|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
spin Inactive Member |
Yahweh is probably not the correct pronunciation anyway, it is not certain it is correct and there is evidence pointing towards the Divine Name having three syllables rather than two like Yahweh.
On what philological evidence exactly is this supposition of three syllables based on??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Firebird Inactive Member |
Hi again wmscott,
That is just it, we don't have the original, we can 'reconstruct' them by comparing different copies we do have and weeding out errors by the pattern of appearance This can be done, but it is not called 'translation'!. Please refer to my post 99, which quotes the NWT translators specifically claiming that their inspired source is the NTs in Greek, which they regard as inspired. If these do not contain something that should be translated as "Jehovah", why should the translation?
In short, there are a number of ways of figuring out what the original verse was. One of those methods is when the NT quotes from the OT, the wording of the NT verse should read like the OT. When God's name was used in that verse in the OT, then it was undoubtably in the NT verse. Why "undoubtedly"? People can misquote, sometimes unintentionally, often deliberately, to make a point. Also, often differences in original and quote reflect the thought processes of the quoter, for instance if a quoter did not wish to pronounce the name of the god. As Arachnophilia points out, there are examples of discrepancies in NT quotes and OT source in Matthew.
Some people miss the point that it is not so important how you pronounce something, as it is that people understand what you say.
Then surely God can hear and understand the people who address Him as "Lord" and are trying to reach and obey Him? How can it be so important to Him that they address Him by an incorrect name?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Did Yhwh develop from Yah? Here are some examples of early usage on inscriptions.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~imaging/negev/Names.html |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Hi, Arach, help me out here. If the Tetragrammaton is too sacred to pronounce, why are so many Jewish names and expressions using the short form 'Yah'? E.g. Elijah, Nehemiah,Netanyahu, Jehosaphat? lol netanyahu, hadn't tought of that one. if i had to venture a guess, i'd say it's because the names pre-date the tradition of avoiding in the name. every evidence in the bible points to the earlier hebrews having no problems using the name of god, so long as they didn't frivolously throw it around (using the name in vain). it also might have something to with ONLY the name itself being sacred, and not derivitaves of it, like nicknames (ie: yah).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
spin Inactive Member |
There is a surprising number of names in the Hebrew bible which are really -yahu (YHW) names, Jeremiah = Yirmiyahu, Isaiah = Yisayahu, Zechariah = Zacharyahu.
(Netanyahu is the same as Yehonatan, ie Jonathan.) The Elephantine texts (circa 5th c. BCE) use YHW for the divine name. At the waystation across the Negeb from Gaza, Kuntillet Ajrud (late 9th c. BCE), inscriptions were found there that gave northern names which ended in YW (where the intervocalic HE was lost). Also at Kuntillet Ajrud were found mention of YHWH W )$RTH, usually translated as Yahweh and his Asherah, but this may not be correct. The T in )$RTH is a feminine indicator which only appears in Hebrew when a suffix is attached, otherwise the feminine usually ends in H. This therefore suggests that the two names both have a suffix -H and there names should be YHW and )$RH, Yahu and Asherah. (It is strange for names to have suffixes however.) I'm suggesting here that the divine name may have been not a tetragrammaton, but a trigrammaton at least in the early part of the millennium. This would explain all those YHW names that don't get correctly translated into English. This message has been edited by spin, 12-18-2004 02:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6248 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Spin;
quote:I agree entirely, I use "Jehovah" because it is the way the Name has been used in English and people know who you are talking about. I never claimed it was the way the Hebrews pronounced the Name. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6248 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Arachnophilia;
quote:Like I said before, this is a non issue and is also getting off topic. The NWT like all modern translations, uses the Masoretic Hebrew text. I checked your link and did some checking and found that your link glossed over some important details that negated their argument. Here is a quote from a web site that summed it up nicely. quote:http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter7.html I would probably disagree with a few minor points on that web site, for example when NT writers quote from the Septuagint and that verse differs significantly from the Masoretic text, since the NT writers wrote under inspiration, I would say that in that verse the Septuagint has the correct rendering. I would also think that since under this premiss, the NT quotes reveal errors in the Masoretic text, there are probably a few more that we don't know about which high lights why it is unwise to base a doctrine on just a few words in a single verse.
quote:Psalms 83:18 "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."-- King James. That is not a mistake, the verse is VERY clear in what it states. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6248 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Spin;
quote:Truthfully I don't know. I haven't researched it because the exact ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the Divine Name is not known for sure and all such arguments fall short of total certainty. They end up being more of historical interest in how the Name may have been pronounced. I did see one web site on this when I was looking for something else, and the argument seemed to be based on the meter in songs in which the Name was used, that to fit, the Name had to have three syllables. I have also heard arguments that YHWH had an 'O' vowel sound in it, so if you combine the two lines of thought you come up with 'Yahoweh.' If you do a search on the web using that spelling you will find some sites on it, but you can probably take all kinds of different spelling variations of Yahweh and find web sites proclaiming that each one is the one and only correct name of God. Part of the reason why I don't get too excited over using 'Yahweh' instead of Jehovah, since the pronunciation is uncertain, I might as well use what I am the most familiar with and most people already know as God's name. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wmscott Member (Idle past 6248 days) Posts: 580 From: Sussex, WI USA Joined: |
Dear Firebird;
quote:Because the OT is inspired too. When the NT quotes the OT, the Name should be retained. quote:In the case in question, the quoter was an inspired Bible writer working under the influence of the holy spirit quoting from a OT verse with the Name in it, not wishing to pronounce the Name is not a possibility since such a person wouldn't be entrusted as a writer. quote:Of course. Jehovah can read hearts and knows our intentions better than we do ourselves. While using the Name is not necessary to worship God, using it adds to it, like addressing your prayers "Jehovah God-". Using God's Name shows respect for him and shows that we have an interest in getting to know him as a person, as a friend. Using God's name is important when dealing with people who don't know Jehovah. He isn't Allah or some other god, he is Jehovah God Almighty the creator of all things. Whether you use the name Yahweh, Yahoweh or Jehovah, using the Name serves to separate who you are talking about from all the false gods and nonsense that is out there. It clearly clarifies who and what you are talking about. Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The NWT like all modern translations, uses the Masoretic Hebrew text. actually, most modern translations use both sources. even my jps masoretic text will use something from the septuagint here and there.
I checked your link and did some checking and found that your link glossed over some important details that negated their argument. Here is a quote from a web site that summed it up nicely. i wasn't posting that as a trusted source, i was posting it as a demonstration of what could be found on google in about two seconds. aside from glossing over some things, it failed to mention another fact -- BOTH versions of jeremiah were found at qumran.
"jehovah" is an aberation, and occurs in exactly .06% of the instances of YHWH in the kjv text. Psalms 83:18 "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."-- King James. That is not a mistake, the verse is VERY clear in what it states. "whose name is lord" would work too, since names evoke power. you're misunderstanding the point. the name YHWH occurs 6519 times in the masoretic text.the KVJ translates it "LORD" 6510 times. the KJV translates it "Jehovah" 4 times. the KJV translates it "God" 4 times. the KJV translates it as something else 1 time. i'd tell you what the other one was, but it would take sorting through 5521 verses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Because the OT is inspired too. When the NT quotes the OT, the Name should be retained. so the nt is imperfect?
He isn't Allah or some other god, he is Jehovah God Almighty the creator of all things. Whether you use the name Yahweh, Yahoweh or Jehovah, using the Name serves to separate who you are talking about from all the false gods and nonsense that is out there. It clearly clarifies who and what you are talking about. then i pose the original question again: shouldn't the name matter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
spin Inactive Member |
Wm Scott Anderson writes:
This is not particularly meaningful. The first people who brought England the Hebrew literature used the notion that the name was ineffable and followed the tradition of those who came before them substituting the "Lord" for the ineffable name. That was a good hundred years or so before Pietro Colonna Galatino -- or Petrus Galatinus -- (is attributed to have) made up the basic form of "Iehoua" (Jehovah) from parts of Hebrew forms of the verb to be, circa 1520 CE, though there were previous attempts at representing the tetragrammaton. (Romance languages tend to use more vowels than most other languages.) I use "Jehovah" because it is the way the Name has been used in English and people know who you are talking about. When Tyndale published his translation of the Torah, he used IEHOUAH, where the "U" functions as the consonant for which we now have "w". Thus Tyndale was using the form which preceded him some ten years from Galatino. Tyndale's novelty of supplying the ineffable name was put aside when with the new translation under King James I, which returned to the long tradition of substituting the "Lord" to indicate the name. English pronunciation has changed since Tyndale's time. His "Dauid", which is close to the Hebrew pronounced something like "dah-wid", has become "David" ("day-vud"). "Iohn" has become "John". What Tyndale wrote as IEHOUAH was pronounced quite differently from what you say with Jehovah. What we have with Jehovah, is a mishmash of influences which relate little to the original name or how it should be written or pronounced, and more to changes in English pronunciation. While most people have followed the long tradition of not using the name directly, for some reason there are others who prefer to use a misconceived representation of the divine name based on errors of the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
seeker02421 Inactive Member |
Arachnophilia said:
>>>the name YHWH occurs 6519 times in the masoretic text. the KVJ translates it "LORD" 6510 times. the KJV translates it "Jehovah" 4 times. the KJV translates it "God" 4 times. the KJV translates it as something else 1 time. >>> Strong's Hebrew word #3068 [Yehovah] occurs about 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text which underlies the Old Testamen of the KJV. Strong's Hebrew word #3069 [Yehovih] also occurs in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.It occurs 305 times, when "YHWH" and "Adonay" are found adjacent to each other in the Hebrew text. The KJV translates Hebrew word #3069 as "GOD" [in all capital letters] YHWH [in those two spellings] is found 6823 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, according to the BDB Lexicon. In Judges 16:28 of the KJV,Hebrew word #3068 is translated as LORD [in all capitals], while Hebrew word #3069 is translated as GOD [in all capitals]. Seeker02421
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
3068 and 3069 are not different words, exactly. remember the original had no vowels, so vowel differences are added by later editors, to avoid repitition. 3068 has the vowels for adonay and 3069 the vowels for elohym, so that when the text says "yhwh yhwh" they would say "lord god" just like when it says "yhwh elhym"
both are actually the same name. but i do suppose i made a goof in the stats, by just looking up the strong's reference. however, the idea still stands: the name YHWH occurs 6824 times in the masoretic text.the KVJ translates it "LORD" 6511 times. the KJV translates it "Jehovah" 4 times. the KJV translates it "God" 308 times. the KJV translates it as something else 1 time. in fact this means that jehovah is statistically a smaller average: .058% instead of .061%. even "god" a literally innaccurate rendering, occurs 4.5% of the time, and we know this one is technically wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
seeker02421 Inactive Member |
Hebrew word #3068 [e.g. "Yehovah"] is translated:
JEHOVAH [in all capitals] at Exodus 6:3 [KJV]JEHOVAH [in all capitals] at Psalm 83:18 [KJV] JEHOVAH [in all capitals] at Isaiah 12:2 [KJV] JEHOVAH [in all capitals] at Isaiah 26:4 [KJV] Jehovah-jireh at Genesis 22:14 [KJV]Jehovah-nissi at Exodus 17:15 [KJV] Jehovah-shalom at Judges 6:24 [KJV] GOD [in all capitals] at 2 Samuel 12:22 [KJV] 2 Samuel 12:22 [KJV] may be the only verse in the KJVwhere Hebrew word #3068 is translated as GOD [in all capitals] seeker02421
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024