|
 Forums at EliYah's Home Page
 Scripture Discussion Forum
 Who is "Hashem"? (Page 14)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Who is "Hashem"? | ||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 04-09-2005 11:17 PM
  
Hi, Rivkah: I'm sorry that my offering a quotation from the Christian web site didn't meet your criteria for evidence that Jews use "HaShem" instead of speaking the Creator's name. In spite of your protests to the contrary, the fact remains that "HASHEM" is indeed used by Judaism as a substitute for His name, just as plainly evidenced in The Chumash translation. You wrote: quote: I somehow doubt that my offering a quotation from a Jewish website will serve to persuade you that the Christian website is "on the money" with their definition of "HaShem," but I'll provide a few anyway. The following comes from a Messianic Jewish website’s “Glossary” page:
According to the above definition, “HaShem” is indeed used as a replacement (substitution) for the Tetragrammaton. The above information may be accessed at the following URL: http://tzion.org/talmud/talmud_glossary.htm The following testimony comes from a Jewish congregation known as B'nai HaShem:
The above quotation can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.themitzvahproject.org/ Notice that not only does the author of the above commentary mention that "HaShem" is used instead of speaking the Tetragrammaton, but he also goes so far as to classify it as a NAME ... going a step beyond Shimson's claim that it is a title ... and two steps beyond your claim that it isn't even a title! Moreover, the author of the above somehow has the impression that the Creator "has many names” ... something that most everyone contributing to this forum knows is untrue. He only has one name ... the name He gave to Himself. I also found the following discussion very interesting: Hashem your G-d shall you fear. Dvarim 6:13 The above demonstrates the disagreement existing within Judaism regarding speaking the name YHWH. It also reveals a discussion over whether or not one "must" say "HaShem" in its place ... something the majority of Judaism says "yes" to, even today. The above commentary, by the way, may be accessed at the following URL: http://www.stlkollel.com/bits/5757/vaetchanan.txt The following Jewish website makes it even clearer that they believe we should use "HaShem" instead of YHWH:
Elsewhere in his commentary the Jewish author affirms his understanding that “HaShem” is used instead of the Tetragrammaton:
The above quotations may be accessed at the following URL: http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/048207.php We thus see that, contrary to the assertion you continue to make, it is a well-established tradition within mainstream Judaism to speak or write “HaShem” instead of the Tetragrammaton. This is what is known as substituting. For some strange reason, I thought I could visit a forum such as this and not have to defend why I believe it is wrong to substitute words such as “LORD” or “HASHEM” in place of the Tetragrammaton. Not only do I see that I was mistaken in this, but I also see that those who seek to defend their own practice maintain that they aren’t “really” substituting. Even in the book To Be a Jew by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, p. 174, we read that it is a Jewish practice to say “HaShem” instead of YHWH:
Again, the above is a clear reference to the practice of name substitution. I had previously been under the impression that those who participate in this forum all agree that it is wrong to use substitutions in place of the Creator’s name, but it would appear that I had a mistaken impression. You wrote: quote: I reply: It appears that you have not been reading my responses carefully enough, for I certainly do acknowledge the Scriptural presence of “HaShem” in reference to the Name, as should be evidenced from the following quote taken from one of my postings (see above):
So you see, Rivkah, I really have no problem with the way “Ha-shem” is used in Scripture. Here is an example of the problem I have with the use of “Ha-shem.” The following excerpt is taken from “Hebrew Transliterated and English Translated Torah,” and is yet another example of how the Almighty’s name is replaced by “HaShem”: "So shall you say to the Children of Yisrael, 'HASHEM the G-d of your forefathers, the G-d of Avraham, the G-d of Yitzchak, and the G-d of Yaakov has dispatched me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance from generation to generation.' The above excerpt is taken from the following URL: http://headcoverings-by-devorah.com/HebEngTaNaKh13.html As you can see, the person “transliterating” the Hebrew text had no problem with “transliterating” YHWH as “HaShem.” The practice, then, goes well beyond simple “substitution.” It is also called (at least by the above translator) “transliterating.” Again, I have no problem with the word “hashem” as it appears in Leviticus 24:11, although I notice it is there connected to the word “et,” a word that you chose to not capitalize when you wrote “et-HASHEM.” You wrote: quote: I reply: As I have plainly demonstrated via quotes from Jewish websites and even a Jewish book, my concept is far from “flawed,” it is “on the money,” so to speak. I don’t need to push “concepts” about mainstream Judaism speaking and writing “HaShem” instead of YHWH: They do it for me. Your issue on this, then, is not really with me, it is with such authors as Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, as well as the webmasters of the above websites. So while you seem to think I’m operating off of “flawed concepts,” I have no choice but to believe that you are simply in denial of the above facts while simultaneously abiding by a decree initially given by Antiochus Epiphanes. If you are not, I invite you to persuade me otherwise, and I would apologize for the mistaken impression. Using a quotation from Leviticus 24:11 does nothing to support your position. I have no question that the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed “the name.” Do you really believe he blasphemed “HaShem” … or do you believe He blasphemed using the Tetragrammaton? And if you are going to use that verse as the foundation for your position that we should refer to the Almighty as “HaShem” (even though His actual name is mentioned 6,823 times elsewhere), I can only wonder why you don’t refer to Him as “ET-HASHEM.” If you insist on transliterating the entire Hebrew, then why leave out the “ET”? Curiously, upon reading the commentary on this verse from The Chumash, I see nothing offered to even remotely suggest that Leviticus 24:11 serves as a justification for referring to YHWH as “HaShem.” In fact, in the translation offered by The Chumash, we read the following for Lev. 24:11:
According to the above translation, the son of the Israelite woman “pronounced the name” and blasphemed it. This is simply a reference to his having pronounced the Tetragrammaton before blaspheming it. As I trust you know, there was never anything wrong with pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, so long as you did so respectfully. There is also nothing wrong with making a reference to the Tetragrammaton without speaking the actual name, just as I have done twice in this paragraph already! That doesn’t mean I believe we should say “the Tetragrammaton” instead of YHWH on a 100% basis! By the same token, if I say, “We should always honor the Name,” most folks [in this forum] understand by context which name I’m referring to. In the case of the Israelite woman’s son, we know “the Name” is a reference to the Tetragrammaton. This verse in no way “proves” that we should refer to YHWH as “HaShem,” or even “ET-HASHEM.” Nor does it demonstrate that YHWH gives His blessing for referring to Him as "HaShem" instead of speaking His name. And certainly, if this is how you interpret this verse, I would expect to see approved examples in the Tanakh of people referring to Him as "HaShem." I have not seen any such examples, so if you know of any, now would be a good time to offer them. You wrote: quote: I reply: I believe you misunderstand my point. I do not question the fact that Hebrew (apparently) does not need a “qualifier,” as you call it, to distinguish the title from the name. In English, however, such usage indicates that a title is being used as a name. This is the case with the title “Elohim.” If I were to wish to clearly distinguish “Elohim” as a title instead of a name in English, I would write something like “our Elohim” or “the Elohim.” Perhaps this is one quality of the English language that is an actual improvement over the Hebrew. You see, in Hebrew, titles such as “Baal” and “Melek,” when used as names, could have eventually become names, which could very well explain the origin of the names “Baal” and “Moloch.” Had there been “qualifiers” to clearly distinguish the title from the name, this might not have occurred. I am fully persuaded that some folks actually prefer to treat Elohim or HaShem as a name, for when I point this English rule out to them, they go right ahead and ignore it in favor of their preferred custom. This certainly brings to mind the prophets of Baal … they actually believed they were worshipping the true Mighty One … until EliYah proved otherwise. To those who really know better than to think that “Elohim” is a name, I can only suggest that they work at clearly demonstrating this to others. If you somehow missed my quotation from the English grammar book on how titles (or any words) can be used as names, I will be glad to repost it for you. You wrote: quote: I reply: I agree! You also wrote: quote: I reply: Again, I agree. Of course, this should not serve as rationale discouraging anyone from wanting to learn the name of the One who created us, should it? I like to know the name of the One I worship, and there is nothing in His Word so much as insinuating that I will incur His wrath if I want to learn that name, and then, as a response to wanting to learn that name, doing lots of research to find out what it is … only to come up with an incorrect pronunciation. Something tells me the son of the Israelite woman managed to blaspheme the Name without mispronouncing it. You told Sonja: quote: I reply: I believe this was a rather undignified choice of words here, not to mention “flawed.” Your expressing that folks like myself wish to place “a name of our own choosing” on our Heavenly Father, however, is indicative of the negative spin that you have chosen to place upon those of my persuasion, and is now expected. Please know and understand that if it were simply a “name of our choosing,” I would have settled for “God,” the name I was taught as a child. It certainly brings you more friends! Thus, I didn’t “choose” the form “Yahweh.” In fact, the first thing I tried to do was prove it wrong. I consulted linguistics experts, both Jewish and Protestant, I have read lots of scholarly studies on the subject, and as a result I have formed the conclusion that I now hold … with all due respect to those who have reached a different conclusion. As I try to keep an open mind, I still read scholarly studies regarding the name of the Almighty. Some folks regard my approach as though I’m seeking a “magic name,” or something to that effect. Of course, I believe they know better deep down inside, for it’s simply a matter of wanting to know His name, just as I want to know the name of a new friend I meet (only this is on a much higher level) … so it’s for identification purposes. I find it silly that someone should regard a desire to know and call upon our Heavenly Father by the name He gave to Himself as being a quest for something “magical,” yet I know the adversary will use every “trick” in the book to dissuade YHWH’s people from calling upon the Creator’s name, so nothing surprises me. As far as waiting for Mashiach to reveal that name to you, this kinda reminds me of one of the excuses I’ve heard from Sundaykeepers for not worshipping on the Sabbath. I’ve heard some folks tell me that, in His time, the Almighty will eventually restore Sabbathkeeping, but until such time, it is not incumbent upon anyone to observe it. I’m not going to wait for Mashiach to come before I conduct my research and do my best to honor both Him and His Father by referring to Them with Their true names. Since there is nothing in His Word suggesting that a mispronounced name = punishment, I’m willing to study to the best of my ability, reach the conclusions that I reach, and trust that YHWH is as all-merciful, loving and forgiving as His Word says He is. And if Mashiach tells me I’ve been mispronouncing His Father’s name, He knows I will gladly make any necessary adjustments! HalleluYAH!! May YHWH bless, Larry [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 04-10-2005).] | ||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 04-10-2005 08:39 AM
Shalom to all: I might add an additional point regarding one of the commentaries I cited in my above posting. Here's a brief excerpt, as taken from one of the Jewish websites ( http://www.stlkollel.com/bits/5757/vaetchanan.txt ). Note: For those who, like me, are not Hebrew scholars, the word "brochos" means "blessings." Here's the excerpt:
My comment: I wonder why Moshe Feinstein says it's okay to say the Name when teaching a blessing? Is he presuming that those who teach the blessing are 100% certain of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton? He doesn't seem to express any concern over the possibility that the one doing the teaching might not pronounce it with 100% accuracy. It seems that Feinstein would agree that, even if one should happen to not be completely accurate with their pronunciation, we worship a very merciful, forgiving, and loving Heavenly Father who is understanding of our limitations ... yet very much aware of our efforts to please and honor Him. Note added on June 4, 2005: If you read below, you will notice that Rivkah answers that Feinstein wasn’t making a reference to the Tetragrammaton, but to “the Name Ad-nai.” Of course, “Ad-nai” isn’t a name at all, although some folks do actually treat it as such. However, anyone who actually checks out the full commentary offered at the website whose link I provided will notice that the particular discussion was regarding Dvarim (Deut.) 6:13, where Israel was admonished to swear only by the name YHWH:
However, even if it could be shown that the above reference was to substituting “HaShem” for “Ad-nai,” I need to stress that I do not need to rely on any one website or other source to rest my case. It can be shown that numerous Jewish websites acknowledge the fact that they substitute “HaShem” for the Tetragrammaton, so to argue this point with Rivkah is really pointless, since it has become a matter of her word against those of her Jewish counterparts. Below, for example, is yet another Jewish admission that their practice is to substitute “HaShem” for the Creator’s name. The following admission comes from Ohr Somayach, a Jewish learning institution whose central campus is located in Jerusalem. Before offering the quote from their website, it might be helpful to display an excerpt in which they outline their “guiding principle”: This very credible and prestigious Jewish institute of higher learning acknowledges that Judaism substitutes “HaShem” for the Tetragrammaton. What follows is a question that a woman named Marilyn submitted to the website’s “Ask a Rabbi” section: The above question/answer may be found online by accessing the following URL: http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/212/Q4/ The reference to a name that “may not be erased” is none other than the Tetragrammaton. Thus, no matter how hard Rivkah or Shimson tries to deny it (or tries to portray me as not understanding what I read), the fact of the matter is, mainstream Judaism admits to substituting “HaShem” for YHWH. May YHWH bless, Larry [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 06-04-2005).] | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-10-2005 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Acheson:
In spite of your protests to the contrary, the fact remains that "HASHEM" is indeed used by Judaism as a substitute for His name, just as plainly evidenced in The Chumash translation. Your comment is based on your misunderstandings of Hebrew and the ways of Torah Jews. The Hebrew Texts, of which translations must be from is what matters and The Name of El-him at no time is replaced, it is plain for everyone to see in all our Hebrew Texts. The English translation that carries the Hebrew "HaShem" is there for reference to the Name of El-him, noting each exact place that the Hebrew four-letters of The Name is at in the Hebrew Texts. I somehow doubt that my offering a quotation from a Jewish website will serve to persuade you that the Christian website is "on the money" with their definition of "HaShem," but I'll provide a few anyway. The following comes from a Messianic Jewish website’s “Glossary” page: “Messianic Jewish” website is still a Christian website. Their concepts are not representative of the concepts of Torah Jews. I doubt very much that you would appreciate me using concepts from any Christian group to represent your concepts. The following testimony comes from a Jewish congregation known as The above quote is referring to translations, not Hebrew Texts in which HaShem is not used to refer to The Name. And, the above quote does not state that the word HaShem is a replacement for The Name of El-him. It clearly states, “HaShem is a polite way of referring to God” – just as I have said that the Hebrew word HaShem is a REFERENCE to The Name of El-him. Notice that not only does the author of the above commentary mention that "HaShem" is used instead of speaking the Tetragrammaton, IN TRANSLATIONS - because The Name is not translatable. When we read from the Hebrew we do not read HaShem. but he also goes so far as to classify it as a NAME ... going a step beyond Shimson's claim that it is a title ... and two steps beyond your claim that it isn't even a title! HaShem is a Hebrew term used to refer to The Name of El-him in translations and casual settings. The group you are referring to is not Orthodoxy and you may find someone somewhere who states it is a name but that does not represent Torah Judaism nor Judaism as a whole, just as I assume that splinter groups of Christianity do not represent you or the whole of Christianity, right? Moreover, the author of the above somehow has the impression that the Creator "has many names” ... something that most everyone contributing to this forum knows is untrue. He only has one name ... the name He gave to Himself. The Creator does have other appellative names but The Name Y-H-V-H is His Name Proper. Some examples: “And El-him spoke to Moshe, and said to him, I am Y-H-V-H. And I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzak, to Yaakov, as E-l Sh-ddai, but by My name Y-H-V-H I was not known to them” (6:2-3) “And when Avram was ninety nine years old, Y-H-V-H appeared to Avram, and said to him, I am E-l Sh-ddai; walk before me, and be perfect” (Bereishit 17:1) “And El-him said to him, I am E-l Sh-ddai; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of you, and kings shall come from your loins” (Bereishit 35:11) Another name is Eh-yeh, “And El-him said to Moshe, ‘Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh;’ and He said, ;Thus shall you say to the people of Yisrael, Eh-yeh has sent me to you’” (Shemot 3:14) I also found the following discussion very interesting: Again you misunderstand. The above is referring to the Name Ad-nai which is used when in prayer, studying Torah and the Talmud. Your following quote mentions this at the end of the quote: ”But remember: use this pronunciation only when praying, blessing, or saying a Biblical passage in its entirety! Otherwise use: Hashem.” Notice the vowels of the Y-H-V-H contained in the Hebrew Texts – e, o, a. These vowels are vowels of the word Ad-nai and thus placed to instruct us to say “Ad-nai” at these points in Scritpure, if Y-H-V-H is preceeded by Ad-nai then Y-H-V-H is vowel pointed with the vowels of El-him and thus we say Ad-nai El-him. Y-H-V-H is not pronounceable at this time. The following Jewish website makes it even clearer that they believe we should use "HaShem" instead of YHWH: Actually he didn’t. He said that for casual usage (which includes translations) the word HaShem is used. He says nothing about it being used to replace The Name in our Hebrew Texts and Scrolls. We thus see that, contrary to the assertion you continue to make, it is a well-established tradition within mainstream Judaism to speak or write “HaShem” instead of the Tetragrammaton. In translations because The Name is not translatable. The Name is intact in our Hebrew Texts and Scrolls.
This is what is known as substituting. For some strange reason, I thought I could visit a forum such as this and not have to defend why I believe it is wrong to substitute words such as “LORD” or “HASHEM” in place of the Tetragrammaton. Not only do I see that I was mistaken in this, but I also see that those who seek to defend their own practice maintain that they aren’t “really” substituting. And I am pointing out that you are incorrect, that The Name of the Creator is not being substituted, It is intact in our Hebrew Texts and Scrolls. Even in the book To Be a Jew by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, p. 174, we read that it is a Jewish practice to say “HaShem” instead of YHWH: You did not grasp what you read here. The rabbi is stating clearly that “Ad-nai” is said in prayer, blessings. When referring to The Name of El-him in casual usage – in “conversation” (and translations) then we REFER (“When reference is made to God”) with the word HaShem. BTW, notice he also stated that HaShem is a TERM, not title and not a name. Again, the above is a clear reference to the practice of name substitution. I had previously been under the impression that those who participate in this forum all agree that it is wrong to use substitutions in place of the Creator’s name, but it would appear that I had a mistaken impression. Obviously it is not clear to you since you did not grasp what the rabbi was saying and meaning. It appears that you have not been reading my responses carefully enough, for I certainly do acknowledge the Scriptural presence of “HaShem” in reference to the Name, as should be evidenced from the following quote taken from one of my postings (see above): I read your comment and still you are not grasping the point of why I quoted it – it refers to The Name of El-him ONLY with the word HaShem, no Tetragramaton in the passage as a qualifier. It does not contain the Y-H-V-H with HaShem, showing that the Torah Itself chose to use HaShem to refer to The Name as does Torah Jews, we are doing no different. So you see, Rivkah, I really have no problem with the way “Ha-shem” is used in Scripture. Here is an example of the problem I have with the use of “Ha-shem.” The following excerpt is taken from “Hebrew Transliterated and English Translated Torah,” and is yet another example of how the Almighty’s name is replaced by “HaShem”: This still is not applicable since your quote is TRANSLITERATION from a public format, where someone can print this out and then decide to discard at a later time, thus discarding/defacing/bringing to ruin The Name of El-him. This is the reason for this person not placing the Transliterated Tetragramaton in the Transliterated Hebrew portion of your quote. Torah Jews do not place The Name of El-him, the Tetragramaton, within public formats to prevent Its desecration. Again, I have no problem with the word “hashem” as it appears in Leviticus 24:11, although I notice it is there connected to the word “et,” a word that you chose to not capitalize when you wrote “et-HASHEM.” And you further said: And if you are going to use that verse as the foundation for your position that we should refer to the Almighty as “HaShem” (even though His actual name is mentioned 6,823 times elsewhere), I can only wonder why you don’t refer to Him as “ET-HASHEM.” If you insist on transliterating the entire Hebrew, then why leave out the “ET”? Because “et” is not translated as it merely indicates that the word or words that follow are the object of the verb action and are definite. It is unnecessary to transliterate it since it introduced the definite article “HaShem” and has no meaning in itself. Curiously, upon reading the commentary on this verse from The Chumash, I see nothing offered to even remotely suggest that Leviticus 24:11 serves as a justification for referring to YHWH as “HaShem.” The Chumash, as shown in your quote, translates the Hebrew HaShem as “the Name.” It would of course not write “HaShem” in the translation since the Tetragramaton is not written in the Hebrew, only the word HaShem is written in the Hebrew. The Chumash only writes HaShem where the Tetragramaton is written in the Hebrew. According to the above translation, the son of the Israelite woman “pronounced the name” and blasphemed it. This is simply a reference to his having pronounced the Tetragrammaton before blaspheming it. You have insinuated that it was wrong of Torah Jews to refer to The Name with HaShem only, that we should place the Tetragramaton with it. This passage shows you are wrong, that the Torah also refers to The Name with ONLY the word HaShem – PROVING that this word is used to REFER to the Tetragramaton, not used as a name nor as a replacement. As I trust you know, there was never anything wrong with pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, so long as you did so respectfully. There is also nothing wrong with making a reference to the Tetragrammaton without speaking the actual name, just as I have done twice in this paragraph already! That doesn’t mean I believe we should say “the Tetragrammaton” instead of YHWH on a 100% basis! By the same token, if I say, “We should always honor the Name,” most folks [in this forum] understand by context which name I’m referring to. In the case of the Israelite woman’s son, we know “the Name” is a reference to the Tetragrammaton. Just as it is known that Torah Jews is referring to the Tetragramaton when we use HaShem. I am sure you will disagree, but your opinion is yours and exactly that, and thanks be to El-him, your opinion influences not Torah Jews. I did not finish this due to time limitations, but it appears unnecessary since your same confused concepts are restated over and over, and I have explained over and over as best as I can. I do believe Lee was correct, we will have to just agree to disagree at this point. Rivkah [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-10-2005).] | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-10-2005 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Acheson: Rivkah | ||
|
chuckbaldwin Posts: 2753 |
posted 04-11-2005 10:39 PM
quote:I think everyone knows very well that Larry isn't talking about substitution within the Hebrew text. As Larry has already mentioned, he has no problem with "HaShem" within the text, since it's used properly there; he is talking about substitution when reading aloud or translating. This is an example of pretending not to understand what's being said, in order to sidestep the issue. While i'm on the subject of the Hebrew text, it is a FACT admitted by the scribes themselves that they substituted "Adonai" for "YHWH" in 134 places. In over 6500 places they corrupted the text by inserting phony vowel-points (in a Word that was 4 vowels to begin with), so that those reading it aloud would substitute "Adonai"; and in about 300 more places, they corrupted it by inserting other phony vowel-points, so that it would be substituted with "Elohim" when spoken. Talk about "bearing false witness"! The latter 300 substitutions were done because the text already had "Adonai YHWH", and they realized how stupid it would sound to read it as "Adonai Adonai". This is the ultimate in intellectual dishonesty as well as totally violating the 3rd commandment, and "taking from" and "adding to" the Word. Consider the following Hebrew phrase (please excuse my transliteration if it isn't perfect): "Halelu Ha Shem YHWH". Proper English rendering: "Praise the Name of YHWH" One last example: (Ps.23) "YHWH is my Shepherd...". "Adonite" version: "The L-RD is my Shepherd...". Illegal substitution, but still makes sense. "HaShem" refers to the word/Name "YHWH". In turn the Name "YHWH" refers to the Creator Being Himself. He is NOT a "Name"; He has a Name. If I tell someone that my name is "Chuck", i would much rather have them call me "Shuck", than "Fred" or "George", or "that guy". And if someone wrote my biography, which would naturally include my name many times, and then when it was translated into another language, all references to my name were replaced with "[his name]", i would be pretty ticked off. Unfortunately, i don't suppose any progress will be made in this discussion, until the "Adonites" and "Hashemites" admit that SUBSTITUTION IS SUBSTITUTION, no matter how one tries to squirm around that fact. ------------------ [This message has been edited by chuckbaldwin (edited 04-11-2005).] | ||
|
sonja Posts: 216 |
posted 04-12-2005 10:06 AM
quote: Shalom Rivkah, That is why the following text was in that same post. from an earlier post "We had called YHWH another name than what He preferred unknowingly and what we thought was what He was to be called for years. We didn't know any better at that time. We desired to please Him though and He saw this and spoke to us and loved us i felt then as well as He does all His people who can "speak correctly". He answered our prayers when we called Him incorrectly vocally, He taught us still even despite our appearance of spiritual poverty. Then in 2002, He kindly mentioned to my husband that what we were calling Him wasn't His preference. My husband spoke to me on this, asking for confirmation if i heard the same statements from YHWH as he did concerning this matter. i sought His face on this and He showed us both this was so and that He preferred to be called other than what we had been calling Him. We were thankful that He looks at the heart of the people and not the appearance; for if He had been like men there is no way that He would have caused us to come closer to Him. But He isn't like men and He looks at the heart. That is the month that He led us to this forum and showed us what EliYah had studied. Since then He showed us some things are His preference, and some things are just approved by Him, and some things are necessary, and some things are not pleasing to Him at all; and how to ask that correctly of Him is only by His grace. Perhaps we should though, for asking the middle man sometimes seems to get us nowhere closer to the Truth. May He help His people to hear His voice this day. If Yeshua cared to replace the servant's ear that Kepha cut off so that man's flesh could hear; how much more would He be willing to help us to hear spiritual things if we desired Him in this?" What i meant by this is shouldn't we ask Him what He would prefer to be called instead of asking other people? He is still capable of speaking to His people. The Set-Apart Spirit gave many of His people languages to speak in Acts. How much more then is He able to teach us how to pronounce His name? i think it would be wise for those interested in knowing His name to seek Him on this and see what He would say to you. i could say what He told us concerning this but how would that bring anybody any closer to Him. We need to each have a relationship with Him where we hear His voice. For otherwise in this day how will we not be decieved? There are too many false doctrines and gray teachings in the world today. Hearing from Him is for everybody - Yahshua has made this possible for you. Also for those learning how to speak to Him. He is very specific and detailed (just read the details in Exodus on building the tabernacle). He also does not lie. So when you ask Him a question be very careful of the wording of that question. This took us a while to grasp a hold of and that by His grace. So some suggestions here for those learning to speak with Him - we could ask Him what He approves of being called and then we could ask Him what He prefers to be called. However, we ask Him we should be respectful and kind and not like a "wave of the sea tossed" if we can avoid that. Also hearing from Him came easier for me when i would pray "that i would desire Him above all else". It is my fleshly desires sometimes that get in the way of hearing from Him. There is so much more could be said here on hearing from Him. i would be interested in knowing what you hear from Him if you don't mind sharing or any suggestions to me on this as i am also just learning. An e-mail you can reach me at is goats@aopv.com or morganhorses@aopv.com thank you for you patience with me in this. i know this was lengthy and i hope i didn't insult anybody. i know many can and do hear from Him, in shalom, sonja Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Set-apart Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them to speak.
| ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-12-2005 05:41 PM
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
he is talking about substitution when reading aloud or translating.
This is an example of pretending not to understand what's being said, in order to sidestep the issue. I know, I wished that Larry and you would stop sidestepping the facts As for the rest of your comments you are misinformed and in the end we will see who is actually substituting and corrupting The Name of our Creator. Rivkah [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-12-2005).] | ||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 04-12-2005 10:43 PM
Hi, Rivkah: I stand by everything I have written above. Of course, you continue to deny anything that conflicts with your pre-established, user-defined criteria for claiming that you do not substitute anything, including "HaShem," for the Tetragrammaton. You have come up with your own set of parameters to justify your practice and beliefs, parameters that conflict with every Jewish resource I have consulted (not to mention Scripture), and even then you reinterpret their words or else outright reject them because they aren't Jewish enough (as in the case of the Messianic Jews). In other words, it seems plain that you give more credence to those who reject the Messiah than you do to those who embrace Him. This in itself makes me wonder if you believe in Yeshua the son of YHWH. Do you believe He is the Messiah? If so, this automatically makes anything you believe less credible than an orthodox Jew (at least by employing the rationale you have to this point offered). This is the impression you leave me with, since you do not accept testimony or definitions from Messianic Jews as valid. I believe most folks reading these postings are able to see through your writings and discern that your reasoning just doesn't "add up." For those who might actually believe your logic makes sense, though, I will go ahead and respond to some of your comments from the other day. You wrote: quote: I reply: You'll just have to demonstrate that any or all of the sites from which I quoted are "non-Torah sites." Rather than issue one-line generalizations without producing evidence, I believe we should offer documentation validating such remarks. You did not do this. For example, even the Messianic Jewish website that you attempted to discredit stands up for the Torah. While I do not endorse everything promoted by this Messianic Jewish group, I do endorse their desire to obey Torah. And ... as I have demonstrated, they plainly admit to the mainstream Jewish understanding that HaShem "is a replacement for the Sacred Name of YHWH." Of course, since you would not approve of the definition they offer, I can expect you to find fault with the group, allowing your self-justified rejection process to eliminate them as a "credible source." I'm sure those who seek justification for referring to YHWH as "HaShem" will give your conclusion here the nod of approval. However, I'm not really interested in biased evaluations, which is why I decided to check out the Messianic Jewish website whose definition you reject. As I just mentioned, they are Torah-observant. Here is a quotation:
The above excerpt can be accessed at the following URL: http://tzion.org/articles/law-grace.html I believe that it is completely unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time for me to have to produce testimony that the Messianic Jewish group hosting the web site in which "HaShem" is defined as a replacement for YHWH is "Torah-observant." I believe your decision to establish this type of criteria as a prerequisite for accepting a definition is a classic case of "selective scholarship," a typical ploy of those who only accept scholarship from individuals or groups whose beliefs align exactly with theirs. The fact is, "HaShem" is used as a replacement for the Tetragrammaton, and mainstream Judaism isn't afraid of admitting as much. You wrote: quote: I reply: Now you're answering an argument that has never even existed in this thread ... at least not from me! I don't deny that the Hebrew texts contain the Tetragrammaton! That is wonderful! But what I've been referring to all this time are the translations, as well as what the Jews I've known over the years have taught regarding the Tetragrammaton: That it isn't to be uttered. The Jews I've known have not issued protests that "we must be 100% certain of the Name's pronunciation before we can speak it." Instead, they simply said that it isn't to be spoken. This is what is known as "The Ineffable Name Doctrine," a Jewish belief that is so common that I don't even need to offer supportive texts verifying it. I believe any Jewish reference will attest to the fact that normative Judaism believes the Creator's name is "too sacred to pronounce." However, if you wish to deny this fact as well, let me know and I will be glad to produce some quotations from Jewish references. Possibly lost in the maze of all the postings submitted to this thread is an admission from The Encyclopædia Judaica that HaShem is used as a replacement for the Tetragrammaton. The following excerpt can be found on page 680 of this Jewish reference:
I had previously quoted the above excerpt back on 03-27-2005 at 09:20 PM, for those interested in reviewing that particular posting. Clearly, Psalms 118:26 is "Scripture," and this Jewish reference mentions the custom of replacing YHWH in that verse with "HaShem" when reciting even that Psalm. The irony, of course, lies in what those Jews who do this are really saying: "Blessed be he that cometh in the name of THE NAME." Do I expect you to believe any of this? At this point I do not. I am fully persuaded that you will believe what you wish regardless of whatever facts are presented. I do not expect you to believe these facts any more than I expect my parents to believe the Torah wasn't "done away." It is simply a fact of life that people make up their minds what they are going to believe and then go their own way regardless of what the truth really is. Certainly, you are free to believe that I'm the one who is in denial here, and since that is what I usually hear from the opposition, I am ready to hear your counter-claim of how you believe I totally misunderstand and misrepresent each reference from which I quote, including the one above. The Jewish teaching against mentioning the Creator's name reminds me of the Babylonian mysteries. The following quotation is from A.H. Sayce's Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, p. 4:
You wrote: quote: I reply: You seem to have a knack for turning someone's words into something totally different from what they said or meant. Yes, the "above quote" you referenced DOES state that the word HaShem is "polite way of referring to God," but you left out the part where they admit that it is a replacement for the Name YHWH. Here's the exact quote again:
I underlined the pertinent phrase thise time to help you to see what I was referring to. For anyone to take those words and say the author isn't "really stating" that "HaShem" is a replacement for YHWH makes me wonder how such a person could ever really glean anything from whatever books that he or she might read. The wording is that plain. You wrote: quote: I reply: Of course, since "Ha Shem" means "the Name," it certainly can be and is used to refer to the name of the Almighty. However, it is also used as a replacement, as I have already demonstrated. Regarding whatever "groups" it is that I've been quoting from, they have all reflected the stand promoted by mainstream Judaism. Obviously your beliefs are different from those of normative Judaism, as I have been quoting from sites that reflect mainstream Judaism's view on speaking the name YHWH. Regardless of what "splinter group" you belong to, the result is the same: You teach that we should not speak the Creator's name. In fact, I believe you also teach that we should not write it out (in phonetic form) in any language other than Hebrew. Whatever approach it is you support, the end result is the same: The Creator's name is suppressed, just as the adversary wants. He does not want YHWH's people to know the name YHWH, and the method you promote is very supportive in advancing the adversary's plan. Your method is also very obedient to Antiochus Epiphanes' decree against speaking the Creator's name. Finally, supporting the use of HaShem dovetails with the practice of the Samaritans, as I have noted elsewhere in this thread. Everywhere I turn, I see reasons to not support suppressing YHWH's name, and absolutely NO reasons for wishing to replace it with substitutes such as HaShem or the LORD. Our theologies are indeed quite different. You wrote: quote: I reply: Oh, so His name was "E-l Sh-ddai," and Abraham and Yitzak didn't know Him by the name YHWH? I'm curious as to how you explain such verses as Genesis 12:8. Apparently Abraham didn't "really" call upon the name YHWH, even though that verse says he did, right? Well, this is all for now ... except I will give yet one brief response to the following comment/answer: You wrote: quote: I reply: Of course "et" is not translated!! That is part of my point, for neither is "Hashem" translated! All you're doing is transliterating a Hebrew "term" (as you prefer to designate it), and that Hebrew term is pronounced "HaShem." There is a Hebrew word connected to HaShem with a hyphen ... making it a part of the word. By taking "HaShem" out of that verse, you are severing the "et" portion connected to it. Thus, if you are going to use Lev. 24:11 as your justification for referring to the Almighty as "HaShem," then why not go ahead and just refer to Him as "Et-Hashem" ... unless you're more interested in custom than in principle? I agree that the word "et" doesn't translate into English, but if it's translating you're now interested in doing, then why not just go ahead and translate "HaShem"? Why not just refer to the Almighty as "the NAME"? Okay, this is all for now. I may respond to other comments later. May YHWH bless, Larry | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-13-2005 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Acheson:
Of course, you continue to deny anything that conflicts with your pre-established, user-defined criteria for claiming that you do not substitute anything, including "HaShem," for the Tetragrammaton. You have come up with your own set of parameters to justify your practice and beliefs, parameters that conflict with every Jewish resource I have consulted (not to mention Scripture), and even then you reinterpret their words or else outright reject them because they aren't Jewish enough (as in the case of the Messianic Jews). In other words, it seems plain that you give more credence to those who reject the Messiah than you do to those who embrace Him.
This in itself makes me wonder if you believe in Yeshua the son of YHWH. Do you believe He is the Messiah? If so, this automatically makes anything you believe less credible than an orthodox Jew (at least by employing the rationale you have to this point offered). This is the impression you leave me with, since you do not accept testimony or definitions from Messianic Jews as valid. I have already answered this question in this forum, and your impression is wrong, as has been the case throughout our discussion. So, now are you trying to tell me that one cannot be Torah observant and see Yshua as Mashiach? THAT is not what I meant when I said Messianic Jews are not Torah Jews, they are NOT Orthodoxy. I don’t accept testimony or definitions from Messianic Jews because most all have come from a Christian (non-Torah, non-Judaic/Hebraic cultural) background which has influenced their concepts of Torah Judaism. They learn a few Hebrew words, study a Greek based concordance (Strong’s), learn a few Hebrew terms and they are all of a sudden an authority on the subject and of Judaism and our Mesorah as is the case with many Christian. Your seeking to accuse “Orthodoxy” while seeking support from those outside Orthodoxy is not applicable, just as I am sure you would say the same to me if I took the concepts of mainstream Christianity as being some type of support against your concepts. If you are going to blame and accuse Torah Jews of something then you should make sure you go to the correct source, Torah Jews, in order to support your accusations and even then you must read with understanding. Thus far it has been obvious that you only look through accusatory glasses and do not intend to see the real picture of what’s right before you, even when one is seeking to help you and it is explained to you. You instead choose to sidestep off into thoughts and words of others outside Orthodoxy Judaism. You even try to insinuate that there is some type of conspiracy placed by Jews to hide (suppress) The Name, which is totally ridiculous. Logic tells us that if hiding or suppressing of The Name was intended then certainly Hebrew would not have been made so readily available to all, and/or The Name would have been removed from the Hebrew manuscripts. I believe most folks reading these postings are able to see through your writings and discern that your reasoning just doesn't "add up." For those who might actually believe your logic makes sense, though, I will go ahead and respond to some of your comments from the other day. You did not offer any documentation from a Torah Jewish site, i.e. Orthodoxy, until you do you can expect no serious consideration of your sources. For example, even the Messianic Jewish website that you attempted to discredit stands up for the Torah. While I do not endorse everything promoted by this Messianic Jewish group, I do endorse their desire to obey Torah. And of course you are an authority on what makes one authentically standing up for Torah. And ... as I have demonstrated, they plainly admit to the mainstream Jewish understanding that HaShem "is a replacement for the Sacred Name of YHWH." Of course, since you would not approve of the definition they offer, I can expect you to find fault with the group, allowing your self-justified rejection process to eliminate them as a "credible source." I'm sure those who seek justification for referring to YHWH as "HaShem" will give your conclusion here the nod of approval. However, I'm not really interested in biased evaluations, which is why I decided to check out the Messianic Jewish website whose definition you reject. As I just mentioned, they are Torah-observant. Here is a quotation: I see, according to you they are Torah observant even though as you say they use HaShem as a replacement for The Name? But Torah Jews who use HaShem to REFER to The Name are not Torah observant? Sounds like very biased evaluation on your part Larry. Even though you think they are saying that they replace The Name, this is okay, they are still "standing up for Torah" but Torah Jews are not ? Fact is they did not say that HaShem is a replacement for The Name, they state: “HaShem or "The Name", is used instead of pronouncing God's personal Four-Letter Name which in English is spelled YHVH. The name HaShem is a polite way of referring to God. Most people do not know the personal name of God, and explaining this is one of our main goals." I will repeat, we use HaShem instead of a translatable name because The Name is not translatable. HaShem is a term REFERRING to The Name in translations where The Name cannot be translated - The Name of El-him defies any mundane translation. The Name of El-him is the whole of Torah, Baruch Hu. His Name is within and is every letter of the Torah - I don’t know how this can be any clearer. Because there is no translation suitable for The Name of El-him, HaShem/THE Name is most appropriate for reference to It. Maybe you are taking issue with the use of Hebrew to make reference to The Name and would prefer I use the English “The Name” instead? The fact is, "HaShem" is used as a replacement for the Tetragrammaton, and mainstream Judaism isn't afraid of admitting as much. Fact is that HaShem is a reference used in translations to The Name that is within the Hebrew Texts.
Yes, accusing Torah Jews of suppressing The Name has been prominant throughout your posts. Because The Name is intact in the Hebrew Texts proves that The Name is not being suppressed. I don't deny that the Hebrew texts contain the Tetragrammaton! That is wonderful! Yes it is wonderful, Baruch Hu, and it is also proof that Torah Jews are not suppressing The Name. But what I've been referring to all this time are the translations, The Name is not translatable, therefore The Name cannot be translated in translations. Let's cut to the chase, what name would you like me to replace the Tetragrammaton with in translations Larry? as well as what the Jews I've known over the years have taught regarding the Tetragrammaton: That it isn't to be uttered. The Jews I've known have not issued protests that "we must be 100% certain of the Name's pronunciation before we can speak it." Instead, they simply said that it isn't to be spoken. Duh, if The Name is not translatable and the pronunciation is not known at this time then it cannot be uttered. Do I believe that it will be uttered when Mashiach comes? Only among the holy and only in holiness. El-him does not change, He states very clearly that His Name is to be kept holy. Mankind in these end times seems to have a very hard time grasping the concept of what is holy and what is profane and the reason why El-him instructs these be kept apart. This is what is known as "The Ineffable Name Doctrine," a Jewish belief that is so common that I don't even need to offer supportive texts verifying it. I believe any Jewish reference will attest to the fact that normative Judaism believes the Creator's name is "too sacred to pronounce." It IS too holy to pronounce out of the context of holiness, and within the context of holiness only when It is known. [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-13-2005).] | ||
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 04-13-2005 07:07 AM
Hi, Rivkah, I will now respond to the posting that you submitted earlier this morning. I may respond to previous postings later. You wrote: quote: I reply: As I have previously mentioned, I don't believe you seem able to glean obvious facts from anything you read. If you had even haphazardly read the things I have written in this thread, you would know that the issue I have with HaShem is the fact that it replaces, i.e. serves as a substitute for the name YHWH. Therefore, just in case my "cutting to the chase" should in any way assist in giving you the answer you seek, I would like for you to not replace the Tetragrammaton at all, whether in reading from the Hebrew text, paraphrasing, or in translating. Instead, I would like for you to actually honor YHWH by reverently speaking His name. That name is YAHWEH. Will you do this? No, you will not ... unless I am having the same difficulty understanding you that you are understanding me. Please tell me that I simply do not understand you ... that indeed you do honor YHWH by reverently speaking His name when reading from those Hebrew texts instead of substituting names, titles or "terms" for it. Of course, you maintain that you aren't "really" substituting names/terms. If you would like to put your "money where your mouth is," so to speak, why don't you just go ahead and "not substitute" names this way with each and every Scriptural reference you make? As an example for what I mean, why don't you tell others that you worship the Elohim of SHEM, of SHEM, and of SHEM? You know, the same people mentioned in Exodus 3:15? I only mentioned Exodus 3:15 for the sake of those who might not know precisely which "names" I was referring to ... I'm sure you knew right away. And best of all, by using your "rule," absolutely no substitutions occurred above! Of course, I was very careful to simply refer to the above individuals as "Shem" (name) instead of "HaShem" (THE name) so as to clearly distinguish those individuals from "HaShem." We know from such verses as Deuteronomy 25:7 that the Hebrew Word "shem" is used to mean "a name," so we should be very careful to not ever refer to anyone except the Creator as "the name," right? Thus, everyone else in Scripture is "a name." And anyone who dares to think we are substituting just doesn't know Hebrew very well. You wrote: quote: I reply: You had to resort to sarcasm with the above comment primarily because that seems to be all you have left in your repertoire, but also because you know that you will be unable to find any quotes from me where I have ever claimed to be "an authority." This is why I turn to the experts, including such references as The Encyclopædia Judaica. If I gave testimony based upon my own research, you would simply dismiss it as "lousy research," but if I offer it from well-established sources whose credibility is not in question, the best you can come up with is to claim that I do not understand what I read. And of course, I am left to make the same counter-claim, so really all that seems left of this discussion is an attempt to capitalize on the fact that I am not a Hebrew scholar, plus attempt to persuade yourself that I misconstrue and misinterpret the sources from which I quote. As Chuck aptly pointed out, "substitution is substitution," and that is precisely what much of Judaism (not all) does with the Tetragrammaton. They substitute when reading from the Hebrew text, and they substitute instead of transliterating when producing translations. I just can't figure out why they don't go ahead and produce substitutes for all the other names in Scripture? Since you are one of the "many" who goes along with this practice, perhaps you can explain. I also wonder ... if the adversary had one name in all of Scripture that he would like for people to suppress and otherwise forget, which name would that be? You wrote: quote: I reply: First of all, I'm not "accusing" anyone ... I'm just presenting facts from credible sources. I guess I should ask you which "sect" of Judaism is represented by The Encyclopædia Judaica or from the book To Be a Jew? Secondly, if I haven't been accurately representing the view of "Orthodoxy," then I wonder why you haven't produced any quotes illustrating how I have misunderstood the particular sect that you represent? You wrote: quote: I reply: First of all, are you so much running out of original thoughts that all you have left is to rephrase my words and direct them back at me? Secondly, I've done more than "scan the internet," as evidenced from the quote above taken from The Encyclopædia Judaica, as well as other sources. Really, much of what I've cited is such common knowledge that I shouldn't even have to do any "scanning" at all! I guess, since you believe I am "picking and choosing" which Jews to quote from, we should just start with your critique of the author of the article in The Encyclopædia Judaica. Do you think maybe a Sacred Namer infiltrated the editorial staff of that encyclopedia? Or do I just plain misunderstand and misconstrue what that reference says? You wrote: quote: I reply: I see, using HaShem "instead of" a name doesn't constitute "replacing" it ... according to your definition of the term "replacement." You wrote: quote: I reply: "... instead of" a name. Of course, you use "HaShem" instead of His name, but, of course, this isn't the same as "replacement," is it? As far as His name being "not translatable," this is the same thing I have been maintaining and teaching my family for nearly 20 years. Of course the Almighty's name is not "translatable." It is, however, "transliteratable," and that is what we do. You seem to be stressing a point that hasn't even been an issue in this thread. You wrote: quote: I reply: Hey, you're the one doing the substituting ... since this is your choice, not mine, why are you asking me which "substitute" I would prefer that you use? I will state, though, that if you do decide to refer to Him as "the Name," this will be a clear indication that you are at least not substituting His name with another name ... as HaShem is indeed used as a name when incorporated into the English language. This is not to diminish in any way the fact that there is a man named in I Chron. 11:34 whose Hebrew name is pronounced Hashem. You wrote: quote: I reply: Who says "the pronunciation is not known at this time"? Certainly not The Encyclopædia Judaica. It says, "The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost." Of course, if you wish to go ahead and believe that it was lost, that it is "not known," then go ahead. You wrote: quote: I reply: Okay, so NOW you're admitting that there is such a thing as an "ineffable name doctrine"? In other words, even IF you were to somehow become persuaded that the true pronunciation was never lost, you STILL wouldn't speak it because "It IS too holy to pronounce out of the context of holiness"?? And since you wouldn't dare speak it even if you were 100% certain of its pronunciation, what would you say in its place? May YHWH bless, Larry Addendum added on 04-14-2004 in response to the attempt to discredit The Encyclopædia Judaica (see Rivkah's postings below), as well as Shimson's claim that Strong's doesn't give the pronunciation "Haw-shame" for the Israelite mentioned in I Chron. 11:34. The following is taken from Strong's online listing for the name "Hashem" ... the name of the Israelite man mentioned in I Chronicles 11:34:
This information (and more) can be reviewed by accessing the following URL: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1113449575-800.html As you can see, Strong's lists the first syllable of this man's name as being pronounced as "haw." Shimson, however, says this isn't what Strong's "really" says. He writes: quote: I reply: I believe you are attempting to sidetrack the issue with your attempts at explaining vowel points. This is unnecessary, since Strong's is up to the task regarding the pronunciation of that Israelite man's name. You had insisted previously (and likely still do) that Strong's does not validate the pronunciation "Haw-shame." Well, instead of continuing to sidestep the discussion with a lecture about vowel points, what do you say we just look up the pronunciation offered by Strong's? As you can see, it is HAW-SHAME. The pronunciation of the first syllable, in turn, squares with the pronunciation found in the Septuagint, which was certainly in use by the first century BCE and going forward. I realize you would not like the idea of vocalizing a word used instead of the Creator's name with a term that is phonetically identical to the name of a man ... I know I sure wouldn't ... , so naturally you will do all within your power to prove an alternate pronunciation.
quote: I reply: Perhaps you didn't read my first two postings to this thread? In the second one [posted on 02-19-2005 at 04:49 PM], I made it clear regarding the pronunciation offered by Strong's. Here is what I wrote: All I know is the phonetic rendering supplied by Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. To date, no one has successfully demonstrated that Strong's offers a mistaken pronunciation of "Hashem." Again, Strong's pronunciation validates the one found in the Septuagint, as well as the pronunciation offered by the Jewish rabbi whom I quoted in previous postings. There really doesn't seem to be any real need to pursue this any further, as the only real reason anyone would wish to refute this pronunciation would be to try and avoid the embarrassment of knowing that he or she is referring to the Almighty with the name of a man ... not very respectful, which in turn lays bare the façade. I noticed that Rivkah took the time to work on discrediting The Encyclopædia Judaica. I find it interesting that she chose to leave out the fact that the CD-Rom version of this encyclopedia was listed as a recipient of one of the RUSA Awards. RUSA stands for Reference and User Services Association. The Encyclopædia Judaica on CD-ROM received honorable mention for the Dartmouth Medal Award. This information can be obtained by accessing the following URL: http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaawards/1998recipients/1998recipients.htm According to Jewish Software.com, The Encyclopædia Judaica is "The most comprehensive authoritative source on the Jewish world." It also adds the following: The text of the Encyclopaedia Judaica CD-ROM Edition is distinguished from other Jewish sources by its unequaled presentation of the entire gamut of the Jewish world and civilization. It represents the culmination of over 30 years of intensive work by scholars from around the world, and provides a comprehensive picture of all aspects of Jewish life. Here's a link to the website for those who would like to read more: I challenge Rivkah to produce a better reference. Here's another Jewish endorsement of this reference: http://www.arza.org/docs/Simchat_Artzeinu.pdf Of course, as I have mentioned previously, we have folks here who claim superior knowledge of Hebrew, even though the teaching they promote is at odds with all available resources (such as the Septuagint, Strong's, The Encyclopædia Judaica, etc.) And when anyone disagreeing with their understanding offers quotations from references validating the fact that Judaism replaces the Tetragrammaton with "HaShem," they attempt to redirect the focus so as to make it appear that we don't understand what we read, and then they try to capitalize on what they believe is a superior knowledge of Hebrew ... even though we quote from sources knowledgeable in the Hebrew language. It is all part of the grandiose scheme to suppress the name of our Heavenly Father. [This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 04-14-2005).] | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-13-2005 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Acheson: This is true, it is common practice to refer to the “The Name” (HaShem) without pronouncing It or writing it for two reasons, 1) We do not know Its pronounciation until Mashiach comes and restores this knowledge to us, 2) Even if we knew It we would not take it out of Its holy context by saying It or writing it in a casual setting or setting where it could be desecrated. And since you wouldn't dare speak it even if you were 100% certain of its pronunciation, what would you say in its place? Rivkah [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-13-2005).] | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-13-2005 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Acheson: Rivkah [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-13-2005).] | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-13-2005 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Acheson: On the other hand, to place a concocted name in place of the Tetragrammaton is a replacement. Rivkah [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-13-2005).] | ||
|
Rivkah Posts: 197 |
posted 04-13-2005 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Acheson: “The publication of the EJ is not a major accomplishment of world Jewish scholarship. On the contrary it reveals the paucity and decadence of Jewish learning. Many articles are below the standards of a good encyclopedia, they are sophomoric. The items dealing with the early history of the Jews are replete with distortions of historical facts. They may misguide the reader. In the articles on Halakhah and Rabbinics we note the lack of understanding of the text. The contributors are not to be reproved. A person cannot give more then he possesses. Many of the contributors are scholarly benighted. The blame is with the publishers and editors.” Zeitlin suggests that publishing of the EJ was an effort in public relations. Zeitlin finds twelve aspects of the EJ which he faults The Jewish Spectator Like Zeitlin, Trude Weiss-Rosmarin in the Jewish Spectator points out inaccurate information and claims the existence of a generally low level of scholarly expertise. The Jewish Spectator asserts that the work is laden with errors concerning more traditional Jewish areas of study where faith and Halakhah still remain strong. We read, “As for teachers of the Mishnah and Talmudim, only the more important ones are listed- the Tannaim on one folio page and the Amora’im on two folio pages.” The Spectator implies that the EJ is harnessing authoritative Western modes of scholarship to short change the representation of Judaism’s more traditional heritage The Jewish Spectator is highly critical of the editors of the EJ’s penchant for Jews prominent in the world of entertainment while giving less attention to current Jewish scholars. As for keeping up with recent developments, the Jewish Spectator claims that the EJ has failed in that area when treating the work being done on the Cairo Genizah, U.S. Jewish communities, the Who is a Jew Controversy, and the Shoah. The Jewish Spectator suggests that the editors of the EJ might have achieved their goals more successfully if they had attempted through greater care and thoroughness to compile a shorter reference book of precise factual information rather than a reference book in the French Encyclopedist tradition of numerous book length expositions. In other words, in some areas it may be helpful, but in issues for descerning historical fact and halacha it is not reliable and must be measured by other traditional sources. Rivkah [This message has been edited by Rivkah (edited 04-13-2005).] | ||
|
Shimson bar-Tzadoq Posts: 827 |
posted 04-13-2005 01:05 PM
quote: Greetings Larry, As I mentioned before the Qametz and the Pathahh don't have the same sound. Also in Hey (Pathahh) -Shin,Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem there is a dagesh that doubles the Shin. The two words are not even the same, and not even from the same shoresh. Writing it in English is a bit of a misnomer to begin with they are both accurately written in Hebrew. What you have reposted is only part of what I typed. In order to refresh your memory I stated, for the person mentioned in 1 Chron. 11:34 his name in Hebrew is spelled Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem and in English one could try to transliterate his name as Hoshem (Ancient Hebrew) or Hawshem. The ENGLISH is not the issue, because as I mentioned before Hey (Pathahh) -Shin-Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem could be written Hash-shem (the double "sh" because of the dagesh forte). As the examples below show. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02044&version=kjv Now further Strong's connects this word with the word "khaw-shoom" as the following shows http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=2828&version=kjv It states about this word from an unused root (probably meaning firm or capacious in resources). It also does not designate the word as showing up anywhere else in the Tanakh. It also never makes a connection between it and Shin-Mem. Anyone with even a small knowledge of Hebrew knows the difference especially with ha-Gizroni following Hoshem. Now interestingly enough the following link about Shin-Mem, based on Strong's says the following. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08034&version=kjv This section further goes to point out about Shin-Mem, "a primitive word [perhaps rather from (07760) [Sin-Waw-Mem] through the idea of definite and conspicuous position." Now I find it interesting that Strong's never makes any link between Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem and Hey (Pathahh) -Shin-Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem. According to Strong's the two are not even from the same shoresh, as pointed out before. Now what is interesting is that Strong's gives the phonetic pronunciation of Haw-shame for the Hoshem ha-Gizroni Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem, but for Hey (Pathahh) -Shin-Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem "hashem" is shown to be the phonetic spelling as found on the following site for Waiyiqra 24:11. http://www.bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=3&chapte r=24&verse=10&portion=31 Now in terms of having to adding the "eth" this once again goes back to the point of someone knowing Hebrew. As it is known, Aleph (Seghol) - Taw is a direct object marker which is depened on a verb (wayaqallel) and a subject (Shem). In the Introduction Hebrew Dictionary page v. Strong's mentions that Qametz and Pathahh don't have the same sound. Thus Strong's agrees that there is no way that a Hey with (Qametz) could be confused with a Hey with (Pathahh) because they don't have the same sound. Thus for example entry number 4427 the Qametz is written as "aw" and the Pathahh is written as "a." Obviously Strong's believed that the Qametz and the Pathahh have different sounds this is even EASILY distinquished for someone who is not a Hebrew scholar.
quote: Not true, you are the only one making that claim because as I mentioned before they are not from the same shoresh, and this is just like someone claiming that Shin (Tzere) - Mem and Sin (Qametz - Mem) could have possibly had the same sound. People who know their Hebrew know this is not the case, and that is why Jews don't confuse the context of Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin-Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem. You are the first person I have ever met to try and make such a claim about Hebrew, and that is why a lot of "If's" have been used. Jews who don't know Hebrew have open access to the language, and to people who know it, and yet no Jew has had a hard time understanding the difference. If there were such people who didn't understand they would only have to ask, but as I mentioned before this is not something that is a Jewish problem. Also, using your line of thinking there are several pagan deities that have names that sound almost and some exactly like what you believe the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey be. That is like me claiming that someone could confuse your theory with said pagan deities. I disagree with you on the point you are trying, because as I mentioned before and as the Hebrew scholars, and Strong's agree Qametz and Pathahh don't have the same sound. Even Strong's makes this clear on the pages that give the sounds of each niqqud. None of the sources suggest that Pathahh and Qametz were or are the same pronunciation. It is simply your opinion, and it not something reflected by any Jew or any scholar that your opinion is correct.
quote: That is just like someone claiming that your pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey can easily be confused with the pagan deity named yahwi. I find it interesting that no Jew has ever made such a mistake or not known the context of these matters. You are the only trying to make such a connection, and as I mentioned before I don't think people are that dense. It is a connection that, truthfully, you are making without a knowledge of Hebrew.
quote: During the days of the person named Hoshem ben-people would not have misunderstand the use of a Pathahh and a Qametz sound. As mentioned before using your logic people at that time would not have understood Waiyiqra. Also, using your logic people would not understand the difference between Shin (Qametz) - Mem and Shin (Tzere) - Mem. Following this same logic people would not understand the difference between a past tense Piel verb or a past tense Paal verb when reading it. As I mentioned before great care has been taken the various Jewish communities to preserve the Hebrew language and the Tanakh. Your claim is something that only you have come up with, and you have no linquistic or historical evidence to support it in the Jewish community.
quote: I do understand the context of what you are saying, and as I have stated before it is a context based on you not knowing Hebrew. As I have mentioned Hey (Pathahh) - Shin-Dagesh (Tzere) - Mem is not the same as Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem, which is why no Jew has been recorded as somehow mixing them up or not knowing who is being spoken of. It is only YOUR BELIEF that they sound the same, and you are the only person who believes that they are both the same word and the same sound. This includes Strong's, which notes that the sound of Pathahh and Qametz are not the same. As the research that I provided earlier showed even Hebrew speaking children at ages 3 to 4 understand when a definate artilcle is being used. This is why it not a question from a person who knows Hebrew making the claim. There are hundreds of words that spelled exactly the same with different pronunciationn in Hebrew. People knowledge of Hebrew know how to determine, which is which. All you have to do is learn Hebrew and you would know this. Take Waiyiqra 24:11 and I Chron. 11:34 and place it in front any person who knows Hebrew and ask them to translate it. People who know Hebrew don't mix the two up, especially since the pronunciation of the two are not the same. Besides there are people who claim that your pronunciation Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was once the name of a pagan deity, of course most pagan deities started out as actual people who were later worshiped. So it is only YOUR belief that you are not calling Elohim by the name of a man. You haven't gone out and actually done the research yourself, you have relied on the research of others. Research that you have not verified for yourself, and research that could be wrong. ------------------ Shimson bar-Tzadoq [This message has been edited by Shimson bar-Tzadoq (edited 04-13-2005).] |
, as I have repeated them over and over and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand simply that The Name of El-him is not translatable at this time, therefore The Name is not translated in translations and no matter how much you want us to place some type of name there it isn’t going to happen, we have more respect for the holiness of the Name to do such. We have the Mesorah which has kept us a people throughout history and we know what we are suppose to do, and I don’t see any command in Torah that tells us that we are to look to the Gentile nations in order to know how we are to worship and keep the mitzvot of our Creator. 
This topic is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EliYah's Home Page
Please read the disclaimer. If you see any violations of forum guidelines, please contact the moderator.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e