|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Paul:
According to Muhammad, it was the Israelite archangel "Gabriel" who appeared and spoke in a language unfamiliar to Muhammad. Then Muhammad had to ponder over Gabriel's presentation for some time before translating it to a scribe who wrote it down as Muhammed recited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Paul K:
Apparently I should read all other 88 posts in this thread before jumping in. Nevertheless, I'm not certain what constitutes "a pagan god." For example, was El, the god to whom Melchi Tzedek served as high priest in Shalem at the time of Father Abraham, a "pagan god?" Remember, this is the same El that Yetro the Medianite, and Moishe's father-in-law, served as high priest to. Is this apparently Canaanite/Medianite diety, El, the same diety known to Arabs as "Allah?" On another track, what seems to make "supreme" dieties appear "pagan" in some folks' reckoning is that some of these dieties are accompanied by consorts (Ashtar, Oester, etc.) or by "heavenly hosts." (I think I was told that the three demigods associated with Allah before Muhammad dissed them out where known as the "Fates" or entities representing like maybe "wind, fire," etc.) Anyway, if a supreme god having a consort or being accompanied by heavenly hosts constitutes being "a pagan god," then we are all walking on very thin ice. Remember that YHVH is attributed to have said something like "let us (elohim) make man." Now some theologogs will tell you that the plural use of "Elohim" (please note the root word "EL")is a "royal first person plural" usage. Maybe so. Others will say that "Elohim" refers to El (or Yah, or Adonai, or whatever you may prefer) and "his" female consort as a male/female dualistic diety was commonly believe and worship in ancient Canaan. Some Christians and Jews will simply say that God was saying something along the lines of "hey, you archangels and other heavenly hosts, come watch while I create man." Well anyway, Paul, I'm getting a little far afield here. I think the question I would pose is "what constitutes a 'pagan god?'" If the answer is "any diety that was not originally and thereafter continuously perceived as totally One, monotheistically pure, ungendered, indescribable, omnipotent, omnicient, unaccompanied, incorporal, non-iconized creator being, then I think most existing forms of religion better take a long, solemn look at their diety for even the slightest taint of "paganism" before pointing an accusing finger at another religion. [This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Buzzsaw:
You may wish to know that some serious students of scripture hold that nobody alive today truly knows the correct pronounciation of "YHVH." For you to imply that YHVH is pronounced "YahWeh" is okay by me, but will offend and be contradicted by a great number of seriously well-educated and devout biblical scholars who will tell you that no one knows what vowels originally were used inbetween the consonants Y-H-V-H. Other well-informed, well-schooled biblical scholars additionally will tell you that the word "Jehovah" came in to usage at a rather late date in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things, theologically speaking. These scholars hold that "Jehovah" was manufactured by taking the vowels from "adonai" and inserting them inbetween the consonants in "YHVH" to obtain "YaHoVaH." Also, some devout monotheists are rather perplexed by the use of the plural form for "El" which is of course "Elohim." But since all these things are debatable, I want you to know that I do not present this information in order to engage in or engender a harsh exchange of words, rather simply to pass the time in an intellectually stimulating way. Peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
YHVH is specifically the god that appeared to Moses, informed Moses of this specific Name, and thereafter is responsible for the Exodus of the Israelites from Lower Egypt under the leadership of Moses. (See Exodus)
The phrase "I Am That I Am" has been interpreted other ways including, but not necessarily limited to, "I am that which is, has been, and is becoming" and other similar, all encompasing titles. "Jehovah" is not the "god of the Israelites" and is not the god known as YHVH. Some eggheaded cultists decided to shuffle the vowels from Adonai (The Lord) inbetween the consonants of YHVH in order to render a name they could pronounce as "YaHoVaH." This amounts to about the same thing as if I were to insert the vowels from "Yeshua" (the approximate Hebrew for "Jesus")inbetween the Greek letters Chi and Rho (historically used as a cryptogram for Jesus)and come up with Khe-Rhu'a, and then insist that my invented misnomer is the legitimate name of the embodied one/third of the Trinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Amlodhi:
Thank you so much for the scholarly and correct information regarding the incorrect usage and pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah." My short, not so scholarly, and rather snide rendition is due to the fact that I am so fed up with British Israelists, Evangelical Messianics, and Jews for Jesus with all their interpretive balogna regarding their "inheritance." But anyway, I still consider even the correct information you give regarding the interspersal of diacritical vowel points into the consonants comprising the Tetragrammaton to be a vain attempt by apologists whether Jewish or Christians to vulgarize the Name. Were I devout in either religion I would simply say "HaShem" or "The Name" and leave the Tetragrammaton as is and unadulterated by the hand of man. (Buzsaw read that last sentence twice) Ashalom Aleikem, Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Andya Primanda:
I may be mistaken as I often am, but I believe the first chapter and verse of Torah in which the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is revealed to man is said to be Exodus, Chapter 6, Verse 2, which reads something like, "God spoke to Moshe, he said to him: 'I am YHVH.'" Verse 3 reads something along the lines of, "I was seen by Avraham, by Yitzhak, and by Yaakov as God Shaddai (alternatively "God Almighty" or "El Shaddai"). P.S. to Buzsaw: Do you have any idea how many names are given to "El" such as Adonia, El Shaddai, El Olom, El Khai, El Elyon, Elohim, Adon, Adonay Tzivaot, Tzur Yisrael, Melekh, etc., in the Bible alone, not to mention other names in other holy texts refering to the same monotheistic diety you so carelessly refer to as Jehovah?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
And if the mountains all tumble into the sea
Let it be Let it be 'Cause I got my own life to live ... E-T-C ... E-T-C (Jimi Hendrix) And, Buzsaw, it makes no difference when or why "J" was introduced to the "English" language, Jochim is still pronounced Yokheem, Jethro is still pronounced Yitro, Joseph is still pronounced Yosef, Jacob is still pronounced Yaakov, E-T-C ... E-T-C So if six (6) turns out to be nine (9) I don't mind ... I don't mind [This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
I think I already pointed out as an aside that the current accepted English pronounciation of "W" is the exact same current French pronounciation of "Ou" as in "oui" which as you well know is pronounced "wee." You see, when a language lacks a vowel dedicated to a particular sound, that sound must be signified by some other alphabetic character or characters. You must know that, Buz ... I mean how many words must we waste here on the subject of phonetics.
Standing in the shower and slowly voicing the name "yahwey" over and over again so slowly that the "W" in the second syllable becomes voiced as "OOOOOOOOUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAY" does not automatically insert additional vowels into the Tetragrammaton, oooooooookkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Buz, I'm bored.
biblicaltruth.com | Venture This is not an endorsement of the content of the site. Please read the information and report back Monday. Enjoy your weekend.Peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Amen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Sorry, Buzsaw, but you cannot have it both ways. The basic premises of that article you just linked to are diametrically opposed to the statements of God himself as made in your Bible and in the Jewish Bible and regardless of the edition used as reference.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024