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]
™ Version 4.2