Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
Shalom Rivkah,

So you think that calling on His name for deliverence, healing, salvation or just to witness to someone to who He is, ie. Glorifying and exalting His name is using it in the mundane and causing His name to be profaned. His name being written on scroll or Hebrew text is not going to help them. This was the context of my last post and why I think His name should be used especially in whitness in which we are in the Messiah called to do. Yahweh want's His Name/Character known before all men you can't do that without using it. There is no excuse for not doing so.

BS"D
Shalom.

And you think that someone can't know El-him without knowing your pronunciation of His Name? When you first came to know of El-him did you not first come to know Him through His Word? When you realized He had a Name...Y-H-V-H...did you not find it in our Hebrew Texts or through someone who had?

I was not planning to say any more on this but it was not my decission. I actually heard a couple of weeks ago a Vicar from St Georges Church mention the name of Yahweh in His sermon now this would have been the first time for most of their congregation to ever hear of His almighty name. Most of them will never read it or ever hear it again but now the know the name of our Father and His name was honoured and glorified in their midst.

In any witnessing Lee wether it be in mainsteam Christianity or in our walk you never lead with the chin you let the Holy Spirit lead.

You did not answer the question Rivkah it had nothing to do with how I found the name of Yahweh or how you pronounce it, it really is irrelevant. It all boils down to suppressing the power of His name in the spoken word.

I will use my children as an illistration again. Most of them will go through life never reading the bible or looking at Hebrew texts but one thing they will go away from my club knowing is the name of our Father and His Son. Maybe one day in their darkest hour they will call upon that Holy name and He will surely answer them and I will know that I will be blameless before Him.

Exodus 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of YHWH before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
In any witnessing Lee wether it be in mainsteam Christianity or in our walk you never lead with the chin you let the Holy Spirit lead.

---

Your above retort is out of order, Chris, for sometimes YahSpirit's leading specifically includes *not* mentioning certain things until it is time to do so. That might never need to be an experience of yours when "witnessing", of course, and which is actually another subject altogether, but I can give you a list of names of dead people I have personally seen tripped up by such religiosity and sanctimony.

See, Chris, it is Christianity that propagates the idea that a certain "magic name" simply *must* be spoken in order for one thing or another to happen, or to "work" or "take" (such as with baptism), but Scripture just does not bear that out. And in fact, Scripture instead clearly reveals there will be many who will *not* be found among the saved even after doing many things "in His name".

Nobody is trying to take anything away from you, and nobody is saying you should not speak YHWH's name. But at the moment, Larry and Rivkah have you dancing all around on a heated tin ... and so again, I strongly suggest you just let this entire matter go for a while.

Blessings to you brother, and thankyou see you in another topic(what do you think about beards, teehee). Pity about Jerimiah 31v31-34 never got the answer of Shimson though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
Shalom Leejosepho,

Blessings to you brother, and thankyou see you in another topic(what do you think about beards, teehee). Pity about Jerimiah 31v31-34 never got the answer of Shimson though.

I think though answering the following questions may help me understand your position, and you to understand mine.

Chris

---

Greetings Chris,

Actually, I did address your question in a previous post I believe on page 8 or 9. I am busy with my job at the moment, but when I have time I will repost what I stated on the matter.

1) What is the responsibility, based on Torah, or a Kohein (Priest) and a Levite? Who was this responsibility given to specifically?

2) In the Hebrew text Isaiah 8:20 and in the book of Ruth the word Te'udah shows up this means both "testimony/custom" Isaiah, and "tradition" in the book of Ruth. For a non-Jew who is not within or in contact with a Jewish community what is the Te'udah for them?

3) In Acts 21:18-24 there is talk of Paul being accused of telling Jews to not do three things; live by the Torah, circumsise their sons, and live by the Minhagei Torah (Traditions of Torah) (Aramaic) or Traditions of the Fathers (Greek). It was found by questioning that he was not teaching Jews to give up these things. For a non-Jew who is not within or in contact with a Jewish community what is their Minhagei Torah?

4) Please explain the Torah's classification of the Geir, Toshav, Ben-Nekher, and Sikhri. I am using the Hebrew since these are the respective titles given in the Hebrew text.
------------------
Eloah immakhem,

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
Shalom Leejosepho and Rivkah

You did not answer the question Rivkah it had nothing to do with how I found the name of Yahweh or how you pronounce it, it really is irrelevant. It all boils down to suppressing the power of His name in the spoken word.

BS"D

If pronunciation of The Name of El-him is what it all hangs on then you had better be 100% sure yours is correct and you are not actually calling upon another and teaching others of another. And therefore it does have to do with how one finds the Name if it is your intent to use It. And it is clear that The Name of El-him is right there in the Hebrew as it was given. So to accuse Observant Jews of suppressing or hiding It is a false accusation.

Such an accusation is especially ridiculous when considering how readily Hebrew is available throughout the world for others to learn.

Rivkah

Originally posted by Acheson:
I reply: Once again, we have another misunderstanding. I first heard "HaShem" used in reference to the Creator long before there was an "internet," much less a forum such as this, so I was referring to the average person "on the street," so to speak, not "anyone in this list." Those are the people we should be trying to reach, Rivkah, not the folks in this forum (which is not to say that we shouldn't also be clear with folks here in this forum). My main concern, though, has to do with the average folks out there who, upon hearing some Jew say something like, "May HaShem bless you," haven't the foggiest idea who or what was being referred to.

BS"D
That's really doesn't make sense as most everyone knows who the People of the Book are and Who our El-him is.

If I were to tell someone, "May HaShem bless you," and he was actually curious enough to ask what "HaShem" meant, I would be very embarrassed, because I would have to explain that it means "the name," which means I would have to in turn explain why I said, "May 'the name' bless you."

Not embarrassing at all - it is my language, the language of the Scriptures and I would feel blessed to have the chance to share the beauty of my heritage with someone else.

I am sure that if you blessed someone with your pronunciation of The Name they would be quite confused, and if you were truthful in your explanation of that name you would have to tell them that that is only YOUR idea of Its pronunciation and that there are many others. THAT to me would be much more embarrassing to tell someone they should refer to El-him by His Name but yet there are many to choose from.

Why would our Hebrew "HaShem" be any more mysterious than your English "Mighty One" or any of the other names some here used are once explained??

I reply: The difference is, no one is speaking Hebrew and throwing in any "Mighty One" terms in English. In other words, no one is saying anything like, "The Almighty yimloch le'olam va'ed." It's the reverse ... those who speak in English throw in a borrowed Hebrew word because they believe it would be a disgrace to actually speak His name. There is a deliberate transliteration of the Hebrew term meaning "the Name," while suppressing the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

Untrue. I use transliteration of The Name , Y-H-V-H, just as I have seen others here do.

As for the "just any pronunciation will do as long as we put a name on our Creator," I believe you knew better than make such a comment. That was very unfair and unkind of you, as you know I have in no way made or implied any such suggestion. It seems that not only do you impute motives of condemnation on me, but you also impute incorrect and even warped reasoning. If this is your approach, it is clear that we have no hope of reaching even a friendly disagreement.

If I felt I was wrong in what I said I would say so, but I can tell by your postings that you want us to put a pronunciation upon the Hebrew letters Y-H-V-H, which is only a man’s (Gentile) commandment, El-him has stated no such commandment. I am not commanded anywhere in the Scritpures that I must pronounce The Name in order to know Him, knowing Him is much more than a mere pronunciation.

So no, not "just any pronunciation will do," Rivkah. While I agree with the conclusion reached by the author whose study can be accessed at the above link, I believe I should respect the conclusions of others, as I trust they are doing the best they can with the resources they have access to, as am I.

Like I said, you would respect my conclusion as long as there was a pronunciation, whatever conclusion I came up with, but you won’t respect my conclusion that there is no pronunciation available until Mashiach comes to restore It and that it is my heart’s intent to not profane it and to keep it holy?

You may do what you wish, I have not spoke against anyone here for their wish to put a pronunciation on The Name of El-him, I only came into this thread because I wanted to clear up some misunderstandings of the Hebrew word HaShem. But for you to judge Jews who have our own way of respecting The Name of El-him, a way that is OUR CONCLUSION THAT is commanded by Torah, and where it is clear that your way is not commanded in Torah at all, well this is very unkind and unfair on your part Larry.

Rivkah

As mentioned before this entire conversation on this issue keeps going in circles so I will again go through making this very clear.

Point #1: The Title HaShem
As mentioned before it has been shown that the pronunciation of Pathahh and Qametz are not the same. If a Rabbi knows that Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem can be written as Hawshem, yet knows that Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem can be written Hashem it is quite obvious that there is a difference in pronunciation. If they were the same prounciaiton he would have written Hashem instead of Hawshem. Strong's as well as other sources show that the sound, which Qametz is used to designate is completely different than the sound of that the Pathahh represents. Thus according to Strong's Hey (Qametz) and Hey (Pathahh) don't have the same sound as the chart on page shows. According to page Hey (Qametz) is pronounced "Haw" as in "father" and Hey (Pathahh) is pronounced "Ha" as in "cat." The a's in the Englsih words father and cat, are not the same sound. Also, in Hey (Pathahh) Shin (Tzere) - Mem [HaShem] there is dagesh forte in the Shin, which means that the sound of the Shin is doubled such as {Hash-shem}. This is not the case with Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem [Hoshem/Hawshem]. As mentioned before this has nothing to do with symbols, but with sounds. The Niqqudim are only markers for what sounds are already known to be there. No matter, which way someone wants to spin it the fact is that all Biblical scholars agree that Qametz, Qametz Hatuf, and Pathahh all had different sounds. Thus no one whos knows even a small amount of Hebrew would be able to mix up the sounds of Hawsheme (as you wrote it once) with HaShem and here is further proof of why.

Waiyiqra (Lev.) 24:11
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0324.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0324.htm
Third paragraph, second line, eigth word. What do find? HaShem spelled Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. Notice here that it is alone and Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey does not follow it so the Torah NEVER sets any rule that Hey (Pathakh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem can (or any title) only be used when Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey follows it. The Torah also never sets any such rule for any title.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0528.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0528.htm
2nd paragraph, 40th or 41st line, second word from the left of to the right of Hanikhvod spelled Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. If the THEORY that someone would mistake Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem with Hey (Pathahh) Shin (Tzere) - Mem were true than how are these two verses in the Torah to be understood? If Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem is a name of a person, is being used as a name, or is a man-made invention why does it show up in the Hebrew text of the Torah refering to the renown of YHWH? Or is the claim now going to be that this also is referencing Hawshem/Hoshem? This also shows that Hoshem/Hawshem is also not pronounced the same as HaShem Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. If they were pronounced the same, then the niqqudim would be the same, but they are not. Also, when one looks in the Samaritan Torah we find that Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem in this verse is pronounced Hashim, thus it is a completly different word.

Also in terms of the various meanings of the Hebrew word Shin-Mem (shem) we also find the following from Genesis 6:4 where the word hashem is used to denote renown or fame. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0106.htm.
HaShem (the renowned one or the name depending on context of use) is from the shoresh (Shin-Mem) which is spelled Hey (Pathakh)-Shin (Tzere)-Mem. The Hey (Pathahh) at the beginning designates a definate article in Hebrew. Shen (Tzere) - Mem is the word receiving the definate article. As has been pointed out any child who know Hebrew can point that out to you. How do we know this because in Hebrew a Substantive Adjective is a noun, which is what HaShem is. A substantive by itself like Hhakham for example means "wise one" where when it is an adjective it means "wise." By extension hehhakham is translated as, "the wise one." (Basics of Biblical Hebrew, page 65) This are OFTEN used for example HaQadosh means "The Se-Apart One." Now in terms of Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem it does not come from the shoresh (Shin-Mem) as I showed earlier. If it and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem came from the same root there would be evidence that they do, but there is none. In fact the sources I posted earlier showed that Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem comes from an unknown root, showing that the two words are not even related. In Hebrew word relation is based on the shoresh (three letter or two letter root).
Further proof that there is no "Scriptural" rule that a title can only be used if Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey follows it.
Isaiah 41:14
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1041.htm
Isaiah 30:11
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1030.htm
Isaiah 49:7
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1049.htm
In the above situations the title HaQadosh (The Set-Apart One) does not proceed Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey showing that there is no such rule that a title must be followed by Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. Qedoshim means "Set-Apart Ones." Such a rule is a man-made and unscriptural rule. Just as HaBorei doesn't simple mean "The Create" it can also mean "The One Who Creates/The Creator." Just as HaMashi'ahh means "The Anointed one" (Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon).
If you still don't believe me concerning the definate article Hey (Pathahh) = ha in Hebrew then the following site can provide more.
http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/language/article.htm
The article in Hebrew(there is no indefinite article - like "a") is attached to the word that it makes definite. It is very rare indeed in Hebrew poetry. It is attached to nouns or to those parts of verbs that function as nouns.

The below article shows that Hebrew speaking children know how to use, and understand the usage of definate articles in Hebrew.
http://www.nlplab.uqam.ca/resumes/armon.htm

The Definite Article
The definite article in front of a guttaral is formed thus: Hey (Qametz). No daggesh is placed in the following letters, since the guttaral cannot take a daggesh. Therefore, the pattah that one would expect under the Hey is replaced with a qamatz. The qamatz is considered a long vowel, and thus compensates for the inability to double the following consonent.
http://www.theology.edu/hebrew/hb05.htm
So we can see that Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem is one word and the Hey is not a definate article because it has a Qametz. The only way for the Hey to have a Qametz under it and it be a definate article is for the Shin to be a guttaral and the Shin is not a guttaral. Also, as I mentioned before I yet to meet any Jew who believes that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced as Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. The issue is as I mentioned before most Jews don't attempt to supply vowels that they PERSONALLY feel are valid, because it goes against our Hhokhma of the Torah.

Point 2: The Meaning of the word Shin-Mem

http://www.midnightcryministries.com/sacred_name_appendix_3

Linguistic Superstition
By Dr. Daniel Botkin
http://www.biblical-life.com/swrc/Articles/LS-SNO.htm
One major reason SNO advocates misunderstand the "Name" issue is because they do not realize the broader meaning of the Hebrew word shem (usually
translated "name"). When they read a verse that says something about "the name of Yahweh," they think mainly in terms of nomenclature, the word that is used to
address someone. . However, shem means much more than just "name" in this narrow sense of nomenclature. Shem also means the reputation, honor, or character
of the person. Any good lexicon will confirm this. Isaac Mozeson also confirms this in his letter to me: "Also SHeM means 'repute' more than merely 'name.' The
problems of the 'sacred name believers' will lessen when they consider this."

Even in English we use the word name in its broader sense: "You've ruined the family name!" Such a statement does not mean that the person has altered the
pronunciation of his surname or changed it to a generic name like "Jones." It simply means that he has brought shame and reproach on the family by his behavior.

The Scriptures say many things about the name of Yahweh. There are verses that speak about misusing, blaspheming, or shaming His name. There are verses about
knowing, glorifying, praising, trusting in, and speaking of the name of Yahweh. These verses are not referring to the correct pronunciation of the four-lettered
Tetragrammaton; there are speaking about the character and reputation of Yahweh. Thus, trusting in "the name" of Yahweh means that we trust in His character
and His reputation, not in the correct pronunciation of His nomenclature. A person who trusts only in the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is reducing
the name of Yahweh to nothing more than a magical incantation.

One brother who leads a large Messianic organization based in Jerusalem once said of the SNO movement, "We have scholars in Jerusalem who have done nothing
but study the Hebrew texts for their entire lives, and even they are not 100% certain how God's name is pronounced. And yet, we get letters from people in places
like Arkansas telling us that they know exactly how the Name is pronounced, even though they have never studied Hebrew." (No offense to people in Arkansas. He
could have named any other state.)

Point #3: The Various Theories of how to pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey
I find it interesting that a majority of the comments in this regard has been on the level of, "Pick a prounciation that you like and say it is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced." As I mentioned before I don't go by that standard of trying to pick what I like in terms of how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced and acting like what I picked is the superior way. As I mentioned before the Karaites say it is Yihweh and say STRONGLY that there is no way it was Yahweh. Certain sources CLAIM that the Samaritans said it was Yabe. There are sources that say it was Yehowah, and say that Yahweh is not possible.

As I mentioned before all of the below, from my own study, are equal possibilities of how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey may have been pronounced. (BTW: they are in no order in terms of validity.)

• Yahwi (Ancient cognate, believed to be by some scholars pre-9th cent. pronunciations based on Lamed-Hey verbs ancient being Lamed-Yod)
• Yahuwah (#2 Pual, imperfect, 3rd person masculine of Hey-Waw-Hey with Bavli Seghol as Pathahh)
• Yahaweh or Yehaweh (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd person masculine of Hey-Waw-Hey)
• Yahweh (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd person masculine of Hey-Waw-Hey)
• Yabe (Samaritan pronunciation from 2nd - 3rd cent. CE)
• Yahuweh (#1 Pual, Avar-imperfect, 3rd person masculine of Hey-Waw-Hey)
• Yahu (Shorter form considered by some scholars to be the ancient form)
• Yihweh (Qal, Atid-perfect, 3rd person masculine of Hey-Waw-Hey)
• Yahwah (Hiphil, imperfect, 3rd person masculine of Hey-Waw-Hey with Bavli Seghol as Pathahh)

  Note: One of the major flaws with all of these is in ancient times Lamed-Hey (Verb roots in ending in Hey) were ancient Lamed-Yod (Verb roots ending with Yod). Also, the Hey at the end is a vowel, and prior to the 9th century vowels were not used in this way to desinate vowels (for the most part), so the spelling may have been different anciently. With all of these the MEANINGS are different and anyone who knows Hebrew knows if the meaning is different then the verb Binyan is different. If the verb Binyan is different THEN THE PRONUNCIATION IS DIFFERENT! Proof of this can be found on the following Binyan chart.
  http://www.basicsofbiblicalhebrew.com/Files/BBH.paradigms1.pdf

  Some of the theories are said to be of possible pagan origin, but there is disagreement on this.
  

For a minute lets get back to what Jews believe in terms of The Name of Elohim.

1) Do Jews believe that before the Name was hidden that it was okay to say Elohim's Name.

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
Nothing in the Torah prohibits a person from pronouncing the Name of God. Indeed, it is evident from scripture that God's Name was pronounced routinely. Many common Hebrew names contain "Yah" or "Yahu," part of God's four-letter Name. The Name was pronounced as part of daily services in the Temple. The Mishnah confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name in ancient times. In fact, the Mishnah recommends using God's Name as a routine greeting to a fellow Jew.

As I mentioned before that after the death of Shimon Hatzadiq is when things changed. Before that point as I have stated the average Benei Yisrael, Geir, Toshav, etc. knew the pronunciation of The Name of Elohim. This was because there were Kohanim, Nevi'im (Prophets), Levites, and a Mishkan and then Temple which played important roles in keeping the knowledge of the character of Elohim stable. Yet, when Israel was taken over by foreign powers and when the Kohanim of a certain period became corrupt corrupt things changed.

2) Do Jews believe that in the world to come the full konwledge of Elohim's Name will be open access.

See below.

3) Do Jews not ATTEMPT to pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey because of a misunderstanding of Shemoth 20:6
The answer to this question is no. Lets look at what the Encyclopedia Judaica really says.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=Yahweh#164
At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the [Greek] New Testament, invariably render ???????.

Pronunciation of the Name by the Temple priests also gradually fell into disuse. Tosef., Sotah, xiii. 8, quoted Menakhot, 109b, and Yoma, 39b, relates that "from the time Simon the Just died [this is the traditional expression for the beginning of the Hellenistic period], the priests refrained from blessing the people with the Name"-in other words, they pronounced it indistinctly, or they mouthed or mumbled it. Thus says Tosef., Ber. vi. 23: Formerly they used to greet each other with the Ineffable Name; when the time of the decline of the study of the Law came, the elders mumbled the Name.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=840&letter=A&search=Yahweh
R. Tarfon (or Tryphon) relates (Yer. Yoma, iii. 40d): "I was standing in the row of young priests, and I heard the high priest mumbling the Name, while the rest of the priests were chanting." Thus the correct pronunciation became a secret, entrusted only to the kasherim (worthy ones) or the ?enu'im (Essenes = "the humble or chaste ones"), but withheld from the frivolous, the Hellenists (perushim); and even the former were taught it only once every seven years, and then only after due purification and sanctification (see Tid. 71a; Yer. Yoma, l.c., and compare Tosef., Yadayim, at the close, in Simson of Sens' commentary). "Wo upon you, you Pharisees, who pronounce the Holy Name each morning without due purification!" said the Hemerobaptists; whereupon the Pharisees sarcastically replied: "Wo upon you who pronounce the Holy Name with an organ of the body, while your body itself is unholy!"

However, it appears from Ta'anit, 19a and 'Ab. Zarah, 18a, that the Essene saints made use of the Name in their invocations and miraculous cures, which was afterward declared to be a grievous sin (Sanh. x. 1; compare also Book of Wisdom, xiv. 21). But while even among these the right pronunciation was forgotten in the course of time, and the hope was expressed by Phinehas b. Jair, "the Saint," that the knowledge and the correct use of the Name, so wondrously efficacious in the blessed days long gone by, would again be restored in the Messianic age (see Pes. 50a, Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxxvi. and to Ps. xci.), according to R. Mana of the fourth century (Yer. Sanh. x. 28b), the Samaritans then used the Ineffable Name in their oath, and Theodoret, theChurch father, in the fifth century, tells us that he heard it pronounced by them as Yabe, which is the equivalent of Yahweh. Even in the writing of the Name scrupulous care had to be taken by the scribes (see Soferim, v. 6).

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm
Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any certainty. We do not know what vowels were used, or even whether the Vav in the Name was a vowel or a consonant. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about the difficulties in pronouncing Hebrew. Some religious scholars suggest that the Name was pronounced "Yahweh," but others do not find this pronunciation particularly persuasive.

So this in its proper context is that the situation of the 3rd BCE to the 4th CE caused some (IN THE 3RD CENT. BCE) to feel as if the Name was not to be said because of the environmetal situations (foreign pagan power ruling over Israel), and corruption in the Kohanim (Yoma 39b). This caused certain Sages of that time (3RD CENTURY) to make a decision on the matter, that some say they had a misrepresentation of Shemoth 20:6. Because of the circumstances of that period in history, the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is UNCERTAIN. Never said it was "lost" if it was lost I wouldn't present people who ask me with all the theories that I know of. Because of the current uncertainity and because of the Mitzwah of Shemoth 20:6 Jews in modern history await the Mashi'ahh to make straight all UNCERTAINTY. Until that time we won't raise up false information about how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, because we live in a time different than the Tanakh and different than the time of Yeshua. Those periods had certainty that doesn't exist right now. Besides the Hebrew Tajjim Torah texts and the Samaritan Torah texts don't treat the word Shin-Mem as strictly a pronunciation.

So that being said, as I mentioned before I don't believe in the idea of lifting one thing that can be false as a pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, without giving all the theories and the pros and cons of each. What I am noticing though is that there seem to be people bent on their chosen choice of pronunciation, based on their own personal understanding, being what Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced as. As I mentioned before you believe that you are following the right path in this matter, then run with it. Your opinion is not the only opinion out there, and I am not afriad to give people the entire picture with, which they can make their own choices. Besides I find it strange that people claim that we Jews are hiding the Name of Elohim, yet Jewish sources have been quoted by varioius Sacred Name groups to prove their theory. If the Name of Elohim is being hidden by Jews then please explain why the Jewish Encyclopedia has a paper about it. Please also explain how I was able to look in a Jewish commentary of the Torah and find every scholorly theory iin the text. Besides anyone who learns even a little bit of Hebrew can take Hey-Waw-Hey, Hey-Waw-Yod, or Hey-Yod-Hey put it into a Binyan chart (as I showed in issue 2) and then come up with any theory they want.

Furthermore,

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=Yahweh#164
In appearance, Yhwh is the third person singular imperfect "Qal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person-"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "hai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh or Yahaweh. From this the contracted form Jah or Yah is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho ( = ), and Jo or Yo (, contracted from ), which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah in the second part of such names.

I will have to post the second part of my response in the next box because this one is full.

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Yet, there is another opinion that states.

http://gertoux.online.fr/divinename/faq/question.htm
A9- Today, is the pronunciation Yahweh widely accepted ?

Those who believe that Yahweh is the correct vocalization of the Name usually quote Clement and
Theodoret. The testimony of Clement of Alexandria appeared very late (around 200 CE), furthermore as he
explained that God's name Iaoue may be translated into "the one who is and who will be", it appears that Iaoue
is more a theological pronunciation than philological (A. Caquot - Les énigmes d'un hémistiche biblique in:
Dieu et l'être 1978 Paris Ed. Études Augustiniennes C.N.R.S. p. 24 note 23). Clement's Iaoue can not
represent an original God's name for the following reason: In spite of his claim about God's name, Clement did
not believe that God had a proper name. For him Iaoue was only a word (not a name) which means ‘the
one who is and who will be.’ (Stromateon V:6:34), because God is ineffable (Stromateon V:10:65),
without name (Stromateon V:12:81,82). For him the real name of God was the "Son" (Stromateon V:14:136).
Another example of the same confusion comes from Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) who believed that the word
IAÔ (Iaw in Greek, [Iah] in Latin) meant ‘Lord’ in primitive Hebrew (Against Heresies II, 24:2)
and he esteemed that the use of this Hebrew word IAÔ to denote the Name of the unknown Father, was
intended to impress gullible minds in worship of mysteries (Against Heresies I, 21:3).

A remark from the book of Theodoret (Quaestiones in Exodum cap. XV) is very often quoted to support the
pronunciation Yahweh, because of the following sentence: "the name of God is pronounced Iabe". This remark
is true, but Theodoret specified that he spoke about Samaritans and he added that the Jews pronounced this
name Aïa. In another book (Quaestiones in I Paral. cap. IX) he wrote that "the word Nethinim means in
Hebrew ‘gift of Iaô’, that is the God who is". According to Theodoret there were three different
forms, but as Theoderet probably ignored that there were several substitutes for the Name, at his time. The
intervening period which preceded the destruction of the Temple, the Talmud (Sotah 7,6 Tamid 33b) makes it
clear that substitutes of the Name were used in Palestinian liturgy. These substitutes were numerous, as one can
notice in the literature of this time (2M 1:24 , 25; 15:3; Si 23:4; 50:14-19).

The Greek Iaô (which comes from the old Hebrew Yahu) and the Samaritan Iabe (which comes from the
Aramaic Yaw) are not the pronunciation of the only name YHWH. The name Aïa (probably) represents a
transcription of ’ehyeh form.

Even if the name Yahweh is widely used its bases are very incertain and that is why most of scholars prefer the
form YHWH. At the present time there are two main trends among scholars. The first ones are those who think
that the form YHWH is equivalent to its etymology "He is" and they obtain the forms Yahve, Yahwoh, etc. The
second ones are those who try to read this name only owing to the philology. For example, the French erudite
Antoine Favre d'Olivet used Ihôah in his translation of the Bible (1823),the Jewish translator Samuel Cahen
used Iehovah in whole his Bible (1836), the Jewish doctor J.H. Levy preferred the name Y'howah (1903), and
so on. Strangely, some people put more faith in Professor Freedman than (1) in most other competent scholars,
(2) than the Bible and (3) than Professor Freedman puts in himself.

1) In the note on Exodus 3:14 The Jerusalem Bible (Paris 1986 Éd. Cerf p. 87 note k) recognizes that
«at present the causative form "He causes to be" is an old explanation, but it is more probably a qal form, that is
"He is."» According to the competent Hebrew scholar André Caquot, the name Yahwe or Iaoue is a
theological rather than a philological form of God's name. (Les énigmes d'un hémistiche biblique in: Dieu et
l'être. 1978 Paris Ed. Études Augustiniennes C.N.R.S. p. 24 note 23). See also the Karaites website.

2) In Exodus 3:14 the Hebrew Bible uses a qal form “I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be”
and not a hiphil form “I cause to become what I cause to become.” (see http://becomingone.org/gp/gp1b.htm)

3) Professor Freedman’s answer to my letter in which I asked him about his amazing assertions, wrote :
«I was pleased to hear from you and to have your detailed treatment of this valuable and interesting
subject, on which I have written from time to time. I have never been entirely satisfied with my own
analysis and interpretation of the divine name in the Hebrew Bible, or with that of others, including my
own teacher, W.F. Albright and his teacher (from whom Albright derived his position), Paul Haupt. At
the same time, I haven’t seen anything to persuade me of the superior value of another interpretation,
but I will be glad to learn from your study and perhaps discover that you have finally solved this
long-standing puzzle.» Despite Professor Freedman’s reputation as a famous editor, I would say that his
arguments are poor. For example, he stated «However, the name could be a unique or singular use of the
causative stem.» This cannot be taken seriously because there is no evidence, because the causative form of
the verb “to become, to be” does not exist in Hebrew and it has never existed. Whereas, the dogma of the
causative form «He causes to become» is not in the Bible. Therefore, can we believe in it ?

Furthermore, professor Freedman chose this analysis not for grammatical reasons but for theological
reasons (See his own comment in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.) Therefore the name Yahweh " He causes to
become" is a theological choice against Jehovah, who said that "He will [prove to] be".For example, to prove
the causative form Professor Albright (who was Professor Freedman's teacher!), in his book From the Stone
Age to Christianity, supposed that the true name could rediscovered through names coming from false
religions (Babylonian and Egyptian). He then supposed that the formula of Exodus 3:14 was modified to fit his
first hypothesis. By saying that, Professor Albright modified the biblical formula. Thus, should we accept
Professor Albright’s hypothesis concerning an old modification of Exodus 3:14 ?

Professor Freedman's theory is only supported by a tiny group of supporters (Freedman’s teacher and
a few others) but it is not based on reliable analysis. Even in 1906, the Brown, Driver and Briggs dictionary
stated: «Many recent scholars explain Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey as Hiph. of hwh (…) But most take it as Qal of hwh.» At
present, competent scholars know (for example, L. Pirot, A. Clamer Bible Ed. Letouzey et Ané, 1956, p. 83)
that the causative form can not be taken into account for two main reasons. Firstly, the causative form of the
verb "to be" is not known in Hebrew, furthermore to express a causative sense, the Piel form was used.
Secondly, this philosophical notion did not come from Hebrew (but from Greek philosophy) and the more
natural meaning is: "I shall be with you" according to Exodus 3:12. Thus, the position taken by several Bible
Translation Committees is based on the Hebrew concept being the omnipotent One who is the First Cause of
the entire universe, but it appears that there is confusion between philosophy and grammar. Furthermore, this
"Hebrew concept" is above all a "philosophical Greek concept". The translators of the Septuagint made a
similar mistake, changing the meaning of Exodus 3:14 "I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be" into "I am
He who is." In the same way, the sentence "I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be" is sometimes
modified into "I cause to become what I cause to become", based on the same philosophical concept, which is
not an additional insight. In addition, the assertion that the name of God means "He causes to become," is in
itself a “description” of God. However, there is no evidence except for the dogma of the causative form.

The emeritus professor E.J. Revell of the University of Toronto, in an answer to a letter of mine, wrote:
«I was very interested to read the copy of your work which you sent me. Before reading your study, had
no particular opinion on the pronunciation of the name of God. As a student in the 50’s, I was told that
scholars had determined that “Yahweh” was the ancient pronunciation. I did not find the argument
well-grounded, but the view was held almost as an article of faith by my instructors, and I had no
superior argument, so I ignored the problem. I have occasionally thought about it since, but I have not
acquired any information that you have not noticed in your study. You have certainly collected more
information on the question than any other study I know, and you are to be congratulated on the
production of a valuable work. Many thanks for sending it to me.»

Further the Karaites say the following
http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/the_name.shtml
In these passages, the Creator revealed His Name to Moses and through him to Israel and all mankind.
It is important to understand that the Creator's Name is neither a noun nor an adjective. It is a verb!
Please note that in verse 14 the Creator refers to Himself as "EHYEH", "I shall be". EHYEH is the
first person singular, simple future tense of the Hebrew verb HAYOH or HAWOH, to be. Since
ONLY the Creator Himself can say "I shall be", Moses, in verse 15, is finally instructed to refer to
Him as YHWH, HE will be; This is the third person singular, simple future of the same verb. As such,
its correct pronunciation must be YIHWEH. The popular pronunciation YAHWEH is based on a 5th
Century Samaritan usage, YABE or YABHE, which is entirely unintelligible, and without any
grammatical or linguistic foundation. The form "YAHWEH" is not the simple future used by the
Creator Himself in Exodus 3:14 but the so-called CAUSATIVE and would mean "He who causes to
be". The Creator certainly "causes to be", but He gives His Name as the simple future in Exodus 3:14
so we can safely assume that the same Name, in the third person, must also be the simple future and
not the causative. (In Hebrew the simple future tense is called "ATID" and the causative "HIF'IL").
Some see in the form YAH (as in Halleluyah) proof for the pronunciation "YAHWEH". Anyone who
knows Hebrew knows that the vocalization of the syllable, in both verbs and nouns, changes at times
with its position in the word. Thus, the root YHW may be pronounced YAHU at the end of the word
(as in ELIYAHU - ELIJAH, GEDALYAHU, YISH'AYAHU etc.) and YEHU at the beginning of a
word (as in YEHOSHAFAT, YEHOYADA). Thus the syllable YAH at the END of a word, could be
pronounced YEH or YIH at the beginning of a word. These observations are based on Hebrew
grammar! If the so-called "YAHWISTS" or Sacred Name groups have a source of information above
or beyond this one, let them show it!

Point #4: My Stance on Translations
As mentioned before I read from the Tajjim Yemenite Torah texts and the Samaritan Torah texts, no one here has shown me that they are reading from translations of these texts with the masorah of these two texts so as I mentioned before it is more than likely we are not reading from the same texts. Anyone who knows anything about the Samaritan Torah text would understand this. Also, the idea of starting from a translation and interpreting from a translation to understand the language originally used in the text as it exists is a foreign concept not meeting up with the Te'udah.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=840&letter=A&search=Yahweh
The translation of YHWH by the word Lord in the King James's and in other versions is due to the traditional reading of the Tetragrammaton as Adonai, and this can be traced to the oldest translation of the Bible, the Septuagint.

Do I believe that translations are inferior than the text they are translated from? Of course I do! Reading a translation is no way to reading the original text, with the an understanding of the language of the origianl. That is why at Synagogoues translations can only come secondary to the Hebrew text. I.e. once in Hebrew once in translation. Of course most Synagogoues don't translate the Torah from Hebrew anymore. Yemenites and some Italian Jews still read once in Hebrew and once in Aramaic. In the Mishnah it says twice in Hebrew and once in Targum (translation). Most Jewish communities have always pushed that the Hebrew text always supersedes a translation. All one has to do is read the text in Hebrew, or read it in translation with the understanding that they are not reading an original, but an attempt at transferring the ideas of another culture.

Point 5: Just Pick a Pronunciation?
I will have to say that if anything is confusing to people it is the claim that one can just pick a pronunciation it is referring to Elohim He doesn't mind, as long as you pick one that is okay with the SNM. Obviously if this is how things are done, then Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is not sacred or set-apart at all. This if anything is EXTREMELY confusing to people. I know a number of people who are utterly confused by all the different spellings and such various Sacred Name sects employ and use, and the theology that is employed. The claim that ones that obviously in Hebrew have different pronunciations are claimed to be the same also confuses a lot of non-SN people.

If the pick a pronunciation logic is correct then it should okay for a person for example to claim that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey spelled out is the pronunciation and that there are no vowels at all. This logic can also be used for a person to insert any vowels they want into it. I don't go by that logic because I am called to be above that kind of logic, in an Israeli context it has no Israeli historical basis for something that any person in Israel established. I know of about 6 or so theories about how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced. All of them have pros and all of them have cons. Because of the fact that I know that the pros and the cons are equal for all of them, there is no way I would act that like one pronunciation trumps another especially with proof that each one has potenial flaws. So using your logic of just pick what makes my intellect feel good, there would be about 6-10 equal pronounciations. This as I said countless times is because from my study any margin of error puts all the pronunciaitions on the same page.

It was mentioned before by someone that it is known how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced and the information was never lost, according to some of the sources that some people have provided, further proving my point that if something is wrong then everything else is false. If there is a way that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is DEFINATELY not pronounced then it would stand to reason that there is a false way for it to be pronounced. I also know for a fact that all of the pronounciations that I know as potentially possible are all different in pronunciation enough to where they are not the same word, and they also don't mean the exact same thing. For me to act they are the same, or even similar in that vien would be false information, on my part. If I was to declare that sun is a cold place, it is quite obvious that this information is incorrect and if I were to teach such a thing I would be teaching false information.

The reason I don't just pick one, is because that would be a false set of methods for me as a Jew to come to such a conclusion and I know better. If I didn't know better then yes, I can't exactly be held to liable for that (all though I would still be guilty of promiting something false).

If Moses spelled YHWH with four consonants, it would have to have more than two syllables. Why? Because all the letters were sounded. The pronunciation given by the Church Fathers is of late origin and contradicts earlier sources such as the older witness of Elephantine in Egypt. There, none of the elements appear as "eh." What we see is that critical speculation about the origin of YHWH seems endless. See the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Volume I, pages 210-212, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke.

Point 6: Qametz, Qametz Hatuf, and Pathahh

Earlier I posted information regarding how the Jews of Yemen pronounce Hebrew. I concetrated on that because it provides one example of the differences in dialects believed to have many of the qualities of ancient Hebrew.

It has been stated that I am "pushing" a pronunciation or rather prefering one over another. Yet, if this was the case I never would have mentioned anything about the Tiberias or the Bavli Pronunciation nor would I have mentioned the Samaritan Hebrew pronunciation, which some say is quite ancient. The following are the places where the scholars talk about the issue.
Yemenite Pronunciation of Hebrew
http://www.chayas.com/evinsapir.doc
http://www.chayas.com/prontable.jpg
http://www.chayas.com/prontab2.jpg

Now as I mentioned before I am not pushing one dialect, but have listed all the ones I know about.

On the issue on pronunciation here are what a few scholars I contacted had to say on the topic.

Rav Ovadia Yosef writes that it is a mistake to think that in the Sepharadi pronunciation a “Kamatz” and a “Patach” are identical- there is a subtle difference (Shu”t Yabiya Omer VI Orach Chayyim 11 (4)).

Shimson asked Dr. Breuer of Hebrew University in Jerusalem
| Greetings Dr. Breuer,
|
| I have a few questions concerning the
pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew.
| I have heard that many scholars beleive that
Yemenites Jews pronounce
| Hebrew close to the way it was in ancient times.
I found a Yemenite
| Jewish web-site (http://www.chayas.com) that
says they pronounce Qametz
| and Qametz Hatuf as an "o" sound as in "cost."
In Ancient Hebrew did
| the sound of Qametz and Pathakh sound different.
For example the Hey
| (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem would have a
different sound then if there
| was a Pathakh under the Hey. Can you shed some
light on this?
|
| I had also heard that in Ancient Hebrew the
Seghol sound that we now
| have as "eh" was a Pathakh sound of "ah."
|
| I thank you in advance for your time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Yochanan Breuer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Your questions are serious and need a long
discussion, which I cannot do here. In short, the
Yemenite pronounciation is close in several
details to the ancient pronounciation, but not in
all the details. They indeed pronounce seghol like
patah, but in this detail they continue a certain
ancient tradition, but not all of them. Regarding
the qamas, it surely deffered from the
pronounciation of the patah, but it probably was
not not exactly o, but something between a and o,
something like the pronounciation of the a in
"talk".

I am sorry I cannot elaborate in this subject, but
this topic is wide and needs much discussion.
Yours
Yochanan Breuer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shimson's note: It is interesting that Dr. Breuer chose a word with the same sound as the word with "o" that I sent to him. That is to say that sound of "talk" (the sample word he chose) and "cost" (the word I chose) are the representation of the Qametz sound. It is also interesting to note that Dr. Breuer says that the Qametz was surely different than the sound of Pathahh.

Dr. Asher Laufer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dear Shimson,

My answer to you is embedded in your letter to me:

All the best,

Shimson's letter to Dr. Laufer with Dr. Laufer's response
Greetings Dr. Laufer,

1) I have a few questions concerning the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. I
have heard that many scholars beleive that Yemenites Jews pronounce Hebrew
close to the way it was in ancient times. I found a Yemenite Jewish
web-site (http://www.chayas.com) that says they pronounce Qametz and Qametz
Hatuf as an "o" sound as in "cost."

Dr. Laufer's response
1) That's true!

Shimson further questioned
2) In Ancient Hebrew did the sound of Qametz and Pathakh sound different? For
example the Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem would have a different sound
then if there was a Pathakh under the Hey Can you shed some light on this?

Dr. Laufer's response
2) They definitely sounded differently. By the way, the difference between Hey (Qametz) Shin (Tzere) - Mem [Hoshem/Hawshem] and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem (HaShem) is also in the Daggesh in the Shin.

Shimson further questioned
3) I had also heard that in Ancient Hebrew the Seghol sound that we now have as "eh" was a Pathakh sound of "ah."

Dr. Laufer's response
3) That is true only for the "Babylonian punctuation". Our "Tiberian punctuation" certainly differentiate between the Seghol and the Pathakh

Shimson asked Rabbi P. Waldman from Aish.com
Rabbi I have a few questions concerning a debate I am involved in with someone.
1) They claim that we (Jews) don't pronounce the name of Elohim because > we misunderstand the passage of Shemot 20:6 i.e. they say we have > superstitions about it being to holy to pronounce. In response to > their claim I looked in the Talmud, and from what I have found the > pronunciation of the name of Elohim was hidden because of the drift in > rightous Kohanim after the death of Shimon Hatzadiq, and because of > Eretz Israel being under Roman/pagan rule the name was hidden and that > currently because of the uncertainty in the pronunciaiton after that > point we don't try to pronounce Elohim's name. I tried to explain to > them that for Jews putting out an incorrect pronunciation of Elohim's name also would be a violation of Shemot 20:6, and that we believe > that Mashi'akh will rebuild the Beit HaMiqdash and all things that > need restoration will be restored. Am I correct in my conclusion?

Rabbi P. Waldman from Aish.com responded
1. Appears to be correct.

Shimson further asked Rabbi P. Waldman from Aish.com
2) They claim that the name of the person in the Tanakh named Hawshem (I Chronicles 11:34) is pronounced exactly the same as HaShem.

Rabbi P. Waldman from Aish.com responded
2. Incorrect.

Shimson further asked Rabbi P. Waldman from Aish.com
3) They also claim that in ancient Hebrew that Qametz and Patakh had > the same sound. I have heard that many scholars beleive that > Yemenites pronounce Hebrew close to the way it was in ancient times. > I found a Yemenite web-site that says they pronounce Qametz and Qametz > Hatuf as an "o" sound as in "cost." Can you shed some light on this?

Rabbi P. Waldman from Aish.com responded
3. Correct - but for exact Yemenite pronunciation, you should personally speak to a knowledgeable Yemenite, who should pronounce it for you.
Shimson's Note: As pointed out earlier a good description from a Yemenite Mori on this can be found at http://www.chayas.com/evinsapir.doc

Further information about the Qametz can be found where it is seen that there exits a Qametz Katan, which is represented as an "o."
http://www.vacuum-center.net/articles/Niqqud?mySession=c6e1563561fc22c4321c3913c8329f92

Regardless of how one wants to use English to define something, which as I pointed out earlier English is not sufficient, people who know Hebrew know that there is a difference between Qametz and Pathahh. That being said as we see from the Torah itself that HaShem does exist in the Hebrew Tanakh and it also shows that there is no confusion between Hey (Qametz) and Hey (Pathahh) as the evidence shows and as the scholars agree. We could argue until the sun goes down about transliteration, but the evidnce is clear that HaShem and Hawshem/Hoshem both exist in the Tanakh and they have different sounds. Scholars agree that they don't sound the same, and even Hebrew speaking children of ages 2-3 know how to designate the definate article.

Issue 7: Understanding Who one worships
As I mentioned before I have yet to meet a person who knew someone who was a Torah observant Jew and did not know whom they worshipped. That is because a Jew who is living by Torah is supposed to examplify the character of Elohim. Doesn't mean a Jew is perfect, but just as Elohim is Qadosh so is a Jew supposed to be also. In terms of the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, as I mentioned before no Jew goes around claiming that HaShem is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced. As I mentioned before different Jews do different things in this regard. Yet, none of the information that people have presented shows that Jews consider HaShem to be how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced. As I mentioned before we know that there are a few possibilities, but that Mashi'ahh will restore full knowledge.

Also it was suggested that my mention of wearing a Kofia (Kippa) was not connected to this discussion, because it was a tradition. If one goes back and looks at the CONTEXT of what I was talking about it would be easy to see that my mention of the Kofia was nestled into what things MOST people recognize as something a part of a Jew. I.e. a person wearing tzitzith and Kippa/Kofia and just walking around 9 times out of 10 would be EASILY known to be a Jew. That being said, without a word people who know how a Jew is dressed also 9 times out of 10 know WHO we serve. This is espescially true when the person encounters a Torah observant Jew, is trying their best to live my a high standard of moral character. That is that the character of Elohim should be evident in a Torah observant Jew, since this is really the ONLY way that someone can really be Jewish to begin with. This is how even in countries where Benei Yisrael who were scattered and suppressed, but still maintained their identity as descendents of Benei Yisrael have been recognized even in modern times. For example 200 years ago a group of people in India were recognized by an European Rabbi as being lost Benei Yisrael because of how they dressed and the stories of their beliefs that they professed. He taught them what they were lacking and many of them now live in Israel reforming their community. In China a group of lost Benei Yisrael were recognized on similar groups, and the list goes on and on even including descendents of the Spanish Inquisition who were forced to convert to Christianity, but still maintained secretly Jewish practices and now many of their descendents are recognized as Jews because of these visible clues that their ancestors left behind.

So back to the Kippa issue, it is a part of what the world recognizes as something Jewish. Of course Yeshua was not against tradition, but was against "hypocrites" who were not practicing what they preach, or were closing the doors of Torah off to the un-educated by adding up heavy weights that the average people could not keep. Such was evident with both Beith Shammi and Beith Hillel at times in the 1st cent. era where both had a problem with Am Ha'Aretz (Common people), where Yeshua appealed to these people. Also, Acts 21:18-24 suggest that a Jew is not to give up Torah, circumcision of sons, and Minhagei Torah (Traditions of Torah). So as I mentioned before there are both physical and spiritual elements that let a person know the character of The One that Israel is to serve. That is something that Pharoh had to learn, even when hearing The Name of Elohim did not cause him to let Benei Yisrael leave Egypt.

The next box has the last part of my response.

------------------

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/
http://www.bereanfaith.com/hrm.php
http://www.geocities.com/EESNM/
http://www.youthofamerica.com/Talmud.htm
http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/namegame.htm
http://www.geocities.com/changes1611/name27.html
http://www.sdadefend.com/sacred_name_2.htm
http://midnightcryministries.com/sacred_name.htm

I have also noticed people on this forum who mention that even after years of being a SNamer that they have family that don't understand what they practice or believe. Having name that you believe to be how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced won't equal people understanding you, having moral character and using Miqra as your quide is what gives that.

YET, as I mentioned before I am not trying to down the Sacred Name movement by stating any of this. What I mentioned is from the stand point of what the Hebrew Tanakh calls out for a Jew/Benei Yisrael/Geirim. I am not in any way trying to judge the SN movment, nor am I trying to convince anyone to do anything different. I am only responding to a question, with which I am assuming that the arguement is because some people don't like the answer. So we can go on and on for days on this, and it will end up in the same place with hundreds of words and time being wasted.

You believe that you are doing what is right in the eyes of Elohim, GOOD! I hope you are, and I am not trying to convince you to change your mind-set. I personally know that Elohim will send the Mashi'ahh to reveal that which is not certain, and I have full faith that Yeshua will do such on his return.

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

I have at this point only skimmed through your postings, so I may ask a question or two that you have already answered above, but I just didn't notice it. If so, I apologize.

What I'm mainly interested in (at this moment) is your reaction to the fact that the word "HaShem" was used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton when translating The Chumash. I notice that you believe it is a title, a view shared by much of Judaism, whereas Rivkah maintains that it is not a title.

One thing for sure: It is used as a substitute for the Creator's name, as plainly expressed by one website:

HaShem

~vh

(hash-SHEM) n. HaShem. The Name (of God). Substitute name for YHVH. See the Names of God.

The above definition can be accessed at the following URL:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Hebrew_Glossary_-_H/hebrew_glossary_-_h.html

Do you agree that it was wrong to substitute "HASHEM" for the Almighty's name when translating The Chumash?

There are several comments you made in your above postings that I would like to respond to, but since that would take so long, I will only concentrate on a few, such as this one:

You wrote:

quote:

---

I have also noticed people on this forum who mention that even after years of being a SNamer that they have family that don't understand what they practice or believe. Having name that you believe to be how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced won't equal people understanding you, having moral character and using Miqra as your quide is what gives that.

---

My reaction: If you have read everything I have written, you know I agree that our lives should reflect the character of Messiah Yeshua. Yet, to identify our role model, I believe it is helpful, Scriptural, and appropriate to use a name. The same for our Heavenly Father. I have expressed how Scripture reveals His character ... His mercy, His lovingkindness, His patience, but also His jealousy for His name. He wants His people to know His character by observing Torah, but He also wants His people to know the name of the Giver. Those who earnestly desire to know His name will come very close, if they do not get it 100% correct. I personally believe the pronunciation "Yahweh" is correct, but I do not ever come out with a "100% certainty" claim because I believe, without access to an actual recording of an early believer speaking His name, such a claim would be arrogant. Naturally, then, someone who would prefer to not speak the Name can be expected to capitalize on those who do not express 100% certainty by attempting to portray them as pretty much "stumbling in the dark," and that they believe "any pronunciation will do." Remarks of that nature, which of course are untrue.

I believe the Creator that you and Rivkah portray is not one of love and mercy. If you mispronounce His name, He will not forgive you, although I'm not sure what punishment you believe awaits those of my persuasion.

The Creator I know and love is One Who wants a personal relationship with His people, and even though His ways are so much higher than ours, He is willing to come down to us where we are. Even Yeshua expressed this love by mentioning the hen who would gather her chicks under her wings. This is the kind of love our Creator has for His children ... not some rigid, stern, cold-hearted Being who burns with anger when those who want to learn His name should happen to mispronounce it.

Sure, I believe the pronunciation "Yahweh" is "most correct," but I've been trying to show consideration to those who earnestly believe other close variations are "most correct." I believe our Heavenly Father is so much more understanding of our weaknesses than either you or Rivkah seem willing to allow. This is what I have sensed from both of you through the maze of postings in this thread. From your perspective, it seems as though Sacred Namers consist mainly of bumbling idiots who just can't make up their minds how the Creator's name is pronounced. From a scholarly perspective, I believe you should know better than this. From another perspective, you seem to believe that those of our persuasion "don't really care" what name we apply to the Creator. It's "whatever suits our fancy" type of thing to us ... at least this is how you and Rivkah seem to portray those of my persuasion. I'm sure those who do not share the desire to call upon our Creator with the name He gave to Himself will agree with your perspective. However, for folks like me, it is a simple desire to identify Him by name and to honor Him with it, just as the ancients did.

As for our families and loved ones not understanding our position regarding the Creator's name, I can only speak from my own perspective. I was compelled to leave my family because of my decision to no longer work on the Sabbath day, not because of the Creator' name.

You wrote:

quote:

---

So back to the Kippa issue, it is a part of what the world recognizes as something Jewish.

---

I reply: Something Jewish, yes. Something Scriptural, no. I have no quarrel with those who choose to wear a kippa or other headcoverings, so long as they don't teach it as something Scriptural that men should do.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Besides I find it strange that people claim that we Jews are hiding the Name of Elohim, yet Jewish sources have been quoted by varioius Sacred Name groups to prove their theory. If the Name of Elohim is being hidden by Jews then please explain why the Jewish Encyclopedia has a paper about it. Please also explain how I was able to look in a Jewish commentary of the Torah and find every scholorly theory iin the text.

---

I reply: The claim about Jews, as I understand it, is that they teach that the Tetragrammaton should not be pronounced. This is where I strongly disagree. I don't remember making any comments about the Jews "hiding the Tetragrammaton," but they do suppress the Name by teaching that it should not be vocalized.

Besides, if such a teaching had never developed, would anyone have ever made the claim that the pronunciation has been lost?

All I know is, Judaism (as a whole) does not proclaim the name YHWH.

As I have mentioned before, and I'll mention it again, the first decree to not speak the Creator's name was directed AT the Jews by a heathen nation. And now, many Jews (not all, though) are obeying that decree. Some "rebel Jews" agree that it is wrong to suppress the name YHWH.

One final request. It seems as though you went to a lot of trouble in an attempt to demonstrate that "HaShem" is pronounced differently from the name of the Israelite man, whose name was "Hashem." Of course, this strongly implies that the Hebrew scholars I've consulted, including Strong's, didn't know their Hebrew as well as the scholars that you consulted. What I would like to see, but didn't, was the precise phonetic rendering of both of those Hebrew words. For some reason, unless I missed it ... and I admit I skimmed much of what you wrote ... I didn't see how those scholars believe those two words should be pronounced. I would like to see a comparison of the two, please.

And I am still amazed at how certain you are of the pronunciation "HaShem," yet you seem to be very uncertain about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.

Well, this is enough for now. If time allows, I may respond to additional comments later.

May YHWH bless,

To give a few short answers to your questions.

1) I don't believe that any trnaslation, with exception of Aramaic is valid in comparison with the Hebrew text. So I believe that it is WRONG to rely on a translation completely, no matter the source of the translation. Doesn't matter to me who makes the translation. So do I think it is wrong to substitute in a translation? That is a judgement that I will leave to Elohim, I personally would not if I were translating something as I have shown that I do not place HaShem in places where Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is. This was shown in every place where I was translating. In the Synagogoues where I pray the only translations that exist are the Aramaic ones, and that is never used to supplant the Hebrew text. Also, there are some translations that translate Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey into what it POSSIBLY means in English instead of placing something else in its place. Yet, as I mentioned before my encouragement for people is to learn Hebrew for themselves because then they won't have to worry about the issue. Besides the theological aspect of the translation is also an issue with various translations. Many traditional Jews don't employ translations, but instead learn Hebrew and teach it to their chldren. As I said before keep it in Hebrew, and one won't have to worry about it.

2) In terms of character vs. a pronunciation. There are about 4 or 5 people who have presented various arguements in this thread. I am responding to ALL the arguements that have presented to me. That is why I didn't put anyone's name in my response. If something does not apply to anything you believe or stated just ignore it. That means that it was intended for someone else.

In terms or pronunciations, there are some of the theories I mentioned that are said by some to come DIRECTLY from pagan deities, and are not of Hebrew origin. Even some of the ones that have scholarly backing in certain sectors, are said to be pagan from other sectors and the evidence from them both are quite convincing. So a person could easily be calling on a pagan, name and not even know it, UNLESS they themselves have done their own research in archeology, linquistics, and history.

3) In terms of the pronunciation of Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem vs. Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. It has been shown even in Strong's that Qametz and Pathahh don't have the same sound, and EASILY distiquished in Hebrew. Going back to point one. It has been shown that any child who knows Hebrew knows what a Definate Article is and HOW it is used. It has also been shown that neither words are from the same shoresh (root), which means a lot in Hebrew. Also, if a person would have a hard time knowing which was which, they would have a hard time with th esage of Hey (Pathahh) - Shin/Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem. The Rabbi you consulted also showed that Hey (Qametz) is not the same sound as Hey (Pathahh). I bet if you were to ask him if Qametz and Pathahh in Ancient Hebrew had the same sound, and also ask him about the more ancient dialects of Hebrew as well you would get the same answers I got. As I mentioned before you don't have to like the answer, but it is an answer.

4) In terms of your question of how it is known how certain words in the Tanakh are pronounced and not The Name of Elohim. As I stated before the events of 3rd cent. BCE to about 3rd CE changed everything in that respect. Due to the events I mentioned before, and that the Rabbi agreed with it has placed the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in uncertainty, if it was certain there wouldn't even be more than one theory. IN THE MODERN TIME, people are all in a situation where there is no 100% knowledge of that matter, BECAUSE of what happened back in the time period I mentioned. For most Jews 100% is a requirement when it comes certian matter such as The Name of Elohim. I covered some of issues on this in my first response.

As I mentioned before we are certain that Mashi'ahh will come and re-establish what is unknown or lost. Yet, to fully answer your question you will have to look into the sources of what I posted earlier. There are some people who CLAIM that they are certain the pronunciation is one thing or another. Jews aren't suppressing The Name of Elohim in modern times, as I mentioned before after about the 4th cent. or so it became uncertain because of what happened a few centuries earlier.

Although Jewish groups like the Karaites say that they know it, and they could be right or they could be wrong. The Karaites say that they pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey and they are Jews. If ANYONE wants to know the theories all they need to do is learn Hebrew and take Hey-Waw-Hey, Hey-Waw-Yod, and Hey-Yod-Hey and use a Binyan chart and they can find most of them and then make their own decision on the matter. If we as Jews are concealing the theories we have not done a good of it, as that information has been published in a number of books in complete access of any Jew. I can go to any Yeshivah and more than likely find a number of sources on the theories.

5) On the issue of the Kippa, once again I never mentioned anything about any commandments and a Kippa. There are Jews who wear them and those who do not. There is no Jewish hit squad going out and forcing people to wear them. Even in Israel, some people do and some people don't. It is a Minhagei Torah as I pointed out. This has nothing to do with the point that I was making. The point I was making was something I pointed out to a question I was making to Chuck. I have yet to meet a person who didn't look at a Torah observant Jew, most Jews who are Torah observant also wear Kippas not because it is commanded in the Torah, but because it is a Minhagei Torah. (Acts 21:18-24) shows that a Jew is to remain in these kind of practices. So when people see Tzitzith, a Kippa, and moral living generally speaking people recognize that this is 1) a Jew, 2) Jews read from and live by the Torah, and 3) In turn they KNOW exactly who it is that we (Jews) worship, because the Torah describes Him. Also, if anyone doesn't know or understand upon a visual inspection they are more than welcom to ASK this person about the characteristics. If all they want is the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey they can easily be pointed out to the theories and they can make their own decisions from there.

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Originally posted by Acheson:
One thing for sure: It is used as a substitute for the Creator's name, as plainly expressed by one website:

HaShem
~vh

(hash-SHEM) n. HaShem. The Name (of God). Substitute name for YHVH. See the Names of God.

The above definition can be accessed at the following URL:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Hebrew_Glossary_-_H/hebrew_glossa ry_-_h.html

BS"D
Your reference is not a Judaic site from Torah Jews, but is a Christian site.

Your concept of our not mentioning specifically The Name of El-him but instead referring to It with the Hebrew HaShem (The Name) as a replacement is flawed. The below Torah passage also does not specificaly mention The Name but instead refers to It with the Hebrew HaShem only:

Vayikra 24:11 vayikov ben-haisha hayisreelit et-HASHEM vayekalel vayaviu oto el-moshe veshem imo shelomit bat-divri lemate-dan

And the Yisreelit woman's son blasphemed The Name, and cursed. And they brought him to Moshe; and his mother's name was Shelomit, the daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan.

HaShem is Hebrew for The Name and is only a reference to The Name of El-him by Jews in English translations.

The Torah in the above mentioned passage, on the other hand, uses it to refer to The Name of El-him even in the Hebrew!

Rivkah

Thank you for answering my questions, or at least most of them. I agree that the Hebrew text is best, which is why I consider an interlinear to be so important to those who, like me, don't really know Hebrew. It's the next-best thing. I will say that if I were to know Hebrew and read from the Hebrew text, I would sound out the Tetragrammaton each time I came to it. I accept no substitutes.

While it would be so wonderful for us to all know and speak Hebrew, I don't get the impression that this knowledge and ability would cause our current issue to go away, for there would still be this matter of those who say something else, whether it be "Hashem" or "Adonai" when they come across the Tetragrammaton in their reading.

I still do not know how you believe the two "Hashem's" should be pronounced. Maybe this will help. According to Strong's, the name of the Israelite mentioned in I Chron. 11:34 is pronounced "haw-shame" (word #2044 in Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary).

Of course, a "more correct" pronunciation of the Hebrew word for "name" (shem) is "shame." Thus, it would be technically more correct to pronounce the expression "the name" as haw-shame, which coincides with the pronunciation of the man's name mentioned in I Chron. 11:34.

Pronunciation of man's name mentioned in I Chron. 11:34 = Haw-shame
Pronunciation of Heb. expression that means "the name" = Haw-shame

The above pronunciations match 1) What is found in Strong's, 2) What the rabbi I e-mailed told me and 3) What is found in the Septuagint (at least the first syllable has the "aw" sound).

Since you believe an older phonetic representation more accurately reflects a difference between how the above two words/expressions were anciently pronounced, could you please produce the phonetic representations to reflect the difference so I can make the comparison?

Pronunciation of man's name mentioned in I Chron. 11:34 = ____________________
Pronunciation of Heb. expression that means "the name" = _____________________

Well, this is all for now. I should add one thing: I am glad we agree that "HASHEM" should never have been substituted for YHWH's name by those who translated the Chumash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
Hi, Shimson:

Of course, a "more correct" pronunciation of the Hebrew word for "name" (shem) is "shame." Thus, it would be technically more correct to pronounce the expression "the name" as haw-shame, which coincides with the pronunciation of the man's name mentioned in I Chron. 11:34.

Pronunciation of man's name mentioned in I Chron. 11:34 = [b]Haw-shame
Pronunciation of Heb. expression that means "the name" = Haw-shame

[/B]

---

What you have stated is simply not correct at all. Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem is not from the Shoresh (Shin-Mem) Shem. This is what I mean about not knowing Hebrew. The Rabbi you emailed never claimed that Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem was pronounced Hawsheme, in fact he said that Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem was pronounced Hawshem, not Hawsheme you are adding vowels that he never said.

The only way a pronunciation like Hawsheme would be possible is if there were a Tzere or Seghol under the Mem, and this would often mean that there is a Hey (Hebrew) or an Aleph (Aramaic) after Mem. Also, if you are now claiming that Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem is pronounced Hawsheme, where several times before you said it was pronounced Hawshem as well as Hashem this doesn't make any sense, since it can't be all of them at the same time.

I will contact that Rabbi from Aish that you emailed and ask him to clarify what he wrote to you.

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

Shimson bar-Tzadoq