Because the issue of Eluwwim's Name is a part of Masorah, I will give you the following as MY FINAL analysis on it. I won't of course take part in the current debate about "pronunciation" because to honest, THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS IN NO WAY A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF HEBREW. So to anyone else reading this please be aware that I won't be taking part in any debates about The Name. I will use the Samaritan pronunciation or Elohim which is Eluwwim throughout this.

Before you read any further I must state that I am not writing to this to DEBATE the Name of Eluwwim per say or to critisize the Sacred Name movement, though I know no matter how I write this someone will take it that way. I am also not trying to discourage anyone from doing what they currently are doing, or tryingn to sway their opinons I am only presenting facts that even the scholar recognize. The dialect shift is a FACT, the lack of consideration of this amongst some is a fact, the information I presented about the grammer issues are FACTS. Consider it an objective critique from someone who is an outsider to the SN Movment, but was once in the Sacred Name movement so I am not just shooting off the hip here. If the Sacred Name movment is valid then it should open to critique the same way it critique Christianity and Judaism. In Mattithyahu (Matthew) Yeshua says what ever a person uses to measure others will be also be used to measure that person. This includes EVERYONE.

Sorry for the caps, but I am firm believer that The Name of Eluwwim i.e. the Shem Hameyuhhad should never be transliterated, but kept ONLY in Hebrew as it was done in the Greek and various Aramaic translations of the Tanakh. I also don't believer in just casually writing His Name in places where it can be easily printed out, destroyed, torn, etc.

On the issue of the person mentioned in 1 Divrei Yamim 11:34 when one looks at the Hebrew texts one finds that this person's name was spelled Hey (Qamatz)-Shin (Tzere)-Mem pronounced Hoshem and is from an UNKNOWN root, but believed by most scholars to be from the shoresh (Shin-Mem-Mem) or (Shin-Waw-Mem) and Hoshem means "fat." (Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, page CCXXVI) and (Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew by Matityahu Clark, page 264).

This is not the same as HaShem from the shoresh (Shin-Mem) which is spelled Hey (Pathakh)-Shin (Tzere)-Mem and means "The Named One," "The Renowned One," or "The Famed One." 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." Qedoshim means "Set-Apart Ones." Just as HaBorei doesn't simple mean "The Create" it can also mean "The One Who Creates." Just as HaMashi'ahh means "The Anointed one" (Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon) and so it is not un-scriptural to call Eluwwim by a title.

One can easily make an arguement that writing His Name any other way EXCEPT for in Hebrew is un-scriptural. Where in scripture does He give the okay to transliterate His Name into another language. The English methods that people use to try and place consanents and vowels for His Name are not found in the REAL Scriptures, the Hebrew text, so an arguement can be made on that also that using English is adding to the Word.

These things have their history in archeology since you will find that text with The Name of Eluwwim and His Words were treated with the UTMOST respect in Israel. His Name wasn't just casually said or written. The Talmud records that only in the Temple service (pre-Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq) for Nedarim (oaths), and for a Benei Yisrael to greet another Benei Yisrael was the The Name pronounced out of respect for the Melekh HaOlam. The archeology shows that the faithful in Israel didn't take the command about not bring the Name to Lashaw lightly, even when Israel was a sovereign religious nation. So the information below can give you more to consider. That is why anything with The Name of Eluwwim were treated with the HIGHEST LEVEL OF respect.

According to Hebrew scholars all Lamed-Hey verbs such as Hey-Waw-Hey which is the root from which Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is believed to come from were once Lamed-Yod verbs. Meaning that instead of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey you would have had Yod-Hey-Waw-Yod pre-9th cent. BCE. The reason we know this is because the Hey in the 3rd person, masculine, imperfect, Hiphil is acting as a vowel. I.e. the "eh" at the end is not a consanent, but instead a vowel. (Basics of Biblical Hebrew - Section 16.7.1, page 176-177) This means that IF the PRONUNCIATION, that many scolars believe to be the Name of Eluwwim is correct, THEN it was not SPELLED Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey before the 9th cent. BCE since these type of Vowels (Mater lectionis) were not common in Hebrew before the 9th cent. BCE. Thus their are scholars who say that the Name of Eluwwim in Hebrew anciently would have been spelled like Yod-Hey-Waw or Yod-Waw. All of thsi is dependent on whether The Name of Eluwwim is based on any understanding of Hebrew grammer or is an utterance, which is beyond and predates Hebrew as a language.

Another item to consider is the following. Most scholars also base PART of their conclusions on this matter one findings amongst the Samaritan community and how the 2nd to about 4th cent. record shows that the Samaritans were still pronouncing The Name of Eluwwim. Yet, the Samaritans have two pronunciations of Waw. In one form it is Waw and in the other it is Baa. The Samaritan alphabet for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is Yut-Ey-Baa-Ey. (A Grammer of Samaritan Hebrew by Ze'ev Ben-Hayyim, Introduction, page 27) I also read from the Samaritan Torah, which they still write in a form of ancient Hebrew, and whenever they denote the Baa consanent instead of Waw they put a line over the character. Now as I mentioned before most scholars also recognize that Hebrew has gone through a series of dialect shifts. In the more ancient dialects of Hebrew the Seghol, modernly pronounced as a "eh" sound was a short Pathahh "ah" sound similar to the "a" in father. This can be seen in both Hebrew from the Bavli manuscripts and from the Aramaic of the 1st cent. in the Peshitta Tanakh. What this means is that when a person pronounces Seghol, in order to be correct with ancient Hebrew you would have to pronounce it as a short Pathakh. (Morag, Shlomo--Pronunciation of Hebrew, Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Jerusalem 1971, Vol 13. Col 1122-24)

Another thing is that after the death of the Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq it is said that there rose up many non-rightous Kohanim. Now Shimon HaTzadiq was Kohein around the time of the 3rd cent. BCE he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. According to the Talmud after the death of the high priest Shimon the Righteous, forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, the priests ceased to pronounce the Name (Yoma39b). From that time the pronunciation of the Name was prohibited.

It appears that a majority of the priests in the last days of the Temple were unworthy to pronounce the Name, and a combination of the letters or of the equivalents of the letters constituting the Name was employed by the priests in the Temple. Thus the Twelve-Lettered Name was substituted, which, a baraita says, was at first taught to every priest; but with the increase of the number of licentious priests the Name was revealed only to the pious ones, who "swallowed" its pronunciation while the other priests were chanting. Another combination, the Forty-two-Lettered Name, Rab says, was taught only to whomever was known to be of good character and disposition, temperate, and in the prime of life (?id. 71a; comp. Rashi to 'Ab. Zarah 17b). Maimonides, in his "Moreh," thinks that these names were perhaps composed of several other divine names.

The view that prayer is more effectual if the name of Eluwwim is pronounced in it as it is written caused the scholars of Kairwan to address a question in the eleventh century to Hai Gaon with reference to the pronunciation of the Shem ha-Meforash, to which he answered that it might not be uttered at all outside the Holy Land (Hai Gaon, "Ta'am Zekenim," p. 55; see Löw, "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 204).

According to Eleazar b. Pedat, the expression "halleluyah" (Ps. cxiii. 1 and frequently elsewhere) implies that Eluwwim will be praised by His full name not in this world, but in the world to come (Midr. Teh. on Ps. cxiii.; comp. 'Er. 18b). In interpreting "and his name one" (Zech. xiv. 9), Nahman b. Isaac, a Babylonian amora of the fourth century, said (Pes. 50a): "The future world is not like this world.

The high priest spoke the name of Eluwwim on the Day of Atonement in his recitation of Lev. xvi. 30 during the confession of sins; and when the priests and the people in the great hall heard him utter the "Shem ha-Meforash," they prostrated themselves and glorified God, saying: "Praised be the glorious name of His kingdom for ever and ever" (Yoma vi. 2). When a very young priest, the well-known tanna Tarfon witnessed this ceremony; and he declares that the high priest uttered the holy name of Eluwwim so that his voice was merged in the song of the priests (Yer. Yoma 40d, below; Kid. 71a; Eccl. R. iii. 11), although it was believed that when, at this point in the ritual, the priest pronounced the Name of Eluwwim he was heard as far as Yericho (Tamid iii. 7; comp. Yoma 39b).

The Hhakhamim forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval. The reasons assigned by Lagarde ("Psalterium Hicronymi," p. 155) and Halévy ("Recherches Bibliques," i. 65 et seq.) are untenable, and are refuted by Jacob (l.c. pp. 172, 174), who believes that the Divine Name was not pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen. The true name of Eluwwim was uttered only during worship in the Temple, in which the people were alone; and in the course of the services on the Day of Atonement the high priest pronounced the Sacred Name ten times (Tosef., Yoma, ii. 2; Yoma 39b). This was done as late as the last years of the Temple (Yer. Yoma 40a, 67). If such was the purpose, the means were ineffectual, since the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was known not only in Jewish, but also in non-Jewish circles centuries after the destruction of the Temple, as is clear from the interdictions against uttering it (Sanh. x. 1; Tosef., Sanh. xii. 9; Sifre Zuta, in Yalk., Gen. 711; 'Ab. Zarah 18a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci., end). Raba, a Babylonian amora who flourished about 350, wished to make the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton known publicly (Kid. 71b); and a contemporary Palestinian scholar states that the Samaritans uttered it in taking oaths (Yer. Sanh. 28b). The members of the Babylonian academy probably knew the pronunciation as late as 1000 C. E. (Blau, l.c. pp. 132 et seq., 138 et seq.). The physicians, who were half magicians, made special efforts to learn this name, which was believed to possess marvelous powers (of healing, etc.; Yer. Yoma 40a, below).

It was in connection with magic that the Tetragrammaton was introduced into the magic papyri and, in all probability, into the writings of the Church Fathers, these two sources containing the following forms, written in Greek letters: (1) "Iaoouee," "Iaoue," "Iabe,"; (2) "Iao," "Iaho," "Iae"; (3) "Aia"; (4) "Ia." The three forms quoted under (1) are merely three ways of writing the same word, though "Iabe" is designated as the Samaritan pronunciation.

Now you keep in mind these OPINIONS are dealing with issues of "Tefiloth" i.e. prayer. Not just causually writing or causually saying the Shem HaMeyuhhad of Eluwwim. The other issue is that many of the Greek renderings of what The Name may have been are from post-Temple times. The importance here is that after the death of Kohein Shimon Tzadiq that Name was only being taught to certain Kohanim because of the unrightousness of the time.

Also, we see that The Name of Eluwwim was being be guarded by certain priests. What this in tern means is that anything post Shimon HaTzadiq and especially post 70 CE has to be taken with a grain of salt. Also, if you yourself haven't done the first hand research i.e. learning the language, archeology, and history you are taking the words of scholars who could easily be wrong OR could be hiding what they really know to be true. How does one know that the scholars are putting out a pronunciation to throw people off? It may sound funny, but it is something to consider. Especially since many of the scholars on this issue are Christians. If Christianity is untrustworhty then what about their scholars? Just something to consider, I am not saying that they the scholars nor the Christians are untrustworhty, but it is something to consider.

Also, a few things that I must state here. Jews don't replace Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in the Hebrew text with ANYTHING. Look in any Hebrew text and there is no replacement of the Eluwwim anywere. Before the Masorites came up with the nuqqudim there were no vowel markers, except Mater lectiones, in the text so even they did not replace Shem HaMeyuhhad. Also, no Jew (who knows their Hebrew) considers HaShem a "replacement" for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. HaShem is a title no different than Elohim, Eluwwim, Adonai, Adani, etc. No Jew who knows their Hebrew would ever act like HaShem is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced. The issue here goes into what I mentioned about not bearing false witness about the Name of Eluwwim.

Here is what a I mean. (BTW I am not using this or stating to put down the Sacred Name movement nor any of the conclusions of Sacred Namers)

On this site alone I seen people say, many of which as if they have 100% evidence, that they know the exact pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey as it was pronounced in correctly in ANCIENT TIMES. The following are a list of what I have seen on this site alone.

1) Yahweh
2) Yahwi
3) Yahuwah
4) Yahwah
5) Gehevah
6) Yahveh
7) Yahuweh
8) Yahueh
9) Yehowah
10) ee-ah-oo-eh or ee-ah-oo-ah
11) Yahowah

Now this probably only represents a few of what has been mentioned by people. Now there is no way, in the realm of intellectual honesty, to claim that all of these are correct (no matter how fast or slow it is claimed that a person can say them to make them sound the same, which is artificial to begin with and is not how Hebrew works.) So IFonly one of these is correct then that means that everything else is false. So if everything else is false, and only one is correct the people using the wrong ones are bearing false witness to the Name of Eluwwim. That being said, I am not accusing anyone of anything nor am I saying that the Sacred Name movement is going to burn in hell, and shouldn't do what it is doing. What I am saying is that something people no matter who they are need to consider is INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. If the scholars AGREE that one form is THE ONE then you have to take their agreement with a grain of salt. How do you know they are not bearing false witness? How do you know the won't change their opinons in a few years as scholars do. If you yourself have not done the EXACT research they have then you are taking their word on it. What if the scholars who make the majority are liers and cheats and the people in the minority camp are trustworthy?

I find it interesting that the English translation produced by The Institute of Scriptural Research called "The Scriptures" mentions in their preface about the different ways they thought about writing The Name of Eluwwim in their text. Yet, they even mention that they choose to write in Hebrew (Modern Hebrew) because and I quote, "In any event, we decided to avoid the contraversy over the precise pronunciation and to render it in Hebrew characters...." (The Scriptures by the ISR preface page xii). Makes sense to me keep it in Hebrew and you don't involve yourself in the debate. They are also at the moment are not able or willing to go back and put the Name of Eluwwim in the Ancient Hebrew script as it would have been seen before the Babylonian conquest.

So as you can see the issue is quite complicated. No one is telling any of you to write HaShem or anything else, this all started on someone questioning Rivkah and myself as Jews, what our stance was on it. You all are free to do what you on this issue, no one is pressuring you to do something different.

My personal view as mentioned before is that even if the pronunciation is known 1) English is not the correct language to have it in (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek text with Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in Hebrew attest to not changing it from Hebrew to other languages) and 2) having the pronunciation of His Name doesn't gaurentee anyone a place in the Olam HaBa. Yet, I also don't see anything wrong with people "theorizing" and until Eluwwim makes it known these are ONLY theoretical if it was fact I wouldn't have been able to find 11 different ways people say it was pronounced. Yeshua even pointed this out when he mentioned people coming to him saying they did things in his name. There are many people who knew His Name and still will face the hot seat in Gehinam. May Yeshua HaMashi'ahh restore the Name of Eluwwim and the proper relationship with Eluwwim upon his return. If after reading this the conclusion is that I am critizing the Sacred Name movment, this may need to be read more slowly. If after that what I written is seen as a problem I can be emailed at Shimson_Tzadoq@yahoo.com.

Hope that helps.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

You wrote:

quote:

---

Hashaym is "haw-shame". The spelling Hashem is usually pronouonced "haw-shehm" and so it may not exactly be correct to say that calling the creator by the term HaShem is giving Him a man's name. Of course this is extension of the "ineffable name" doctrine. On the other hand, I do think Shimson had a point when he responded to Eliyah's questioning of his use of HaShem in the "Specifically, When?" thread. It is not uncommon for the name to be used in jokes and other common speech in Sacred Name circles. This ought not to be.

---

I reply: May I ask where you are coming up with phonetic spellings such as "Hashaym" and "haw-shehm"? I do not see them in Strong's. I believe I know where you're coming from, as the "shaym" looks like it might be virtually identical to the phonetic pronunciation offered by Strong's, although now I am concerned that we are getting into technicalities here.

The fact is, the common English rendering of Shem is a false "Englishization," if you will, of the original Hebrew word. In my view, this does not make "Hashem" any less dishonorable than it would be to use the correct Hebrew phonetic pronunciation. I think I could use the same basic logic if I were to decide to refer to the Almighty as "Satan." To those who would criticize such a decision, I could simply say, "Oh, it's not really the same thing, for in Hebrew the adversary is referred to, not as "Say'-ton," but as "Saw-tawn'." I think we could drive each other crazy doing this sort of thing with each other.

The point is, many folks would prefer to refer to the Almighty with a term that simply means "the name," and they actually believe this honors Him. I completely disagree, of course, but the pronunciation of that term [in Hebrew] is "Haw-shame." However, I have spoken to enough Jews, including a woman I used to work with, who very clearly mispronounces it as "Haw-shem," and she pronounced the name of that Israelite man the same way. I cannot help it that this is what they do, but this is what they do. I have simply never heard anyone refer to the Almighty as "Hashame." I hope you understand what I am trying to say here! I think this is akin to the "You say 'to-may-toe,' I say 'to-mah-toe'" situation.

The bottom line is, we should all treat the Almighty's name with respect. I have had many a heated disagreement with folks here in this forum over various issues, but I do not recall a single incident wherein anyone used the Tetragrammaton in a disrespectful manner. If this occurs, someone needs to point it out, for we should all be here to learn and grow. I have very rarely heard the Tetragrammaton used in a disrepectful manner, but I know it happens, and when it does it should be "nipped in the bud." I am thankful to report that my wife and I simply do not associate with those whom we believe would ever do such a thing.

The last time I remember someone treating YHWH's name disrespectfully was nearly 17 years ago when I heard an elder singing, "YHWH, it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way" as he took a shower. This was at a feast, which we already knew was our last one with that particular group. His choice of words doubly confirmed my decision to never return there.

Again, repeating my "bottom line," we should all be careful to treat YHWH's name with the utmost respect and honor. Of course, one man's definition of "respect" will vary from another man's, and I believe this explains the "fence" [more like an iron curtain] that has been all too tightly constructed by some folks. However, if "Plan A" is to always treat the Almighty's name with respect ... but a situation comes up where I might need to treat it with disrespect, does this mean I should resort to the use of "Hashem"? Is referring to Him as Hashem "Plan B"?? I think we all should determine to stick with "Plan A," and simply avoid situations wherein we might need a different choice of terms. Let's just avoid "disrespectful settings."

Matthew, I appreciate your comments. Indeed, if we cannot label the use of "Hashem" as "unscriptural," then neither is the celebration of Christmas. Neither one is directly spoken against in Scripture, and people will come up with all manner of "logic" to justify each one on that very basis.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by truthtreker:
What is scriptural, is that the Father wants us to proclaim, and praise His name. His name is YHWH, and I believe that enough scholars through out the centuries have agreed on how it is pronounced. Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto Elohim, sing praises to His name; extol him who rideth upon the heavens by His name, which is YAH, and rejoice before Him." To me, the first syllable of His name is clearly shown in scripture. I dont find it difficult to add the second syllable ...

---

Shalom, Duane, and we agree. However, I have through much study come to believe His name actually has three syllables, and with the "w" sound removed, that is what it has.

Also, I wonder if "sing praises to His name" is what is literally meant there as we "Sing unto Elohim".

But either way, let us do it!

Blessings ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
... now I am concerned that we are getting into technicalities here.

---

Yeah ... 'cause it is sometimes impossible to get one's rhetoric past 'em, eh?!

quote:

---

Matthew, I appreciate your comments. Indeed, if we cannot label the use of "Hashem" as "unscriptural," then neither is the celebration of Christmas. Neither one is directly spoken against in Scripture, and people will come up with all manner of "logic" to justify each one on that very basis.

---

For the record: Please know that my own silence concerning the use of "HaShem" in reference to the One who created us goes both ways - I neither speak against it nor justify it. But of course, I certainly *do* speak against Christmas since Scripture conveys something like "Do *not* put the axe to the tree and take it inside and nail it upright and decorate it with the gonads of gods ..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:
For the record: Please know that my own silence concerning the use of "HaShem" in reference to the One who created us goes both ways - I neither speak against it nor justify it. But of course, I certainly *do* speak against Christmas since Scripture conveys something like "Do *not* put the axe to the tree and take it inside and nail it upright and decorate it with the gonads of gods ..."

[This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 02-20-2005).]

---

Greetings Lee,

You are correct the practice of Christmas trees are mentioned in the Tanakh. It didn't come from no where.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shimson bar-Tzadoq:
You are correct the practice of Christmas trees are mentioned in the Tanakh. It didn't come from no where.

---

I reply: That is a very debatable conclusion, as the following URL discusses:
http://www.biblelight.net/christmastree.htm

However, if you choose regard "Christmas" as being specifically addressed in Scripture, then we can move along to discuss whether or not Valentine's Day is "unscriptural."

YHWH gives us a command to reverence His name. It is used at least 6,823 times in Scripture, and I believe reverently so by those who served Him ... irreverently by those who did not. The true believers made no attempt to cover up His name, nor did they teach others to substitute it with titles. With all due respect, I'm on their side.

The use of "Hashem" is a tradition of man that I willfully ignore. I am glad to be able to come to a forum where the moderator is opposed to substituting the Creator's name with titles. Moreover, YHWH is not my "Hashem."

Baruch hashem YHWH,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
I reply: That is a very debatable conclusion, as the following URL discusses:
http://www.biblelight.net/christmastree.htm

However, if you choose regard "Christmas" as being specifically addressed in Scripture, then we can move along to discuss whether or not Valentine's Day is "unscriptural."

YHWH gives us a command to reverence His name. It is used at least 6,823 times in Scripture, and I believe reverently so by those who served Him ... irreverently by those who did not. The true believers made no attempt to cover up His name, nor did they teach others to substitute it with titles. With all due respect, I'm on their side.

The use of "[b]Hashem" is a tradition of man that I willfully ignore. I am glad to be able to come to a forum where the moderator is opposed to substituting the Creator's name with titles. Moreover, YHWH is not my "Hashem."

Baruch hashem YHWH,
Larry

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 02-20-2005).][/B]

---

Greetings Larry,

I pray that you are well. To address your points. I think you need to reread what I posted on Christmas. My EXACT words were, "You are correct the practice of Christmas trees are mentioned in the Tanakh. It didn't come from no where." The practices/characteristics of paganism are HEAVILY covered in the Tanakh so that paganism is easily identifyable. Yeshayahu being the strongest since Christmas doesn't meet up to the Torah nor the Te'udah which is the standard for something to have dawn in it. Valentines also in the same problem as Christmas so no problem there. I am not a Christian, I am a Jew so that whole Christmas and Valentine thing is a no brainer since all Jews who live by Yeshayahu 8:20 don't do celebrate either one, and never have.

On your issue with the term HaShem. No one is telling you or anyone else to use HaShem to begin with so I am not sure what your gripe is. Besides as I mentioned before I don't replace HaShem Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey with HaShem anywhere, and I also don't read English translations to begin with. I haven't quoted any scripture using HaShem as a replacement. In order to replace something you have to be taking something that already exists in a place and replacing it with something. I have not taken The Elohim from somewhere it already existed and put something else in its place. Besides there is no command that one MUST use Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey every time one is talking about Elohim. If that were the case using "Him" and "He" would also be probablematic. This might sound nite picking, but as I mentioned to EliYah the issue of replacement is something that only exists in the world of "Translation." Jews who follow Masorah Har Sinai don't use translations we read Hebrew texts so this is not an issue for us. Besides I gave sources for pretty much everything I posted dealing with the language issues. If you don't like the sources you don't have to accept them. I didn't put them to convince of anything.

Also, as I have already proven earlier what Hey (Pathahh) - Shem (Tzere) - Mem means and that it is a noun/a title no different than HaQadosh, Elohim, etc. So I am not sure where you are directing your arguements.

Besides I personally consider ALL transliterations to be substitutions. The Aramaic, the Ge'ez, and at times Greek are the only translations I personally feel have any real validity. Yet, I am not putting down some peoples need for other type of translations as not everyone has the ability or patience to learn Hebrew. As I mentioned before you can do anything you desire on this issue, no one on this forum is forcing you to stop doing what you are doing.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Yes, it does seem there could be three syllables, and I thought about that after I posted, but since it actually took three posts for me to get that short amount of information out, then one post for apology, I decided that enough was enough. BTW, I never read Jer. 10:4 quite that way before, but you tickled me as you have many times before.

I would like to respond to some of the comments issued by Shimson.

He wrote:

quote:

---

The dialect shift is a FACT, the lack of consideration of this amongst some is a fact, the information I presented about the grammer issues are FACTS.

---

I reply: I agree with the above. Different dialects, plus dialect shifts are in and of themselves good reasons for why we shouldn't be dogmatic about a certain pronunciation.

One of the most common reasons I hear for why we should NOT refer to the Creator by the name He gave to Himself is, "No one even knows for sure how it was pronounced!"

I reply, "Maybe I don't know 'for sure' precisely how it was pronounced, but I 'for sure' know how it wasn't pronounced ... and it wasn't pronounced 'gawd'!" For the purposes of this thread, I will also add that it wasn't pronounced "Hashem."

I personally applaud all those who are actively seeking to honor the Almighty by striving to arrive at the correct phonetic pronunciation ... so long as they aren't dogmatic about it. I realize some folks are, and I simply avoid them.

He added:

quote:

---

If the Sacred Name movment is valid then it should open to critique the same way it critique Christianity and Judaism. In Mattithyahu (Matthew) Yeshua says what ever a person uses to measure others will be also be used to measure that person. This includes EVERYONE.

---

I reply: I agree that we should all be open to criticism.

He added:

quote:

---

Sorry for the caps, but I am firm believer that The Name of Eluwwim i.e. the Shem Hameyuhhad should never be transliterated, but kept ONLY in Hebrew as it was done in the Greek and various Aramaic translations of the Tanakh. I also don't believer in just casually writing His Name in places where it can be easily printed out, destroyed, torn, etc.

---

I reply: The very fact the Tetragrammaton was rendered in the modern square Hebrew characters proves that there is nothing wrong with phonetically carrying sounds of the letters of His name from one set of characters to another set of characters (i.e.,transliterating this name). It was originally written out in the "paleo-Hebrew" characters, but was later carried over to the "modern" square Hebrew characters. Anyone comparing the ancient characters with the modern ones can easily discern that the different characters do not in any way resemble each other. By employing the above rationale, the characters should have been confined to the original paleo-Hebrew.

Anyone wishing to compare the corresponding characters can check out "Ancient Hebrew Characters" at the following URL:
http://hebrewresources.com/ancient-Hebrew.html

Moreover, ancient documents and archaeological evidence supports the fact that:

1) It was transliterated into other languages.
2) The Name was used in common, everyday speech.

The Moabite Stone proves that King Mesha of Moab had the name YHWH inscribed on stone to commemorate his victory over Israel. The language of the Moabites was Phoenician, which was very similar to classical Hebrew, yet obviously enough differences for scholars to classify it as being different from Hebrew. This information was obtained from The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 708. Additional information on this stone can be read by accessing Smith's Bible Dictionary at the following URL:
http://www.biblehelpsonline.com/smith/smith-m.htm

The Lachish Letters, which date to between 598 and 588 B.C.E., prove that the name YHWH was used in common everyday speech. According to The New Unger's Bible Dictionary:

These priceless documents, of vast epigraphic importance, illustrate the Hebrew current in the time of Jeremiah. They are to be dated between the two Babylonian sieges of Lachish (598-589/88 B.C.). Eighteen of these pieces of ancient inscribed pottery were found in 1935, to which three more were added in 1938. Practically all of these ostraca were written by a certain Hoshaiah, who was thought to be stationed at a military outpost, to a man named Jaosh, believed to be the high commanding officer at Lachish. This traditional interpretation has been disputed by Yigael Yadin, who concluded that the letters were first draft letters sent by Hoshaiah, the commander at Lachish, to Jaosh, his superior in Jerusalem. In any event, they give a sense of "you are there" at the destruction of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar.

I might add the following information from the Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 7, p. 680:

The true pronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH was never lost. The name was pronounced Yahweh. It was regularly pronounced this way at least until 586 B.C., as is clear from the Lachish Letters written shortly before this date.

More details regarding the Lachish Letters may be obtained at the following URL:
http://www.theology.edu/lec21.htm

Shimson adds:

quote:

---

On the issue of the person mentioned in 1 Divrei Yamim 11:34 when one looks at the Hebrew texts one finds that this person's name was spelled Hey (Qamatz)-Shin (Tzere)-Mem pronounced Hoshem and is from an UNKNOWN root, but believed by most scholars to be from the shoresh (Shin-Mem-Mem) or (Shin-Waw-Mem) and Hoshem means "fat." (Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, page CCXXVI) and (Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew by Matityahu Clark, page 264).

---

I reply: If I were to say [in the Hebrew language], "Hashem spoke to the prophet," how would you know whether I was referring to the Israelite by that name who spoke to the prophet OR if I was referring to the Almighty who spoke to the prophet?

Also, it appears that Shimson may be attempting to force the pronunciation Hoshem instead of Hashem so as to justify his "term of choice." However, according to The Interlinear Bible, that name, even with the added vowel points, is indeed pronounced haw-shame. In fact, I looked up page 226 in The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, and agrees with the pronunciation offered by Strong's. As for the meaning of this name, that is irrelevant to this discussion, although ... if you say Hashem ("haw-shame") means "fat," then I believe I have found yet another reason to not refer to the Almighty as "Hashem." Sounds disrespectful to me.

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

This is not the same as HaShem from the shoresh (Shin-Mem) which is spelled Hey (Pathakh)-Shin (Tzere)-Mem and means "The Named One," "The Renowned One," or "The Famed One."

---

I reply: Since YHWH is never referred to as "HaShem" by any true believers in Scripture, I have nothing to compare the above with. I am left to believe that you are here attempting to embellish your "term of choice."

Thus, I am again left with the same question as above: If I were to say [in the Hebrew language], "Hashem spoke to the prophet," how would you know whether I was referring to the Israelite by that name who spoke to the prophet OR if I was referring to the Almighty who spoke to the prophet? I am basing the pronunciation of this term on the pronunciation that I have personally heard Jews use in reference to the Almighty. I have also heard a Jewish woman refer to the Israelite of I Chron. 11:34 with that same pronunciation, which also matches the rendering given by the Tanakh - The Holy Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication Society.

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

One can easily make an arguement that writing His Name any other way EXCEPT for in Hebrew is un-scriptural. Where in scripture does He give the okay to transliterate His Name into another language. The English methods that people use to try and place consanents and vowels for His Name are not found in the REAL Scriptures, the Hebrew text, so an arguement can be made on that also that using English is adding to the Word.

---

I reply: That argument collapses when we review the fact that His name was written with completely different (and unrecognizable characters) when it was written in the modern square Hebrew script. This could be argued as a transliteration, in my opinion. Since Yeshua didn't criticize the Hebrew in vogue during His day, I don't believe He had a problem with it.

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

These things have their history in archeology since you will find that text with The Name of Eluwwim and His Words were treated with the UTMOST respect in Israel. His Name wasn't just casually said or written.

---

I reply: I believe the evidence from the Lachish Letters documents a man who had no problem with the "casual," if you will, use of the Name, yet he treated it respectfully. That is the key.

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

The Talmud records that only in the Temple service (pre-Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq) for Nedarim (oaths), and for a Benei Yisrael to greet another Benei Yisrael was the The Name pronounced out of respect for the Melekh HaOlam.

---

I reply: Obviously the Talmud is not correct, as per Ruth 2:4.

Shimson goes on to write:

quote:

---

The archeology shows that the faithful in Israel didn't take the command about not bring the Name to Lashaw lightly, even when Israel was a sovereign religious nation. So the information below can give you more to consider. That is why anything with The Name of Eluwwim were treated with the HIGHEST LEVEL OF respect.

---

I reply: I am all for treating YHWH's name with the highest level of respect. If I ever treat it disrespectfully, please let me know where I did so.

He adds:

quote:

---

According to Hebrew scholars all Lamed-Hey verbs such as Hey-Waw-Hey which is the root from which Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is believed to come from were once Lamed-Yod verbs. Meaning that instead of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey you would have had Yod-Hey-Waw-Yod pre-9th cent. BCE. The reason we know this is because the Hey in the 3rd person, masculine, imperfect, Hiphil is acting as a vowel. I.e. the "eh" at the end is not a consanent, but instead a vowel. (Basics of Biblical Hebrew - Section 16.7.1, page 176-177) This means that IF the PRONUNCIATION, that many scolars believe to be the Name of Eluwwim is correct, THEN it was not SPELLED Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey before the 9th cent. BCE since these type of Vowels (Mater lectionis) were not common in Hebrew before the 9th cent. BCE. Thus their are scholars who say that the Name of Eluwwim in Hebrew anciently would have been spelled like Yod-Hey-Waw or Yod-Waw. All of thsi is dependent on whether The Name of Eluwwim is based on any understanding of Hebrew grammer or is an utterance, which is beyond and predates Hebrew as a language.

---

I reply: What pronunciation was used during the period of the second temple?

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

Another thing is that after the death of the Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq it is said that there rose up many non-rightous Kohanim. Now Shimon HaTzadiq was Kohein around the time of the 3rd cent. BCE he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. According to the Talmud after the death of the high priest Shimon the Righteous, forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple, the priests ceased to pronounce the Name (Yoma39b). From that time the pronunciation of the Name was prohibited.

---

I reply: If this is correct, the Name ceased to be pronounced at around the time of Yeshua's ministry. It is interesting information. Thanks for sharing!

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

AIt appears that a majority of the priests in the last days of the Temple were unworthy to pronounce the Name, and a combination of the letters or of the equivalents of the letters constituting the Name was employed by the priests in the Temple. Thus the Twelve-Lettered Name was substituted, which, a baraita says, was at first taught to every priest; but with the increase of the number of licentious priests the Name was revealed only to the pious ones, who "swallowed" its pronunciation while the other priests were chanting. Another combination, the Forty-two-Lettered Name, Rab says, was taught only to whomever was known to be of good character and disposition, temperate, and in the prime of life (?id. 71a; comp. Rashi to 'Ab. Zarah 17b). Maimonides, in his "Moreh," thinks that these names were perhaps composed of several other divine names.

---

I reply: The Forty-two-lettered Tetragrammaton? I find this to be nonsensical.

Shimson writes:

quote:

---

The Hhakhamim forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval. The reasons assigned by Lagarde ("Psalterium Hicronymi," p. 155) and Halévy ("Recherches Bibliques," i. 65 et seq.) are untenable, and are refuted by Jacob (l.c. pp. 172, 174), who believes that the Divine Name was not pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen.

---

I reply: Believe me, if the heathens made fun of or mocked the Name, I can understand trying to keep it from them. But if I knew someone who sincerely wanted to honor the Almighty, I would never withhold that information from him, especially in view of such verses as Exodus 9:16 and Isaiah 52:6.

Shimson writes:

quote:

---

Now you keep in mind these OPINIONS are dealing with issues of "Tefiloth" i.e. prayer. Not just causually writing or causually saying the Shem HaMeyuhhad of Eluwwim. The other issue is that many of the Greek renderings of what The Name may have been are from post-Temple times. The importance here is that after the death of Kohein Shimon Tzadiq that Name was only being taught to certain Kohanim because of the unrightousness of the time.

---

I reply: I can understand that the name of the Almighty was not openly taught, but this certainly does not mean that the likes of Clement of Alexandria were giving out false information, either. This is simply speculation.

Shimson writes:

quote:

---

Also, we see that The Name of Eluwwim was being be guarded by certain priests. What this in tern means is that anything post Shimon HaTzadiq and especially post 70 CE has to be taken with a grain of salt.

---

I reply: I'm having a difficult time visualizing priests successfully "guarding" a name, especially since it was obviously written out in the Hebrew characters, and those people certainly knew how to speak Hebrew.

He continues:

quote:

---

Also, if you yourself haven't done the first hand research i.e. learning the language, archeology, and history you are taking the words of scholars who could easily be wrong OR could be hiding what they really know to be true. How does one know that the scholars are putting out a pronunciation to throw people off? It may sound funny, but it is something to consider. Especially since many of the scholars on this issue are Christians. If Christianity is untrustworhty then what about their scholars? Just something to consider, I am not saying that they the scholars nor the Christians are untrustworhty, but it is something to consider.

---

I reply: I find this rather difficult to believe. Maybe I'm too trusting, but I don't believe the scholars have intentionally misled people regarding the basic Hebrew linguistics, not to mention Clement of Alexandria's transliteration. If nothing else, we know that "Yah" is correct. As I have long maintained, and repeat from above, maybe I don't know the precise original pronunciation, but I know precisely how it wasn't pronounced. If someone has intentionally misled a sincere seeker, I believe the blood may be on his head, so to speak. I don't believe YHWH wants us to hide his name, especially from those who are seeking Him and His ways.

He continues:

quote:

---

Also, no Jew (who knows their Hebrew) considers HaShem a "replacement" for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. HaShem is a title no different than Elohim, Eluwwim, Adonai, Adani, etc. No Jew who knows their Hebrew would ever act like HaShem is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced. The issue here goes into what I mentioned about not bearing false witness about the Name of Eluwwim.

---

I reply: This is simply not true. In fact, here is a website where "Hashem" is plainly referred to as a name reserved for the Almighty ... instead of the name that they consider His "proper name"! Here is the quote:

Hashem which means "the name"
Traditional Jews use the name "Hashem" instead of "God" to show their respect to God by not taking his name lightly and only using the proper name God in prayers.

Here's another quote from a Jewish website:

In the language of Yeshayahu HaNavi (12:1), “v’amarta bayom hahu: Od’cha Hashem ki ‘anafta bi,” “and you will state on that day (of Redemption), I will praise You, Hashem, (even for the times) when You were angry with me!”

The above quote, by the way, may be read at the following URL:
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rhab_bshalach.html

Another Jewish website called "Ask the Rabbi" admits that "Hashem" is a substitute for the Almighty's name:

We use the word Hashem to refer to G-d. Literally, Hashem means "The Name." The word Hashem actually appears in the Torah, as in "...fear the great and awesome Hashem (Name) - the L-rd your G-d." (Deutoronomy 28:58).

Essentially, the reason for using a substitute is out of respect. The actual name of Hashem has inherent sanctity and must be treated with respect; for example, it may not be erased.

The word "substitute" is a synonym for the word "replacement," as noted by the definition listed at answers.com:

http://www.answers.com/topic/substitute

Shimson continues:

quote:

---

On this site alone I seen people say, many of which as if they have 100% evidence, that they know the exact pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey as it was pronounced in correctly in ANCIENT TIMES. The following are a list of what I have seen on this site alone.

---

I reply: I personally am not acquainted with any "Sacred Namers" who claim that their pronunciation is the "only" valid one. HalleluYah for that! I respect the reasons offered by these folks ... I may disagree with them on certain pronunciations, but I rejoice in our diversity and in our willingness to sharpen each other. I may lean towards a certain understanding, but this does not mean I am 100% certain, nor do I ever try to elevate my understanding above the understanding of others. This is why I am making an effort in this forum to simply use the four letters, YHWH, here instead of phonetically spelling out the form I personally believe is most likely the correct form.

Shimson concludes:

quote:

---

May Yeshua HaMashi'ahh restore the Name of Eluwwim and the proper relationship with Eluwwim upon his return.

---

I reply: Aw-mein!

I appreciate Shimson sharing his perspective, even though I am in disagreement with much of what he wrote.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by truthtreker:
BTW, I never read Jer. 10:4 quite that way before, but you tickled me as you have many times before.

---

Dare I say I picked that little ditty up from Michael Rood?!

Also, I once heard someone tell about having opened a copy of the KJV laying on a small stand in front of a Christmas tree in the churching-house "sanctuary" and highlighting that particular verse ... and when he came back by a little while later, both the tree and the KJV were gone!

quote:

---

... with the increase of the number of licentious priests the Name was revealed only to the pious ones, who "swallowed" its pronunciation ...

---

I pray you are well. Once again I am getting the impression that you did not read what I wrote in detail. Here a few hightlights.

1) I read from several different Torah texts (several of them are in the Ancient Hebrew text). As I mentioned before I also read from the Samaritan Torah, which is still written in an Ancient Hebrew script. So the issue of the Ketav Ivri and the Ketav Ashuri are not issues with me. So as I mentioned before, I PERSONALLY don't believe in transliterating.

2) Your blanket statements about Jews not saying the Name of Elohim because it is "TOO HOLY" say or "TOO HOLY" to write is not the reason why MOST Jews don't treat The Name of the Most High commonly. I suggest you reread my longer post, because I already explained this issue in detail. Based on your continued use of this statements like these I get the impression you didn't read anything I wrote in any detail. My suggestion is that you focus on what "I" wrote and not some debate you have had with other people.

4) In terms of HOW The Name was pronounced your theory of is not the ONLY theory out there. Also, as I mentioned before it is well known that in Ancient Hebrew the Seghol was pronounced as a Pathahh. This I have already dealt with in the dialect information. The Encyclopedia Judaica mentions this in their article on the different dialects of Hebrew, and I have already provided enough sources for the History of this. As well the issue of Mater lectiones.

5) I also would you prefer you not put words

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
Also, it appears that Shimson may be attempting to force the pronunciation Hoshem instead of Hashem so as to justify his "term of choice." However, according to The Interlinear Bible, that name, even with the added vowel points, is indeed pronounced haw-shame. In fact, I looked up page 226 in The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, and agrees with the pronunciation offered by Strong's. As for the meaning of this name, that is irrelevant to this discussion, although ... if you say Hashem ("haw-shame") means "fat," then I believe I have found yet another reason to not refer to the Almighty as "Hashem." Sounds disrespectful to me.

---

You sure do like to ACCUSE people of things don't you? First all Larry, as I mentioned SEVERAL TIMES before The Qametz in ancient Hebrew pronounced like an "o" sound. Thus in non-scholar type texts they us "AW" vs "AH." Pathahh is NEVER written as "AW" in these same texts to make the distinction between how it pronounced in the later Hebrew sectors. If you read further in any Hebrew grammer book you will notice that Qametz Hatuf is a translated in the SCHOLARLY field as an "o." It is only transliterated as "AW" in the non-scholarly fields.

My suggestion is that you pick up a grammer such as Basics in Hebrew Grammer where you will see that the Qametz Hatuf is an O-Type vowel, and is scholarly translated as "o." One of the ways you know this is because of the Binyan Hophal, which begins with Hey (Qametz). Any Biblical Hebrew grammer will tell you that Hophal binyan is where Qametz Hatuf is pronounced STANDARDLY transliterated as an "o."

In terms of the Lexicon using "Hawshem" I doubt that it had it in English. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicion you mentioned has Hey (Qametz Hatuf) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem, not "Hawshem"transliterated in English. If you are using the B. Davidson text there is no "transliteration into English on page 226." This is not the same as Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. Both the lexicon and your strong's agree that Pathahh and Qametz Hatuf are not the same sound, thus both make a distinction in how they transliterate. As I have mentioned before the Strong's concordance that it sounds like you are using is not geared toward people who know Hebrew, but towards people using an English translation and then trying to get an idea of what Hebrew word was there. It is not concerned with proper pronounciation. The standard method of transliterating ancient Hebrew is quite common.

As mentioned before most Hebrew scholars agree that the Yemenite pronounciation of Hebrew is considered to be one of the oldest dialects of Hebrew (Morag, Shlomo--Pronunciation of Hebrew, Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Jerusalem 1971, Vol 13. Col 1122-24). That is along with the Samaritans. As I have shown that Qamatz and Pathahh are not pronounced the same thus them neither word is even pronounced the same. Please show PROOF that Pathahh and Qamatz in this situation are pronounced the same. The Shoresh for both words do matter because it is the Shoresh that lets one know how the words are pronounced depending on the three letter Shoresh they come from. As mentioned before anyone who ACTUALLY KNOWS HEBREW would not pronounce Hey (Qametz Hatuf) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem. Anyone who has actually heard ancient Hebrew spoken would know the difference since they don't even sound the same.

Your point seems to be that the Qametz Hatuf and the Pathahh are the same sound, which my point is that they are not and anyone who knows Hebrew knows this.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
I reply: Since YHWH is never referred to as "HaShem" by any true believers in Scripture, I have nothing to compare the above with. I am left to believe that you are here attempting to embellish your "term of choice."

Thus, I am again left with the same question as above: If I were to say [in the Hebrew language], "Hashem spoke to the prophet," how would you know whether I was referring to the Israelite by that name who spoke to the prophet OR if I was referring to the Almighty who spoke to the prophet? I am basing the pronunciation of this term on the pronunciation that I have personally heard Jews use in reference to the Almighty. I have also heard a Jewish woman refer to the Israelite of I Chron. 11:34 with that same pronunciation, which also matches the rendering given by the Tanakh - The Holy Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication Society.

---

You can believe anything you want about my "intentions" as I mentioned before I don't ASSUME anything about yours. You haven't disputed the evidence I have given about the Hebrew language so you can come up with all kind things to say about me to give the impression that I am embellishing something. EVERYONE on this forum knows I have no reason to "embellish" anything, and I as I have mentioned SEVERAL times to you believe what you want on this topic YOU started this thread not me. I haven't been trying to CONVINCE ANYONE to do anything, with one exception. I have been trying to convince people to go out and actually learn the Hebrew language and not peice milling. That I am definately guilty of. I am not sure why choose to ignore that FACT.

Yet, IF you were actually able to speak Hebrew as you seem to indicate you do not, a person can easily tell who you are speaking about BECAUSE the Qametz Hatuf and the Pathahh are not pronounced the same. As I mentioned before anyone who knows Hebrew knows how to pronounce ancient Hebrew. Because Hoshem lived prior to Modern Hebrew his name is correctly voclized as Hey (Qometz Hatuf) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem and this is not the same as Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem.

You also mention the the Lachish Ostraca. These Ostraca weren't casual letters to begin with. Anyone who knows that Divrei Yamim knows why these Ostraca were written how and why they were written. I already covered earlier when in Israel the Name of Elohim was used. I get the impression that you didn't read it.

5) In terms of Yeshua's non-arguement with the Hebrew of his time, you are right because neither one of us knows EXACTLY what the scrolls looked like in his time. Besides the evidence seems to show that in some sectors that considered The Name of Elohim something that remained in a certain of Hebrew.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
I reply: Obviously the Talmud is not correct, as per Ruth 2:4.

---

More and more I am getting the impression that you haven't read a word a wrote. I wrote the following, which brought on your above response.

Shimson wrote:
The Talmud records that only in the Temple service (pre-Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq), for Nedarim (oaths), and for a Benei Yisrael to greet another Benei Yisrael was the The Name pronounced out of respect for the Melekh HaOlam.

Ruth 2:4 proves what the Talmud says, that Benei Yisrael pre-Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq greeted in The Name. Let me remind you that Ruth predates Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq by HUNDREDS of years. If you really read what I wrote about the significance of pre-Shimon Ha-Tzadiq you would not be missing the things I posted here. The Talmud references Ruth as a proof that Benei Yisrael would greet in The Name of the Most High.

Based the later comments you make I get the impression that you skipped my earlier remarks where I said.

You mention Clement of Alexandria, and what I mentioned was that YOU don't know whether he had the proper information in front of him. You are taking his word for it, and that is your choice. I am not putting that down at all. Yet, as I mentioned before there are people who report informaition different from Clement of Alexandria so he could be just as wrong as you claim the others are. YOU have chosen to believe Clement of Alexandria and he could be correct and could be wrong. He could have gotten information from a source that didn't have correct information. As I mentioned before many SN groups say that their pronounciation is right, so someone is correct and someone is wrong it is as simple as that. Those who are wrong are spreading false information. That doesn't mean that they were not welling meaning, it simply means that they are bearing a false witness.

During a time a time when most people were not as familar with Aramaic and Greek rather than ancient Hebrew it would have quite easy to gradually stop something. In fact there are native born Israelis fluent in Hebrew from the time of their youth who can't read completely Torah Hebrew because it is an ancient dialect with areas of pronunciation and grammer no longer used in modern Hebrew.

6) No one is telling YOU or anyone else what to do you can come to your own conclusions on anything. For some reason seem to keep going back to this issue, as if I am telling you to do something. I haven't told you do anything, with the exception of reading what I wrote before bearing false witness on my intentions.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
As I have long maintained, and repeat from above, maybe I don't know the precise original pronunciation, but I know precisely how it wasn't pronounced.

---

So now we are back to my point from the start. You admit that "maybe" you don't know the PRECISE pronunciation. All I have said on this issue is be honest about what you "MAYBE" don't know. You and a Sacred Name who says that the Name of Elohim is Yahuwah, Yahueh, etc. can't both be correct at the same time. One of you is correct and one of you is wrong. One of you is bearing a correct witness and one of you has false information, thus making it a false witness. This speaks nothing to intentions, this is speaking to intellectual honesty.

As I mentioned before no Jew who knows His Hebrew does not believes that HaShem is a replacement for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. If you read what I wrote I was real careful to qualify this. As I mentioned before I qaulified this on grounds Hebrew texts and not translations and based on a 100% knowledge of how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is exactly pronounced. Besides the information you are quoting is geared towards people who really don't know their Hebrew nor the history of how this whole thing got started. I.e. this information is mostly geared towards Western Jews. As I have shown the Talmud not a Rabbi is the authority on why. Besides only certian Jews from Western descent use HaShem when reading a text.

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

quote:

---

Sacred Namers (or anyone else) who say the Name of Elohim is Yahuwah, Yahueh, etc. can't all be correct at the same time. One or another may be correct, or even all could be quite wrong ...

---

... and in the minds of some, it is not really all that important to actually "win" the argument as long as the other folks surely "lose" it.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You sure do like to ACCUSE people of things don't you?

---

I reply: Shimson, this is all about impressions. Just as you don't think I read enough from what you wrote, I believe you are reading "too much" into mine, if you catch my drift.

I don't believe you should mistake an accusation for an impression. I have lots of respect for Judaism, I have defended Judaism before those who have ridiculed it ... yet I believe Judaism has lots of false teachings. This is my impression ... it is not an accusation, nor a condemnation. Based upon the position you are now in, I can understand why you would go to great lengths in an attempt to defend the use of the term "Hashem": it is taught by mainstream Judaism. I am thus far not persuaded of that teaching, however.

You wrote:

quote:

---

First all Larry, as I mentioned SEVERAL TIMES before The Qametz in ancient Hebrew pronounced like an "o" sound. Thus in non-scholar type texts they us "AW" vs "AH." Pathahh is NEVER written as "AW" in these same texts to make the distinction between how it pronounced in the later Hebrew sectors. If you read further in any Hebrew grammer book you will notice that Qametz Hatuf is a translated in the SCHOLARLY field as an "o." It is only transliterated as "AW" in the non-scholarly fields.

---

I reply: Okay, so you believe we cannot trust the vowel-pointings supplied by Strong's. I wish you would just come straight out and state as such. I think it would avert a lot of our misunderstandings.

For example, here is what you write: "The Qametz in ancient Hebrew pronounced like an "o" sound."

This is what I hear: "I understand Hebrew better than James Strong did." Of course, I know you aren't really saying this, yet at the same time I know you're the same as saying that James Strong didn't really know his stuff as well as you do, which in turn means that anyone using Strong's, at least for pronunciation purposes, will be messed up. You surely need to understand the ramifications of such a remark, and that is why I would prefer that you just come right out and tell me "point-blank" that Strong's cannot be relied upon for Biblical Hebrew pronunciations. I think you expect everyone to take this calmly without questioning your remarks in any way.

Of course, when you cite references that I do not have access to, I am left to trust your conclusions as "authoritative" over other scholars. This is not an accusation, this is simply the impression you give me when you make these sorts of remarks. If I had not first heard such a remark from the elder of a cult group that "Using Strong's is akin to using a first-grade primer to prove Eintein's theory of relativity," I might "just accept" your testimony without question, as I'm sure many have and will. My previous association with a cult group causes me to be skeptical of those who claim to have a "better understanding of Hebrew" than James Strong did. I hope you don't perceive this as a threat to your scholarship, yet I hope you understand that I will not be as easily persuaded as some are.

Let's get back to those vowel-pointings for a moment, shall we? It is my understanding the the vowel-pointings weren't added to the Masoretic Text until the 7th century C.E.¹ So my question is, when/where did the vowel-pointings transition from "ancient" to "modern"? Are you saying they were already "modern" by the 7th century? And how is it you could tell from those ancient writings that a certain vowel-point represented an "o," as opposed to an "e"?

I'll try to make the rest of my posting brief so as to accommodate your answer, and if you have already answered it, then please just direct me to where I might find your response.

Even so, would you not agree that the spelling "heh, shiyn, mem" in its original form wasn't even vowel-pointed at all?

I'll just address one more comment for now:

You wrote:

quote:

---

As I mentioned before no Jew who knows His Hebrew does not believes that HaShem is a replacement for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. If you read what I wrote I was real careful to qualify this.

---

I reply: I agree that you were "real careful to qualify this," but I simply disagree with you ... completely. To demonstrate as much, I will copy and paste an excerpt from a commentary that you submitted in the thread entitled "Specifically, how?" back on February 13th:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shimson bar-Tzadoq on 02-13-2005 09:05 AM in the thread "Specifically, how?"
So the Har Sinai experience for a Jew is the crown of the exodus from Egypt. It was the time in history where HaShem changed history and the physical reality by causing all of Israel to receive a gift from on high.

---

My reaction: There is no doubt in my mind that, in the above excerpt, you replaced the name of the Creator with HaShem. Even an elementary student understands that when a word is used as a name, it becomes a proper noun. To find out whether or not the word is used as a proper noun, try replacing it with your own name to see if it works. That is simply how "proper nouns" work. The use of "HaShem" seems to represent an attempt to culturally redefine what constitutes a "name" or "name usage."

Let's try replacing "HaShem" in the above sentence: "It was the time in history where Shimson changed history and the physical reality by causing all of Israel to receive a gift from on high."

Or, could it read: "It was the time in history where YHWH changed history and the physical reality by causing all of Israel to receive a gift from on high."

English grammar normally calls for the use of a definite (or indefinite) article if we need to identify someone by his or her title. Example: "It was the time in history where the Almighty changed history and the physical reality by causing all of Israel to receive a gift from on high."

It is my understanding that in your original sentence, which I borrowed from your quote, HaShem was used as a name, and I believe 99% of non-Jews polled would agree. However, since you have redefined the rules so as to fit the predetermined parameters of Judaism, to you it is not used as (or in place of) a name. I simply disagree.

That is the impression that I have.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

¹This information was obtained from the New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., J. D. Douglas, Organizing Editor, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, article “Texts and Versions,” p. 1,178, where we read, “It was not until about the 7th century of our era that the Massoretes introduced a complete system of vowel-signs.”

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
There is no doubt in my mind that, in the above excerpt, you replaced the name of the Creator with HaShem.

---

Larry: Please show us the original statement into which Shimson has allegedly placed any word.

Doing that, my fellow, would prove your intellectual honesty in place of your character-assassinating innuendo.