Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah?
spin
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 164 (168854)
12-16-2004 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by wmscott
12-15-2004 5:47 PM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by wmscott, posted 12-15-2004 5:47 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:46 PM spin has not replied

  
Firebird
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 164 (169179)
12-16-2004 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by wmscott
12-15-2004 5:47 PM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by wmscott, posted 12-15-2004 5:47 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:49 PM Firebird has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 108 of 164 (169182)
12-16-2004 10:09 PM


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: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 164 (169229)
12-17-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Nighttrain
12-16-2004 7:08 AM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Nighttrain, posted 12-16-2004 7:08 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by spin, posted 12-17-2004 1:50 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
spin
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 164 (169237)
12-17-2004 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by arachnophilia
12-17-2004 1:08 AM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 12-17-2004 1:08 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 111 of 164 (169561)
12-17-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by spin
12-16-2004 1:48 AM


The Name
Dear Spin;
quote:
The form "Yahweh" is supported by the gnostic evidence; it doesn't make any deviant substitutions for letters in the original consonantal form; and has a much better chance of reflecting a hypothetical original pronunciation.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by spin, posted 12-16-2004 1:48 AM spin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by spin, posted 12-18-2004 8:06 AM wmscott has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 112 of 164 (169566)
12-17-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by arachnophilia
12-16-2004 4:14 AM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
Dear Arachnophilia;
quote:
which version of jeremiah does your bible have?
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:
Regardless of who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can safely state that there is little in them that can be used against the Traditional Hebrew Text. In fact, because the evidence from Qumran overwhelming supports the Masoretic Hebrew Text, we must say the findings at Qumran strongly favor the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version. Additionally, as we have seen, findings at Murabbaat and Masada exclusively support the Masoretic Text, proving that the established text accepted as the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2) was the Traditional Hebrew Text.
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:
"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.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 12-16-2004 4:14 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 12-18-2004 3:24 AM wmscott has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 113 of 164 (169567)
12-17-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by spin
12-16-2004 8:33 AM


Truthfully I don't know.
Dear Spin;
quote:
(there is evidence pointing towards the Divine Name having three syllables)- On what philological evidence exactly is this supposition of three syllables based on??
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by spin, posted 12-16-2004 8:33 AM spin has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 114 of 164 (169570)
12-17-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Firebird
12-16-2004 10:05 PM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
Dear Firebird;
quote:
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?
Because the OT is inspired too. When the NT quotes the OT, the Name should be retained.
quote:
if a quoter did not wish to pronounce the name of the god.
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:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Firebird, posted 12-16-2004 10:05 PM Firebird has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by arachnophilia, posted 12-18-2004 3:25 AM wmscott has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 164 (169650)
12-18-2004 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by wmscott
12-17-2004 6:43 PM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:43 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by seeker02421, posted 01-03-2005 12:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 116 of 164 (169651)
12-18-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by wmscott
12-17-2004 6:49 PM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:49 PM wmscott has not replied

  
spin
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 164 (169682)
12-18-2004 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by wmscott
12-17-2004 6:40 PM


Re: The Name
Wm Scott Anderson writes:
I use "Jehovah" because it is the way the Name has been used in English and people know who you are talking about.
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.)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by wmscott, posted 12-17-2004 6:40 PM wmscott has not replied

  
seeker02421
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 164 (173432)
01-03-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by arachnophilia
12-18-2004 3:24 AM


Re: Translations and Assumptions
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 12-18-2004 3:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 3:04 AM seeker02421 has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 119 of 164 (173658)
01-04-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by seeker02421
01-03-2005 12:45 PM


two yhwh's
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by seeker02421, posted 01-03-2005 12:45 PM seeker02421 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by seeker02421, posted 01-04-2005 10:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
seeker02421
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 164 (173720)
01-04-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by arachnophilia
01-04-2005 3:04 AM


Hebrew word #3068 is one of two spellings of YHWH in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
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 KJV
where Hebrew word #3068 is translated as GOD [in all capitals]
seeker02421

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 3:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by seeker02421, posted 01-05-2005 8:47 AM seeker02421 has not replied
 Message 122 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2005 10:31 PM seeker02421 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