Would a simple "Berian Search" end the controversy concerning the name Yahweh"?

[i.e. Do the Scriptures given by inspiration of God demonstrate that God's name IS "Yahweh"?]

[i.e. Do the Scriptures given by inspiration of God demonstrate that God's name IS NOT "Yahweh"?]

daved

P.S.

Are modern Hebrew Scholars capable of making this Biblical Test,
[i.e. a Berian Search of the Hebrew Scriptures]
at this time,
thus ending the controversy?
OR
Is here more involved in the Yahweh Controversy,
than simply determining whether or not God preserved His name as "Yahweh" ,
in some extant Hebrew Text?

The title of this topic is:

Would a simple "Berian Search" end the controversy concerning the name Yahweh"?

I own a four volume copy of:

[color=blue]The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament
[i.e. NIVIHEOT]


This is a very interesting Interlinear Bible,
in that "Yahweh" [in English letters] occurs 6823 times in the English Translation,
but 'Yahweh" [in Hebrew Font] occurs absolutely Zero times,
in the underlying Hebrew Text.

This Interlinear Bible is being used by the House of Yahweh,
to provide evidence that God's name is "Yahweh".

http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW04_5-09/Great-Name-Yahweh.htm

An iimage taken from the NIVIHEOT can be found at this link above.

The New International Version Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament by John Kohlenberger III.
Hebrew reads from right to left.
Psalm 23:1-6, NIV—

On the second line..the Hebrew word Yehwah occurs
Directly underneath the English word Yahweh occurs

Near the bottom... the Hebrew word Yehovah occurs
Directly underneath the English word Yahweh occurs


TO BE REDUNDANT:

The NIVIHEOT translates "Yehwah" as "Yahweh"
AND
The NIVIHEOT translates "Yehovah" as "Yahweh"

THESE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE HEBREW TO ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS.



FWIW

Daved

P.S.

The NIVIHEOT translates 6 different variants of "YHWH"
[NONE OF WHICH IS YAHWEH]
as "Yahweh"

THESE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE HEBREW TO ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS.

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THIS SAME ISSUE EXISTS IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE,
IN WHICH "YAHWEH" OCCURS 6823 TIMES IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

THE NJB APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED FROM A BHS HEBREW TEXT
IN WHICH THE HEBREW NAME "YAHWEH" OCCURS ZERO TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you need to take it back one step and ask "Is a 'Berean search' the only approved method of study?"

Doesn't the Old Testament itself refer us to the book of Jashar, the book of the wars of the Lord, and the records of various kings of Israel & Judah if we desire further information? Doesn't that constitute divine approach for research from other sources?

Hodeuon

Hi Hodeuon,

You wrote:

Hodeuon,

If I'm not mistaken the Berians were trying to verify from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures,
that Saint Paul's teaching that Jesus was the Christ,
[i.e the promised Messiah that the Jewish People were looking for.]
was valid.

In my opinion the Berians verified
[to their satisfaction]
that a major portion of the"70 weeks of Daniel'' prophecy had been fulfilled,
by the birth of Jesus,
and by the witness of some Jewish believers,
who had heard Saint Paul preach,
that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Of course in the case that the Berian's were trying to verify,
there possibly were groups of Jewish believers,
that were waiting for Daniel's Prophecy to be fulfilled at that particular time.
______________________________________________________________

Today, in 2009, we have a different situation.

Since the early 19th century,
Hebrew Scholars such as Gesenius have tried to convince Christians
that the original pronunciation of God's name was "Yahweh",
in spite of what appears to be a fact,
that the name "Yahweh" appears to be preserved
in no extant "vocalized" Hebrew Text.

To make matters worse,
there have been at least 4 English Bibles published,
in which the publisher has admitted that a BHS Text was used to
translate the Old Testament,
and it can be easilly shown that no version of any BHS text,
preserves God's name as "Yahweh" EVEN ONCE!!!!

Something is rotton in Denmark,
when English Bibles are being published in which "Yahweh" occurs
about 6823 times, and the underlying Hebrew of these Bibles
does not preserve God's name as "Yahweh" even once.
_____________________________________________________________

Hodeuon,

I welcome you to present evidence on this "Yahweh vs. Jehovah" Forum,
that indicates that the original pronunciation of God's name,
was indeed: "Yahweh".

Certainly you could add some information from Hebrew Verb Forms,
as to why Hebrew Scholars believe that the original pronounciation of God's name
might have been "Yahweh".

I chose not to investigate your recommended method of seeking additional information on this issue,
but you are welcome to demonstrate it on this thread.

Daved


P.S.

I now own the following 4 English Bibles ,
in which 3 of them,
the English Translation "Yahweh" occurs, about 6823 times.

1. The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament. [NIVIHEOT]
[Since this is an Interlinear Bible,
it is obvious that "Yahweh" in Hebrew letters
does not occur even once in the underlying Hebrew.]

2. The New Jerusalem Bible.
[Translated from some version of the BHS Text]

3. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

[Wikipedia states:

"The entire Bible with the Old Testament appeared in 1902.

Rotherham based his Old Testament translation
on Dr. C. D Ginsburg's comprehensive Masoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible

"that anticipated readings now widely accepted." ]

4. Holman Christian Standard Bible
The text for the Old Testament [OT] is the Biblia Hebraica Stugggartensia,
5th edition.
I do not know how many times the English translation "Yahweh" occurs in this particular Bible,
but certainly not 6823 times.

Hi again Hodeuon

In your post, you asked:

"I think you need to take it back one step and ask
"Is a 'Berean search' the only approved method of study?"



Hodeuon,

Obviously Pastor Carl Stevens put his "seal of approval"
on trusting in the Greek writings of Clement of Alexandria,
as an approved method,
of determining that God's name is "Yahweh"

Obviously the Roman Catholic Church put its "seal of approval"
on trusting in the Greek writings of Clement of Alexandria,
and Theoodoret,
and Epiphanius,
to determine that the original pronunciation of God's name was probably "Yahweh"

Can we assume that since Rome and GGWO agree
[plus or minus a weasel word or two]
that God's name is probably "Yahweh" ,
that it might be safe to believe that God's name is probably "Yahweh".

Hodeuon,
Has the Lord Jesus Christ indicated to you,
that He has approved
searching the Greek writings of the early Church Fathers daily,
to determine if His Father's name is "Yahweh".

Certainly if the Lord Jesus Christ approves this method,
there is no controversy
[plus or minus a weasel word or two]
about the name "Yahweh". :D

Daved

P.S.

While there are no weasel words in:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God",
weasel words seem to enter,
when various scholars
try to determine if any specific Masoretic Text,
is actually "scripture that is given by inspiration of God".

Edited by daved on 05/17/09 at about 8:20 A.M

"I chose not to investigate your recommended method of seeking additional information on this issue, but you are welcome to demonstrate it on this thread."

That's really the problem, Daved. You are choosing not to learn Hebrew, yet you repeatedly imply that those who do know the language are in error.

"While there are no weasel words in:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God",
weasel words seem to enter,
when various scholars
try to determine if any specific Masoretic Text,
is actually "scripture that is given by inspiration of God"."

Inerrancy refers to the original texts, not to the Masoretic Text (as good as it is) or to any other copy. When the people who gave you the Masoretic Text also pass down notice that they put the vowel points for Adonai and Elohim with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton so that people wouldn't pronounce the Tetragrammaton, don't you think it's worth considering that they were telling the truth?

I've previously sent you an explanation of how 'Yahweh' can be plausibly constructed from an archaic form of the verb 'to be' and and explanation as to why 'Jehovah' cannot be a real Hebrew form.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

The logical conclusion that can be drawn from this statement is that if something was not given by inspiration of God, then it's not Scripture. You appear to me to be arguing that 'if it's not scripture then it's not given by inspiration of God and is therefore false'. a) The first part of that conclusion, that if it's not scripture then it's not given by inspiration of God does not /logically/ follow. It has to be proven from elsewhere. (I do happen to agree with it.) B) The second part, that something not inspired is not true, is demonstrably false. You do not and cannot apply that statement in your daily life, so it's illogical to assert that it applies to non-biblical theological writings.

Hodeuon

Hi Hodeuon,

This DiscussGGWO Discussion board is definitely limited,
as to how much can be discussed on Hebrew issues,
because as far as I know,
Hebrew Font cannot be displayed in messages on this board.

However at the link below,
which takes you to Garth Grenache's YHWHgroup this is not a problem.

http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/YHWHgroup/

Garth is very knowledgeable on Hebrew,
and you would be free to explain
how 'Yahweh' can be plausibly constructed from an archaic form of the verb 'to be',
using Hebrew font.

And I could lurk,
and observe, with my limited understanding of Hebrew,
while you and Garth discuss this issue, at a much deeper level.

I assume that I would pick up some new insight into this issue,
as you and Garth discuss the issue.

Hodeuon,

Are you willing to continue discussing "Yahweh" issues on Garth's Discussion Board.

Daved

P.S. You will definitely receive a warm welcome from Garth.

Many photos concerning the Yahweh issue,
[in which Hebrew Font is used],
are available in Garth's Photo area,
and can easily be inserted in any messages you post.

If you are able to write in Hebrew font,
and scan what you have written,
you can easily post your images into Garth's Photo area,
and from there easily cut and paste your images into messages that you write.


Give YHWHgroup a try.
It's a great discussion Board to express your views using Hebrew Font.

Hi Hodeuon

Preiously I wrote to you:

Certainly you could add some information from Hebrew Verb Forms,
as to why Hebrew Scholars believe
that the original pronounciation of God's name might have been "Yahweh".

You replied:

"I've previously sent you an explanation of how 'Yahweh' can be plausibly constructed from an archaic form of the verb 'to be' "


Hodeuon

I am reasonably sure that I found your post,
which was written on FACTnet on June 22, 2005

I am going to look it over again,
as I think that I am more knowledgeable on Hebrew, now,
then I was in 2005.

FWIW

Daved

As mentioned in my previous post,
Hodeuon had written a post defending the name Yahweh on FACTnet GGWO in 2005.

The thread he wrote his post on was titled:
What does God's name mean in the Hebrew Language?

The above thread can be found at the link below:
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/10818.html

Wait until this thread has full loaded,
and then Scroll down to the message that Hodeuon posted
on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 10:49 pm:
Hodeuon writes:

Daved,

I am not consciously drawing on the Samaritan pronunciation of the name.

Warning to everyone else: much Hebrew grammar follows.

Starting with Exodus 3:14,
‘eH:YeH is “I am”, Qal imperfect, 1st common singular.
YHWH in Ex 3:15 sure looks related by ‘eH:YeH 3:14.
The Qal imperfect, 3rd masculine singular “He is” would be YiH:YeH.

This discussion is not helped
by the fact that certain letters in each of the three root positions
cause Hebrew roots to conjugate differently.

HYH “to be” manages to fall into an exception category for all three root letters:
1-Guttural,

2-Waw/Yodh,

and

3-real He.

So it’s a triple exception. Nice, huh?

YHWH may be an archaic form of “He is”,
with God using ‘eH:YeH of Himself
and expecting Moses to refer to Him as YHWH.

First, the easy exception.
Verbs with a real He
(as opposed to a fake one)
in the 3rd position use a short e (segol) as their final vowel in the imperfect.

Verbs with waw or yodh in the second postion…well, “explode” was how we characterized it in class.

It’s not impossible for the Waw/Yodh to become a U (shurek) or O (holem full) in the imperfect.

I think is probably where the O in the Yeho- compound names comes from.

Typically the Waw/Yodh in the 2nd root position
also makes the first vowel in the imperfect a long A (qames),
although I don’t want to hazard a guess
as to whether the rules for the 2nd position Waw/Yodh exception
or the rules for the 1st position guttural exception take precedence.

So YaH:WeH may actually be defensible as an archaic 3rd person masculine singular imperfect form of “to be”.

I hope this helps.

Hodeuon

P.S.

As hodeuon noted above:
Warning to everyone else: much Hebrew grammar follows.

Some time after Hodeoun's wrote his post,
I created my own simplified charts for HYH verbs
which tried to show using hebrew font,
what Hodeoun was explaining above.

My two charts can be viewed at the links below:

Either chart can be enlarged by holding the mouse over the image,
and clicking on the left mouse button.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/2642...epagescroll.jpg

AND

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/2642...artforHYHOK.jpg


FWIW

Daved

Hodeuon,

I added this post so that this particular topic where you and I disagreed with each other in 2009, would be moved up to the first position under Yahweh vs. Jehovah, and I could easily look it over once again.

Daved