U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-13-2014, 04:20 AM
 
Location: US
26,264 posts, read 13,930,302 times
Reputation: 1593

Advertisements

The origin of the word Jehovah can be traced to the late Middle Ages (around the year 1500), when Jewish scribes began inserting the vowels from the Hebrew word adonai ("my Lord") into the name YHWH. The insertion resulted in the hybrid term YaHoWaH. Scribes wanted this new word to remind readers that God's name was too holy to pronounce, so they should substitute adonah for it when reading biblical passages aloud. Then, when the term YaHoWaH was Latinized, the "Y" and "W" were changed to "J" and "V"--resulting in Jehovah. In other words, Jehovah is a mistransliteration, compounded by the fact that, while "J" has a "Y" sound in Latin, it has a very different sound in English--as in the word jam. Jehovah appears in no literature earlier than about the thirteenth century, and it began to be popularized in the sixteenth century by well-meaning but mistaken Christians." (Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, p. 19, 83) -http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/jehovahs-witnesses/120
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2014, 08:00 AM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,150,372 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
It states that "You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain"...Or "to no avail"...Which is what Baalam was attempting to do...He was on his way to curse an entire people using the Name of God to do so, this was for pay...And this was a vain use of the Name...
You don't think that - in context - this had anything to do with taking oaths? Later Jewish Tradition should not influence how you read the text, in my opinion:
Now Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel, saying:
This is the word that YHWH has commanded:
(Any) man who vows a vow to YHWH
or swears a sworn-oath, to bind himself by a binding-obligation:
he is not to desecrate his word,
according to all that goes out of his mouth, he is to do.
(Numbers 30:2-3, SB Fox)

When you vow a vow to YHWH your God,
you are not to delay paying it,
indeed, YHWH your God will require, yes, require it of you,
and it shall be (reckoned) a sin in you.
But if you hold-back-from vowing,
it shall not be (considered) a sin in you.
What issues from your lips, you are to keep,
and you are to do
as you vowed to YHWH your God, willingly,
as you promised with your mouth.
(Deuteronomy 23:22-24)

You are not to swear by my name falsely,
thus profaning the name of your God -
I am YHWH!
(Leviticus 19:12)

You are not to take up the name of YHWH your God for emptiness,
for YHWH will not clear him that takes up his name for emptiness!
(Deuteronomy 5:11)

Later Jewish Tradition took Leviticus these passages and Leviticus 24:16 and turned it into a prohibition against uttering the name of God.
And to the Children of Israel you are to speak, saying:
Any-man, any-man that insults his god -
he shall bear his sins!
But whoever reviles the name of YHWH
is to be put-to-death, yes, death,
the entire community is to pelt, yes, pelt him;
as the sojourner, so the native,
when he reviles the Name, he is to be put-to-death!
(Leviticus 24:15-16, but see the entirety of 24:10-16 for the background)
There are several prohibitions here: not fulfilling oaths when vowed in YHWH's name, not using YHWH's name in an oath in a legal setting, and insulting and reviling the name. The latter is important, as it cannot literally be used to prohibit speaking the name, as it would make the verse concerning other gods besides YHWH absolutely meaningless. Are foreigners not allowed to speak another god's name, it is just as holy as YHWH's? No, the best meaning is "insult" or "revile".


That tradition misunderstood this, or used it as the basis for a custom that arose much later can be found in later sources, especially in how the Septuagint translated the above passage:
One who names the name of the Lord shall be put to death.
(Leviticus 24:16, Septuagint)

But it anyone - I will not say "blasphemes" the Lord of men and gods, but even dares to articulate the [divine] name when it is not called for, let him suffer the penalty of death.
(Philo - Life of Moses 2:206)

Then God revealed to him [Moses] His name, which had not previously reached mankind['s hearing], and concerning which I myself am not permitted to speak.
(Josephus - Jewish Antiquities 2:276)

He who pronounces the name of the Lord shall be put to death.
(Targum Onkelos Leviticus 24:16)
All these are later interpretations of the previous passage in which what was once a matter of blasphemy by insulting YHWH became one of not pronouncing the name at all, or only in specific instances. As should be pretty clear, lots of exegetical interpretation went into this endeavor, but it strays quite liberally from what is actually written in the text o the Torah. For a little more information, see my recent post here concerning oaths: http://www.city-data.com/forum/36437312-post33.html

As such, I don't agree that it has any bearing on the actions of Balaam, who is seen both positively and negatively in the Hebrew Bible, depending on the source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 08:12 AM
 
Location: US
26,264 posts, read 13,930,302 times
Reputation: 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
You don't think that - in context - this had anything to do with taking oaths? Later Jewish Tradition should not influence how you read the text, in my opinion:
Now Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel, saying:
This is the word that YHWH has commanded:
(Any) man who vows a vow to YHWH
or swears a sworn-oath, to bind himself by a binding-obligation:
he is not to desecrate his word,
according to all that goes out of his mouth, he is to do.
(Numbers 30:2-3, SB Fox)

When you vow a vow to YHWH your God,
you are not to delay paying it,
indeed, YHWH your God will require, yes, require it of you,
and it shall be (reckoned) a sin in you.
But if you hold-back-from vowing,
it shall not be (considered) a sin in you.
What issues from your lips, you are to keep,
and you are to do
as you vowed to YHWH your God, willingly,
as you promised with your mouth.
(Deuteronomy 23:22-24)

You are not to swear by my name falsely,
thus profaning the name of your God -
I am YHWH!
(Leviticus 19:12)

You are not to take up the name of YHWH your God for emptiness,
for YHWH will not clear him that takes up his name for emptiness!
(Deuteronomy 5:11)

Later Jewish Tradition took Leviticus these passages and Leviticus 24:16 and turned it into a prohibition against uttering the name of God.
And to the Children of Israel you are to speak, saying:
Any-man, any-man that insults his god -
he shall bear his sins!
But whoever reviles the name of YHWH
is to be put-to-death, yes, death,
the entire community is to pelt, yes, pelt him;
as the sojourner, so the native,
when he reviles the Name, he is to be put-to-death!
(Leviticus 24:15-16, but see the entirety of 24:10-16 for the background)
There are several prohibitions here: not fulfilling oaths when vowed in YHWH's name, not using YHWH's name in an oath in a legal setting, and insulting and reviling the name. The latter is important, as it cannot literally be used to prohibit speaking the name, as it would make the verse concerning other gods besides YHWH absolutely meaningless. Are foreigners not allowed to speak another god's name, it is just as holy as YHWH's? No, the best meaning is "insult" or "revile".


That tradition misunderstood this, or used it as the basis for a custom that arose much later can be found in later sources, especially in how the Septuagint translated the above passage:
One who names the name of the Lord shall be put to death.
(Leviticus 24:16, Septuagint)

But it anyone - I will not say "blasphemes" the Lord of men and gods, but even dares to articulate the [divine] name when it is not called for, let him suffer the penalty of death.
(Philo - Life of Moses 2:206)

Then God revealed to him [Moses] His name, which had not previously reached mankind['s hearing], and concerning which I myself am not permitted to speak.
(Josephus - Jewish Antiquities 2:276)

He who pronounces the name of the Lord shall be put to death.
(Targum Onkelos Leviticus 24:16)
All these are later interpretations of the previous passage in which what was once a matter of blasphemy by insulting YHWH became one of not pronouncing the name at all, or only in specific instances. As should be pretty clear, lots of exegetical interpretation went into this endeavor, but it strays quite liberally from what is actually written in the text o the Torah. For a little more information, see my recent post here concerning oaths: http://www.city-data.com/forum/36437312-post33.html

As such, I don't agree that it has any bearing on the actions of Balaam, who is seen both positively and negatively in the Hebrew Bible, depending on the source.
Baalam was just an example...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 05:02 PM
 
16,080 posts, read 9,255,565 times
Reputation: 7172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
The origin of the word Jehovah can be traced to the late Middle Ages (around the year 1500), when Jewish scribes began inserting the vowels from the Hebrew word adonai ("my Lord") into the name YHWH. The insertion resulted in the hybrid term YaHoWaH. Scribes wanted this new word to remind readers that God's name was too holy to pronounce, so they should substitute adonah for it when reading biblical passages aloud. Then, when the term YaHoWaH was Latinized, the "Y" and "W" were changed to "J" and "V"--resulting in Jehovah. In other words, Jehovah is a mistransliteration, compounded by the fact that, while "J" has a "Y" sound in Latin, it has a very different sound in English--as in the word jam. Jehovah appears in no literature earlier than about the thirteenth century, and it began to be popularized in the sixteenth century by well-meaning but mistaken Christians." (Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, p. 19, 83) -http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/jehovahs-witnesses/120
OK, just for the sake of argument, so what??

Jesus is not the proper pronunciation of the Son of God's name in either Hebrew or Greek BUT it is accepted as the English equivalent.

After all we pronounce many names in English that do not come close to matching the Hebrew or Greek and in fact Hebrew and Greek "versions" existed when those were spoken languages. Jew had local variations in pronunciation.

I speak English and Jehovah is the known and accepted way to say God's name in ... English, just as Jesus' is acceptable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 05:18 PM
 
4,573 posts, read 2,268,956 times
Reputation: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
OK, just for the sake of argument, so what??
Jesus is not the proper pronunciation of the Son of God's name in either Hebrew or Greek BUT it is accepted as the English equivalent.
After all we pronounce many names in English that do not come close to matching the Hebrew or Greek and in fact Hebrew and Greek "versions" existed when those were spoken languages. Jew had local variations in pronunciation.
I speak English and Jehovah is the known and accepted way to say God's name in ... English, just as Jesus' is acceptable.
I noticed in the old KJV Bible at Psalm 83 v 18 that God's personal name is used and mentioned there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:26 PM
 
Location: california
5,489 posts, read 4,560,554 times
Reputation: 6418
Years ago my dad I knew as Bill , and had no idea it was not even his real name which was Wilfred, till I was much older.
Now I always called him dad, and we had probably the closest relationship any parent and son could have.
Dad was never offended when others called him Willy or Bill I think only his sister called him Wilfred and that was very rare for me to hear.
He was never a thin skinned person, usually very patient and even helped a number of unfortunates along the way.


I love God very much , and refer to Him as my Heavenly Father, and there is no chastisement for this reference by Him what so ever.
I call Jesus Lord ,mostly because I prefer to obey Him, both in the things He's is recorded to have taught, and via the Holy Spirit He designated teach believers. His guidance always has blessing for me.
This authority stands over any other man, including Paul .
A very formal name is use in a relationship there is no trust.
Because a false sense of respect is trying to be established.
Much like the man standing before a judge saying, "your honor".
Turn it around and have a stranger call you by a too familiar name and the guard rises.
I know, and understand very well, that God knows the heart of man, better than he knows him self .
That being said ,If a man is honestly reaching out to God ,He will reveal Himself . I have met men this had happened to, and no one was coaching them .
IMO
Satan twisted the instruction given to Adam and Eve.
Matthew 4; Satan attempted to use his twist in scriptures to attempt to manipulate Jesus to manipulate The Father.
Men have forever been trying to manipulate scriptures to manipulate God.
The religious community continually resisted Jesus, because of conflicts in their interpretation of scriptures.
How is this great concern over God's name make a difference , since God knows when deception is afoot ?
Men prove by their academics they don't need God when they have him wired "in their own mind".
Massive academics only have inspired Self govern =sin in action. taught about God, with out God.
Jesus said God is Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.
Jesus never equated academics to a relationship .
Obedience is a relationship , that can only be found in the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, whom can only be known through Jesus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:30 PM
 
16,080 posts, read 9,255,565 times
Reputation: 7172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4 View Post
I noticed in the old KJV Bible at Psalm 83 v 18 that God's personal name is used and mentioned there.
4 Times in the KJV, so they knew and accepted it. Of course they changed it nearly 7000 times, so where is the respect ......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:36 PM
 
16,080 posts, read 9,255,565 times
Reputation: 7172
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh View Post
Years ago my dad I knew as Bill , and had no idea it was not even his real name which was Wilfred, till I was much older.
Now I always called him dad, and we had probably the closest relationship any parent and son could have.
Dad was never offended when others called him Willy or Bill I think only his sister called him Wilfred and that was very rare for me to hear.
He was never a thin skinned person, usually very patient and even helped a number of unfortunates along the way.
Obedience is a relationship , that can only be found in the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, whom can only be known through Jesus.
Yep and when speaking of him to a new person, who did not know him and you wanted them to, you used not just my Dad, but my dad Bill or Willy or Wilfred. You wanted people to know his name. Now among brothers and sisters you would say Dad as they knew him, and among close friend ditto. If his name was unusual you would help people say it, or at least get close. Today most want to avoid using our heavenly Father's name at any time.

Funny about knowing and having a relationship with Jesus. Look at who else we must know and know as well as we know Jesus.

KJV John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 07:31 PM
 
4,573 posts, read 2,268,956 times
Reputation: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Yep and when speaking of him to a new person, who did not know him and you wanted them to, you used not just my Dad, but my dad Bill or Willy or Wilfred. You wanted people to know his name. Now among brothers and sisters you would say Dad as they knew him, and among close friend ditto. If his name was unusual you would help people say it, or at least get close. Today most want to avoid using our heavenly Father's name at any time.
Funny about knowing and having a relationship with Jesus. Look at who else we must know and know as well as we know Jesus.
KJV John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I recall in English class that the word ' AND ' was always a conjunction between something and something else.
I decided to page through the Christian NT Scriptures to see if there was an AND conjunction between God and Jesus:

At 1st Cor. 1 v 3 is the conjunction ' AND ' between God our Father AND from the Lord Jesus
2nd Cor 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND from the Lord Jesus
Galatians 1 v 1 mentions Jesus Christ AND God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
Ephesians 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND from the Lord Jesus
Philippians 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND from the Lord Jesus
Colossians 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND the Lord Jesus
1st Thess. 1 v 1 mentions God our Father AND the Lord Jesus
2nd Thess. 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND the Lord Jesus
1st Timothy 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND Jesus our Lord
2nd Timothy 1 v 2 mentions God our Father AND Christ Jesus our Lord
Philemon 1 v 3 mentions God our Father AND the Lord Jesus
James 1 v 1 mentions God AND of the Lord Jesus
2nd Peter 1 v 1 mentions God AND our Savior Jesus
1st John 1 v 3 mentions the Father AND with his Son Jesus
2nd John verse 3 mentions the Father AND from the Lord Jesus
Jude verse 1 mentions God the Father AND preserved in Jesus Christ
Revelation 1 v 1 mentions the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Jesus...
Although the word AND was not used in that verse in Revelation it still is showing separation between the two.
So, in Scripture both God and Jesus are separate persons because the conjunction ' AND ' connects someone with someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2014, 05:49 AM
 
3,488 posts, read 3,150,372 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
OK, just for the sake of argument, so what??

Jesus is not the proper pronunciation of the Son of God's name in either Hebrew or Greek BUT it is accepted as the English equivalent.

After all we pronounce many names in English that do not come close to matching the Hebrew or Greek and in fact Hebrew and Greek "versions" existed when those were spoken languages. Jew had local variations in pronunciation.

I speak English and Jehovah is the known and accepted way to say God's name in ... English, just as Jesus' is acceptable.

From good ol' Wikipedia:
"Jehovah" was popularized in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translators, but is no longer used in mainstream English translations, with Lord or LORD used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is Yahweh or YHWH.
That is because "Jehovah" is an older, incorrect Latinization and a more accurate transliteration is "Yahweh".

I speak English, as well, and "Jehovah" is no longer "the known and accepted way to say God's name in ... English". It is well-known that it was a mistaken transliteration - not even close to being correct - and regardless of it's older usage in the KJV occasionally and other translations based on older scholarship, it is just plain incorrect. It is incorrect to even claim that it is a proper "English equivalent" to YHWH. Transliteration of the Biblical Hebrew YHWH into Roman characters is exactly how it's shown: YHWH. Biblical Hebrew does not have a "J" or a "V" consonant, it has a "Y" and a "W" consonant. Even when the "W" is used as a matres lectionis, it is transliterated as a "W". If you read Biblical Hebrew - not modern Hebrew and it's different dialectical variations - then this would be BH 101, things you learn in the first class.

The entire mistaken form "Jehovah" is based on a misunderstanding that the vowels that the Masoretes inserted into YHWH were from "My Lord" - which were only ever intended to remind the reader not to pronounce YHWH, but to instead pronounce "my Lord" - and were never meant to represent the actual vowels used for YHWH as used by ancient Israelites. Add to that the "Germanic" transliteration of Hebrew "Y" to "J" and "W" to "V" (which is why German written "J" is pronounced as English "Y" and German written "W" is pronounced as English "V"), and you get an even more incorrect form of YHWH: JHVH. This is not English. The term "Hallelujah" may be Latinized with a "J", but it's final syllable is actually transliterated and pronounced as "Hallelu-YAH" - in other words, "Praise Yah": the commonly used shortened form of "Yahweh" that can be found throughout the Bible and in archaeological evidence.

"Jehovah" is a Latinization of "YHWH", and not a transliteration of "YHWH" - which is more accurate. Just use Wikipedia and look up Yahweh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Jehovah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's not like this information is buried anymore under scholarly debris. It's pretty well-known by now, and has been for a long time now.

I dunno. It seems to me that any discussion of the name of God should strive to be accurate, and not bow it's head to older traditional usage. And appealing to the fact that some of us use "Jesus" - because this is how tradition renders how it appears in the Greek text of the New Testament - has absolutely nothing to do with how we more accurately transliterate how "YHWH" actually appears in the Biblical Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible. If the Greek New Testament was actually the Aramaic New Testament, then yeh - "Jesus" would be as much of a problem as "Jehovah" is. But it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
4 Times in the KJV, so they knew and accepted it. Of course they changed it nearly 7000 times, so where is the respect ......
I would suggest that using the incorrect Latinization "Jehovah", when we know better, shows a clear lack of respect for God - especially when he spent a lot of time in the Hebrew Bible informing us that he wanted his name to be known. I don't think he would be too pleased if we just said "Meh, whatever... KJV used it this way..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top