adonai" whenever יהוה appeared in the text.
When the Masoretic scholars added the diacritical vowel pointing to the consonantal text of the Hebrew scriptures, they inserted the vowel points of אֲדֹנָי (adonai) into יהוה as a reminder that "adonai" should be pronounced aloud rather than "the Name".
The grammatical rules governing the insertion of these vowels into יהוה required the compound sheva ( ֲ ) to be modified to simple sheva ( ְ ) under the non-gutteral yod ( י ). This resulted in the form יְהֹוָה which was always pronounced "adonai".
Had the pointing of יהוה followed the consonantal indications instead of adopting the points of "adonai" it would, most likely, have been pointed as יַהְוֶה and, as such, pronounced as "Yahveh" or "Yahweh".
The misguided process of pronouncing the Name itself with the interspersed vowel points adopted from "adonai" began around the time of the Protestant reformation. This coupled with the fact that the "Y" sound was written as "J" in the German language (as well as the late addition of "J" to the English language) resulted in the modern mis-pronunciation of יְהֹוָה as "Jehovah".
Namaste'
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-11-2003]
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2003 8:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Abshalom, posted 12-11-2003 11:00 AM Amlodhi has not replied
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2003 5:41 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 298 (72367)
12-11-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
12-11-2003 5:41 PM


Re: Reply to your simple question for Buzsaw
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
1. That the superstitious idea emerged after the fact of the original texts the the name YHWH shouldn't be spoken does not make them right and deterioriates/liberalizes the purity and literacy of the original intent of the text.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2003 5:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2003 11:25 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 298 (72433)
12-11-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
12-11-2003 11:25 PM


Re: Reply to your simple question for Buzsaw
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
So what vowels would they have spoken so as to translate YHWH?
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:
buzsaw
Yaweh fits the ticket for speaking the consonent Hebrew name.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2003 11:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2003 11:54 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 298 (72448)
12-12-2003 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
12-11-2003 11:54 PM


Re: Reply to your simple question for Buzsaw
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:
Had the pointing of יהוה (read from right to left; YHWH) followed the consonantal indications instead of adopting the points of "adonai" it would, most likely, have been pointed as יַהְוֶה and, as such, pronounced as "Yahveh" or "Yahweh".
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2003 11:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2003 1:08 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 298 (72609)
12-12-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Buzsaw
12-12-2003 2:21 PM


Re: Reply to your simple question for Buzsaw
Hi buzsaw,
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
Nor has anyone refuted that the proper modern English pronunciation of Yehowah/Yahweh is Jehovah.
Actually, this has been refuted quite soundly.
The tradition of the ineffable name doctrine resulting in the substitution of "adonai" is verified in myriad sources including the mishnah, the masorah and the apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
You have been shown the exact vowels points that were used in the Masoretic texts.
If you will look in the book "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible", by Emanuel Tov, pg.392, plate 12, you can see a photo reproduction of Exod. 14:28 - 15:14 from the Leningrad codex (B19) dated c. 1010 a.d.. There you will see the tetragrammaton (YHWH) pointed with the vowels of "adonai".
Several sources verify that this hybrid vowel pointing is a grammatical impossibility if it were intended that the consonants of the tetragrammaton were to be pronounced. These sources include:
"... commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah", which, however is a philological impossibility." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 9: p. 160).
"Jehovah: A mispronunciation of the Hebrew "YHWH," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragramrnaton or 'Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible ... (ibid. vol. 7: p. 87)."
"To give the name YHWH the vowels of the word for Lord (Heb. Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah, is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal." ("The Emphasized Bible", Joseph Bryant Rotherham)
All of which is nicely summed up by the Encyclopedic dictionary of the Bible:
"Jehovah, a hybrid form for the divine name which originated in the mistaken idea that the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH (really pronounced "Yahweh"), were to be read with the vowel points found with them in the Masoretic Text... thus by combining these vowels with the consonants of the Tetragramrnaton, the mongrel form, "Yehowah," came into being, which with the English consonant j in place of the y and with the German pronunciation of the w as v, produced in turn the quaint form of "Jehovah." (Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, p. 1109).
You, buzsaw, are welcome to "believe" anything you want. As for any lurkers on this board, they can evaluate the above evidence and contrast it with your less than compelling speculation that; "if you say Yahweh kind of slow you could make an "o" sound and somehow end up pronouncing the whole thing "Jehovah". I'll leave it for them to decide, but as far as I'm concerned, this case is closed.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2003 2:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Abshalom, posted 12-13-2003 8:48 AM Amlodhi has not replied
 Message 143 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2003 9:00 AM Amlodhi has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024