quote:

---

Acheson wrote
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.

---

Regardless of whether they are accussions or impressions they are false either way. I posted this for Lee not ago.

For me PERSONALLY I came to the conclusion that if Elohim is a King of all reality, IF I were going to claim to Him that I know how to pronounce His Name I would only do so if there is 100% proof of what it is, and at this time there is no 100%. For me 100% proof is Yeshayahu 8:20. Anything with even a 1% flaw does not meet up with this.

Now I do not ATTEMPT to pronouce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey since I know of about six possibilities all of which using History, Language, and Culture (Masorah) could POSSIBLY be the Name of HaShem. All six are STRONG contenders using the Middle Kingdom of Israel as the rule when the knowledge of such was not tampered, filtered, nor hindered. Yet, all of these six have flaws in the data sorrounding them. Flaws such as lack of consideration of dialect changes such as changes in the sound of a vowel or consanant even though the sign of such remains constant.

When linquists research languages they have to use languages current spoken to GUESS what a similar ancient language sounded like. For example Arabic is a good indicator of both ancient Aramaic and Hebrew. Syriac is a good indicator of Aramaic. These languages help scholars GUESS on these kind of matters, based on patterns. Yet, because it is a guess you have to take it with a grain of salt. So for example because no one speaks Sumarian any more it is only a guess of what it sounded like, by comparing it to other languages near its hemesphere.

When I started studying ancient Hebrew especially I began to find the flaws in them all, even the one most POPULAR ones to the scholars. I also found that the scholars know of these flaws and their works on the topic often talk about the flaws. That is why they use words such as "possibly," "strong degree of certainty," or "beleive." I don't know of any competant scholar who claims to have actual data prior to the Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq (which would be more accurate) that in his/her own mind is 100% accurate.

Is the Name of HaShem important, of course it is. EVERY aspect of Him is important, especially since Shem in Hebrew means more than just name. Yet, it is more important for me as a Jew to be intellectually honest with myself, everyone else, and most especially Elohim. If I don't have 100% proof something, I abide by Yeshayahu 8:20. As a Jew this is the standard I am called to. If the nations feel that they know The Name then Kol HaKavod (more power) to them. I am not one to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't do. I am no ruler or authority over the non-Jewish word, and I don't wish it any ill will. In fact if I did I wouldn't post here. That is why I am quick to correct people when they use "we" and "us" for me. I have NEVER told anyone they should not use what they BELIEVE the Name to be. I may caution about the flaws of theories and such, but I do this in my every day contact with people no matter what their faith. Just the same as people do me when I am not on the level 100%.

There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion. As I mentioned before outside of Prayer, Tanakh reading, Oaths, and Temple service there is no requirement for me to say His Name (in the situation of His Name being 100% known). So with at least 10 or more theories out there people are only assuming their way of doing it is right.

Now with that being said I don't judge the Sacred Name movement for any of choices in the matter. If anything when ANYONE on this site and others have asked me my opinions on it I give it freely. I give both the pros and cons of any opinion I have on this matter. I don't think you can get more non-partisan than that. I am no expert, but I can tell you that I have been, and I am currently still around enough Hebrew experts to know that I am not just shooting off the hip with what I am talking about.

For me and many Jews it has nothing to do with His Name being "too holy" that is more of a wives tale, even though EVERYTHING about Elohim is extremely QADOSH. Yet, if I am before a just earthly ruler and I would personally prefer not to call him by a wrong Name, then of course I would give Elohim even more respect. That is why I would never write His Name out as it is pronounced except in Ancient Hebrew, and even then I wouldn't do it casually. Besides as I mentioned before the Torah uses lots of titles for Him. There is no prohibition in calling Him by a title and HaShem is a title. I would never make a copy of a Torah Scroll or Text and put HaShem in it though.

So as I have stated before you even started your false impressions, I had already stated my issue, and made it clear of its personal nature.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
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.

---

Wrong again. What you believe you hear is incorrect for several reasons. The publisher's agree on page A of their Preface that the audiance of their Conrdance are those reading the King James Version of the bible. Thus their use of English is from that style of writing. 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). As I stated earlier.

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 will further add that Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem is one word, where Hey (Pathah) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem is a Shin (Tzere) - Mem with the definate article Hey (Pathahh). Any school child knows that a definate article Hey with a Qametz happens when the initial consonant of the word is a Guttaral.

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.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
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 that 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.

---

Once again your impression is incorrect. Please provide me with the original wording of my post and the date on which I originally wrote Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey and then later changed it to HaShem. If you don't have that please provide with the Scripture I was quoting in that instance where I took replaced Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey and later went back and put HaShem. As Lee asked you earlier please provide this information because you are bearing false witness. You are the one REPLACING my words with other words, not me. Besides WHY would English grammer have anything to do with Hebrew, they are not even the same language.

The fact that you for some reason believe that you can compare Hebrew grammer to English shows that you do not have a working knowledge of the language. The use of the definate article in Hebrew is different in many ways than "the" in English. You would know this if you took the time to study the Hebrew language, and let it explain itself.

Even a child who understands Hebrew knows about the difference between a normal noun and and an adjective used as a Substantive. Let me refresh your memory and provide you with a source.

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 is 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.

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)

If you so desire to find 99% of Jews in the world then go ahead. Present to them EVERYTHING I presented to you EXACTLY as I presented and let me know what they say. Not just part of it, all of it including the information about the Teimaini form of Hebrew I have been telling you about.

As I restate:
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 and they know that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Shin because they are unwilling to beaer false witness about The Name of Elohim because there is no 100% proof of exactly how it was pronounced.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
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.

---

I didn't say that, and I didn't conclude that.........you did. I never used the word "WE," as I pointed out for WHOM the Strong's Concordance was created for i.e. people who don't know Hebrew. According to the Strong's concordance words like Waw-Shin-Daleth-Yod are pronounced Vashdi. Strong's seems to suggest that the Waw is pronounced as Vav, he only has a breif not next to a Vav, but in the entirity of the text renders Vav. So if he is correct then that means that a number of the styles of writing Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey are incorrect, and they should be using Vav. This includes yours, if Strong's is correct.

The publisher's agree on page A of their Preface that the audiance of their Conrdance are those reading the King James Version of the bible. Thus their use of English is from that style of writing. 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:

---

Acheson wrote:
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.

---

Wrong again, I didn't say James Strong's didn't know his stuff. I am saying that his stuff doesn't support what you are claiming, so I am saying that your claim of Qametz and Pathahh being confused as if they sound the same is incorrect. Besides, James Strong's doesn't deal with the dialect shifts. His use of the Vav throughout his text proves who his audiance is. His use of Yehovah for Yod (Seghol) -Hey (Hholam) Waw (Qametz) - Hey and Yehovih for Yod (Seghol) -Hey (Hholam) Waw (Hhireq) - Hey shows where he is guiding his audience. Since his time, more knowledge of how ancient Hebrew actually sounded has been found. The fact that he doesn't even give you the broad history of Hebrew shows that his audiance are people who want to word studies from the KJV.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote:
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.

---

So because you don't have access to the right information to understand the Hebrew languages, the information I presented is wrong? You don't have to accept what I presented, just present source proof that they are incorrect.
You are not left to trust my conclusions you are left to "Study [Hebrew] to show yourself approved." You have mentioned several times that you don't have a complete knowledge of the language, you are not alone, but you can go out and learn it. Don't accept my testimony, about WHO the Strong's is geared towards accept the fact the preface says it is for people reading the KJV. People who know Hebrew don't need a book designed around the KJV. Be skeptical of everything I have written, and go out learn Hebrew. As you have agreed you don't know the language. As you have shown you don't know the language sufficiently.

Ask any person who has interacted with me on this forum what is one of the main things I push on them. "GO OUT AND LEARN HEBREW" is the first and prime thing I have been pushing on this and other forums. I don't tell them to learn it the way I have or anyone else. If they study they will know if someone is being intellectually honest. So just for your satisfaction I will say it again, "FOR ANYONE READING THIS GO OUT AND LEARN HEBREW FOR YOURSELF! DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING OR THE WORD OF ANYONE FOR ANYTHING! LEARN IT FOR YOURSELF!"

You can associate anything you don't agree with a cult all you want, it still doesn't remove the need for intellectual honesty. It is funny that I told you the following in my earlier posts.

Post 1
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.

Post 2
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.

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:
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?

---

Anyone who grew up in the Hheder or Yeshivah environment to know how to read Hebrew without vowels. Jews have been passing this information down for thousands of years, the same as it is being done today. Young children learn how to read unpointed texts from a young age from a Mori. The Synagogoue where I pray children as young as five and six can read a Torah scroll, which has no vowels. In any traditional or normative Synagogoue ONLY people who know their stuff are allowed to read from Torah scrolls. There are always 2 or 3 people reviewing the text to make sure they are reading it correctly. This has been going on for thousands of years. Any person who makes a mistake is corrected and has to start over again. if the scroll is not legiable, then he has to have a child come up and read it. If the child cannot read it, then a new scroll has to be brought out and corrected to the master copy. There are only 3 Torah types used by observant Jews and all three have only 9 differences in letters that don't change the meaning. The traditional Jewish communities have taken great lengths to know how Hebrew works and to pass it on for thousands. If a person knows Hebrew they know the structure of the words, and can easily differentiate between letters and sounds, without vowel points. If they don't they are not allowed to read from Torah scrolls. Ask any Jewish child you can find raised in the Hheder or Yeshivah system and ask them to read an unpointed Hebrew text.

On your question of vowel pointing the following contains that plus much more. Hebrew is a breif history of Hebrew from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language. It is theorized that this language family probably originated in the Fertile crescent, and began to diverge around the 8th millennium BC, although there is much debate about the actual date. (The theory is espoused by most archeologists and linguists, but at odds with traditional reading of the Torah.) Speakers of Proto-Afro-Asiatic spread northeast, eventually reaching the Middle East.

At the end of the 3rd millennium BC the ancestral languages of Aramaic,
Ugaritic, and other various Canaanite languages were spoken in the Levant alongside the influential dialects of Ebla and Akkad. As the Hebrew founders from northern Haran filtered south into and came under the influence of the Levant, like many sojourners into Canaan including the Philistines, they adopted Canaanite dialects. The first written evidence of distinctive Hebrew, the Gezer calendar, dates back to the 10th century BC, the traditional time of the reign of David and Solomon. It presents a list of seasons and related agricultural activities. The Gezer calendar (named after the city in whose proximity it was found) is written in an old Semitic script, akin to the Phoenician one that through the Greeks and Etruscans later became the Roman script used today in almost all European languages. The Gezer calendar is written without any vowels, and it does not use consonants to imply vowels even in the places where more modern spelling requires it.

The Biblical Hebrew language, also known as Biblical Hebrew or Classical Hebrew, is the ancient form of the Hebrew languages as spoken by the Israelites, in which the Hebrew Bible (Torah and Tanakh) was originally written. Its widest usage is by the Jews and their various Jewish dialects of Hebrew. A smaller group, the Samaritans, also used the Samaritan Hebrew language.

From a linguistic point of view, the Classical Hebrew languages is usually divided into two periods: Biblical Hebrew, and Roman Era Hebrew, having very distincted grammatical patterns
Biblical Hebrew is further divided into the so called 'Golden Age' hebrew (1200BCE to 500BCE) and 'Silver Age' hebrew (500BCE to 60BCE). Silver Age hebrew has alot of Aramiac borrowings, for example the use of the conditional particle '/illu/' replacing '/lu/'. Another Shiboleth between the two, is the use of /aSer/ (that) in the earlier period, being replaced with the prefix /Se/ in the later.

Roman Era Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew, has further gramatical influences from Greek and Parsi, mainly through the dialect of Aramiac which was Lingua franca of the area at the time.

Among the dialects of Hebrew preserved into modern times, Yemenite Hebrew is generally regarded as the form closest to Hebrew as used in ancient times, particularly Tiberian Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. This is evidenced in part by the fact that Yemenite Hebrew preserves a separate sound for every consonant except for samekh and sin, which are both pronounced /s/.

There are two main pronunciations of Yemenite Hebrew, considered by many to be the most accurate form of Hebrew. Although there are technically five in total that relate to the regions of Yemen. In the Yemenite dialect, all Hebrew letters have a distinct sound, except for the letters samekh and sin. The Sanaani Hebrew pronunciation (used by the majority) has been indirectly critiqued by Saadia Gaon since it contains the Hebrew letters jimmel and guf, which he rules is incorrect.

Rabbi Mazuz postulates this hypothesis through the Jerban (Tunisia) Jewish dialect's use of gimmel & quf, switching to jimmel & guf when talking with Gentiles in the Gentile dialect of Jerba. Some feel that the Shar'abi pronunciation of Yemen is more accurate & similar to the Babylonian dialect since they both use a gimmel and quf, instead of the jimmel and guf.

How do Teimanim pronounce Hebrew? The following links show you.
http://www.chayas.com/prontable.jpg
http://www.chayas.com/prontab2.jpg

Local Yemenite Jewish traditions trace the earliest settlement of Jews in this region back to the time of King Solomon. Interestingly enough, the Chabashim (Jews in neighboring Ethiopia) have a sister legend of their origins that places the Queen of Sheba as married to King Solomon. The Sanaite Jews have a legend that their ancestors settled there forty-two years before the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem. It is said that under the prophet Jeremiah some 75,000 Jews, including priests and Levites, travelled to Yemen.
The Samaritan pronunciation of Hebrew differs in several respects from most others. The laryngeals aleph, ayin, he, and heth have all disappeared. Beth and Waw can each be pronounced as either b or w (in fact, the letters' names are pronounced Bīt and Ba.) Sin is pronounced Shin. Consonants with dagesh are pronounced geminate. Stress is commonly penultimate rather than ultimate.
It is written in the Samaritan alphabet, a direct descendant of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (itself a variation on the Phoenician alphabet), whereas all other varieties of Hebrew are written in the later Hebrew alphabet, a variation on the Aramaic alphabet.

Tiberian Hebrew is an oral tradition of pronunciation for ancient forms of Hebrew, especially the Hebrew of the Bible, that was given written form by masoretic scholars in the Jewish community at Tiberias in the early middle ages, beginning in the 8th century. This written form employed symbols added to the Hebrew letters; the symbols are called niqqudot (for vowels) and cantillation signs. Though the written symbols came into use in the early Middle Ages, the oral tradition they reflect is apparently much older, with ancient roots.

The Tiberian system of vocalisation for the Hebrew Bible represented its own local tradition. Two other local traditions that created written systems during the same period are referred to geographically as the vocalisations of "The Land of Israel" (not identical to Tiberias) and "Babylon". The former system had little or no historical influence, but the Babylonian system was dominant in some areas for many centuries, and even survives to this day. Unlike the Tiberian system, which mostly places vowel points under the Hebrew letters, the Babylonian system mostly places them above the letters, and is thus called the "supralinear" vowelisation.

As mentioned above, the Tiberian points were designed to reflect a specific oral tradition for reading the biblical text. But later they were applied to other texts (one of the earliest being the Mishnah), and used widely by Jews in other places with different oral traditions for how to read Hebrew. Thus the Tiberian vowel points and cantillation signs became a common part of Hebrew writing.

The Sephardi Hebrew language is an offshoot of Biblical Hebrew favored for liturgical use by Sephardi Jewish practice. Its phonology was influenced by contact languages such as Ladino, Portuguese, Dutch, Turkish and Arabic.

When Eliezer ben Yehuda drafted his Standard Hebrew language, he based it on Sephardi Hebrew, believing it to be most beautiful of the Hebrew dialects. However, the phonology of Modern Hebrew is further constrained to that of Ashkenazi Hebrew, including the elimination of pharyngeal articulation and the conversion of /r/ from an alveolar flap to a voiced uvular fricative.

The Mishnaic Hebrew language or Rabbinic Hebrew language is the ancient descendant of Biblical Hebrew as preserved by the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, and definitively recorded by Jewish sages in writing the Mishnah and other contemporary documents. It was not used by the Samaritans, who preserved their own dialect, Samaritan Hebrew.

According to Ethnologue, dialects of Hebrew include Standard Hebrew (General Israeli, Europeanized Hebrew), Oriental Hebrew (Arabized Hebrew, Yemenite Hebrew).

In practice, there is also Ashkenazi Hebrew, still widely used in Ashkenazi Jewish services and studies in Israel and abroad. It was influenced by the Yiddish language.

Sephardi Hebrew is the basis of Standard Hebrew and not all that different from it, but traditionally it had a slightly bigger variety of pronunciation. It was influenced by the Ladino language.

Mizrahi (Oriental) Hebrew is actually a collection of dialects spoken liturgically by Jews in various parts of the Arab and Islamic world. It was influenced by the Arabic language.

Nearly every immigrant to Israel is encouraged to adopt Standard Hebrew and its nuances as their daily language. As a dialect, Standard Hebrew was originally based on Sephardi Hebrew, but has been further constrained to Ashkenazi phonology to form a unique modern dialect. For example, the "r" sound of Standard Hebrew resembles the guttural sound of German, Yiddish, and French, rather than the trilled consonant common in Semitic languages.

An interesting note on all of this. The Karaites who are said to have put together the Mesoratic Version of the Torah say that the name of Elohim is correctly pronounced Yihweh. The Kariates also say, In fact, most printed Hebrew Bibles are either directly or indirectly based on the "Ben Asher" Bible Manuscripts, which were produced by Karaite scribes in the 9th-10th centuries!

http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/loi23eng.shtml

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

quote:

---

SHIMSON WROTE:

An interesting note on all of this. The Karaites who are said to have put together the Mesoratic Version of the Torah say that the name of Elohim is correctly pronounced Yihweh. The Kariates also say, In fact, most printed Hebrew Bibles are either directly or indirectly based on the "Ben Asher" Bible Manuscripts, which were produced by Karaite scribes in the 9th-10th centuries!

http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/loi23eng.shtml[/QUOTE]

I reply: That is very interesting Shimson, especially in light of the fact that I have on PDF file a study by Nehemiah Gordon where he espouses the pronunciation "Yehovah". I wonder why the discrepancy?

Shalom, Shimson,

Matthew Janzen

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:
... 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.

---

While it's true that removing the "w" sound would produce 3 syllables instead of 4, i don't see how it could be correct.

"YHWH" becomes "YHH", and the pronunciation "ee-AH-oo-Ah" (or -Eh) becomes
"ee-AH-Ah" or "Yah-ah".

(The "W" in the English spelling is simply the vocal effect of the "oo" followed by another vowel.)

The above "3-syllable" version doesn't make sense to me. I've never heard of it being pronounced that way. Has anyone else?

quote:

---

"YHWH" becomes "YHH", and the pronunciation "ee-AH-oo-Ah" (or -Eh) becomes
"ee-AH-Ah" or "Yah-ah".

(The "W" in the English spelling is simply the vocal effect of the "oo" followed by another vowel.)

The above "3-syllable" version doesn't make sense to me. I've never heard of it being pronounced that way. Has anyone else?

---

However, Hebrew syllables always begin with a consonant. The only exception is the conjunctive waw prefix, which is pronounced as "u".

An initial yod is always a consonant as is a non-final he. The only candidates for matres (vowel letters) are the waw and final he. Furthermore, because a syllable must begin with a consonant only at most one of them can be a mater. Of course, the possibility exists that neither is a mater.

Note that the use of yod, he, and waw as matres is a distinct function from their use as consonants. Any occurrence is either a consonant or a vowel but not both. As has been indicated elsewhere the use of matres in Hebrew did not begin until the 9th century BCE.

ThePhysicist

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Shalom all,

[QUOTE]SHIMSON WROTE:

An interesting note on all of this. The Karaites who are said to have put together the Mesoratic Version of the Torah say that the name of Elohim is correctly pronounced Yihweh. The Kariates also say, In fact, most printed Hebrew Bibles are either directly or indirectly based on the "Ben Asher" Bible Manuscripts, which were produced by Karaite scribes in the 9th-10th centuries!

]http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/loi23eng.shtml

---

I reply: That is very interesting Shimson, especially in light of the fact that I have on PDF file a study by Nehemiah Gordon where he espouses the pronunciation "Yehovah". I wonder why the discrepancy?

Shalom, Shimson,

Matthew Janzen

[/QUOTE]

Greetings,

It would seem that if he is saying that Yehovah is how it should be pronounced he is going by the vowel pointing on the Mesoratic Hebrew text. The problem with this theory is that in some places it is pointed as Yehovah and in others it is pointed as Yehovih. It is pointed as Yehovih in places where the Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey follows either the word Adonai or Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. I don't know anything about Nehemiah Gordon so don't take my word on it.

In terms of the Kariates, the pronunciation they expose is valid in terms of Hebrew grammer. Yet, that doesn't mean it is correct. It is another of a list of possibilities.

The only other thing close to Yehovah in pronunciation would be the 3rd person, masc., imperfect Pual, of Hey-Waw-Hey which produces Yehuweh. This form also has some issues with it similar to the other information I posted earlier.

There are all kind of possibilties so you can spend years finding discrepencies.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

quote:

---

Originally posted by emjanzen:
Shalom all,

[QUOTE]SHIMSON WROTE:

An interesting note on all of this. The Karaites who are said to have put together the Mesoratic Version of the Torah say that the name of Elohim is correctly pronounced Yihweh. The Kariates also say, In fact, most printed Hebrew Bibles are either directly or indirectly based on the "Ben Asher" Bible Manuscripts, which were produced by Karaite scribes in the 9th-10th centuries!

]http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/loi23eng.shtml

---

I reply: That is very interesting Shimson, especially in light of the fact that I have on PDF file a study by Nehemiah Gordon where he espouses the pronunciation "Yehovah". I wonder why the discrepancy?

Shalom, Shimson,

Matthew Janzen

[/QUOTE]

Shalom Matthew,

It was the late Alfendari Ben Mordechi who wrote the article referred to. Apparently Nehemiah Gordon did not agree with his conclusions in this area. There are actually three verbs from with the name YHWH could have been derived. "Who was (hayah), who is (howeh) and who is to come (yihyeh)" If derived from hayah, when brought over into the third person, gives us Yahweh. If from howeh, then Y'howeh is the correct form. If from yiyeh, then Yihweh. Add to this the different dialects, and the number of actual possibilites increases.

The spelling Yahweh is backed by 99% of the scholary community. Add to this that said scholars give it a 99% percent chance of being correct, and all these Rabbinical fables and phobias about pronouncing the name pale in comparison.

My two cents,

Shlomoh

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:

---
Originally posted by leejosepho:
... 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.
---

Hi Lee, Perhaps i'm not understanding your statement above.

While it's true that removing the "w" sound would produce 3 syllables instead of 4, i don't see how it could be correct.

"YHWH" becomes "YHH" ...

---

Those are letters, not syllables. So then, my thought is that "ee-AH-oo-Ah" (as letters) becomes "eeah-OO-eh" as three phonetic syllables, with the "eeah" being heard as "yah".

quote:

---

I've never heard of it being pronounced that way. Has anyone else?

---

Here is where I first got that idea:

http://www.houseofsteed.com/shofar/articles/article9.htm

Blessings ...

It was the late Alfendari Ben Mordechi who wrote the article referred to. Apparently Nehemiah Gordon did not agree with his conclusions in this area. There are actually three verbs from with the name YHWH could have been derived. "Who was (hayah), who is (howeh) and who is to come (yihyeh)" If derived from hayah, when brought over into the third person, gives us Yahweh. If from howeh, then Y'howeh is the correct form. If from yiyeh, then Yihweh. Add to this the different dialects, and the number of actual possibilites increases.

The spelling Yahweh is backed by 99% of the scholary community. Add to this that said scholars give it a 99% percent chance of being correct, and all these Rabbinical fables and phobias about pronouncing the name pale in comparison.

My two cents,

Shlomoh

Greetings Shlomoh,

I pray you are well. Just a few corrections on what you posted. Yahweh is a Pual, 3ms, Imperfect of Hey-Waw-Hey. Hey-Yod-Hey in the Pual, 3ms, Imperfect would produce Yahyeh. Yihweh is the 3ms, imperfect, Qal of Hey-Waw-Hey. The types are derived from the Shoreh (three letter root) as they vary based on the Binyan, not the verb form. Howeh the present tense, 3ms, Qal of Hey-Waw-Hey. Hayah is the perfect, 3ms, Qal, of Hey-Yod-Hey. Yihyeh is the imperfect, 3ms, Qal, of Hey-Yod-Hey. Hey-Waw-Hey is considered to be the older Shoresh as compared to Hey-Yod-Hey.

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

http://www.yhwhisel.com/PraiseYah.html

Shalom & Agape

Allen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shimson bar-Tzadoq:

Greetings Shlomoh,

I pray you are well. Just a few corrections on what you posted. Yahweh is a Pual, 3ms, Imperfect of Hey-Waw-Hey. Hey-Yod-Hey in the Pual, 3ms, Imperfect would produce Yahyeh. Yihweh is the 3ms, imperfect, Qal of Hey-Waw-Hey. The types are derived from the Shoreh (three letter root) as they vary based on the Binyan, not the verb form. Howeh the present tense, 3ms, Qal of Hey-Waw-Hey. Hayah is the perfect, 3ms, Qal, of Hey-Yod-Hey. Yihyeh is the imperfect, 3ms, Qal, of Hey-Yod-Hey. Hey-Waw-Hey is considered to be the older Shoresh as compared to Hey-Yod-Hey.

---

Shalom Shimson,

What you say is true if you overlay it on YHYH. I am overlaying it on YHWH and so we get Yahweh rather than Yahyeh. Also this follows the western Hebrew (except for the use of the w rather than the v) since this is the dialect that most people in the western world will learn when starting to learn Hebrew. I was not taking the older, eastern dialects into consideration here.

Later,

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThePhysicist:
Hebrew syllables always begin with a consonant. The only exception is the conjunctive waw prefix, which is pronounced as "u".

An initial yod is always a consonant as is a non-final he. The only candidates for matres (vowel letters) are the waw and final he. Furthermore, because a syllable must begin with a consonant only at most one of them can be a mater. Of course, the possibility exists that neither is a mater.

Note that the use of yod, he, and waw as matres is a distinct function from their use as consonants. Any occurrence is either a consonant or a vowel but not both. As has been indicated elsewhere the use of matres in Hebrew did not begin until the 9th century BCE.

---

When vocalized, the yod and waw may "act like" consonants, or function as semi-consonants, but analyzing them when spoken slowly will show that they really are vowels.

I think it's a matter of technicalities to debate whether each vowel is a syllable, producing 4 "syllables", or whether the "ee-AH" and the "oo-?H" make it 2 "syllables".

Of course Josephus could be wrong. I accepted his statement, because it's simple, and supports the "Yahweh" or "Yahwah" pronunciations. (It also supports the "Yah-OO-Ah", but this to me is a somewhat awkward vocalization.

------------------
Chuck Baldwin

quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:
Those are letters, not syllables. So then, my thought is that "ee-AH-oo-Ah" (as letters) becomes "eeah-OO-eh" as three phonetic syllables, with the "eeah" being heard as "yah".

Here is where I first got that idea:

http://www.houseofsteed.com/shofar/articles/article9.htm

---

Your rendering above is a distinct possibility, although, as i mentioned in my previous post, to me the vocalization is a bit awkward (assuming you put the accent on the "OO" syllable). That doesn't mean it's wrong though. I'll read the URL you listed, and see what insight i can get.

YHWH bless,

quote:

---

There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion.

---

While that only referenced the short form, there are many commands to call upon, praise, or bless His Name, all using the tetragrammaton, plus hundreds of examples of how to do so, especially in the Psalms. Interestingly, none of them state that it must be pronounced exactly right.

I must ask, how do you sing or read aloud any of the Psalms without pronouncing His Name?

Or how would you answer the question "WHO is your Elohim?", where the questioner is obviously looking for a proper name?

To totally disregard a command, simply because one doesn't know 100% how to perfectly obey it, makes no sense. It would be like, since i'm not 100% sure what i can or cannot do on the Sabbath, i'll just refrain from trying to keep the Sabbath until my knowledge is 100% complete. The key word is "trying". YHWH respects our attempts to obey Him to the best of our understanding.

My impression is that those who refuse to pronounce "YHWH" without being 100% sure are exchanging the "Jewish fable" that "the Almighty's Name is too holy to pronounce", for a fable of their own, that "His Name is too holy for anyone with a speech impediment, or a dialect, or who's not 100% sure, to pronounce".

Using "HaShem" (or any title for that matter) to the total exclusion of the Name of YHWH, is a de facto replacement or substitution. But "HaShem" is especially annoying, because it is an obvious substitution for "YHWH", and even as a title, it makes no sense. Notice a few examples:

"Hello, my name is Name; what's yours?" or
"Ladies & gentlemen, his majesty, King Name". or
"Mr. & Mrs. Name and their son Name Jr. are coming over for dinner."

And using "the named one" instead of just "Name" doesn't help any, because it still doesn't say what their "name" is.

When i first learned that there were those who used "HaShem" as an appellation for YHWH, i thought it had to be a joke. Unfortunately, i was wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shlomoh:

Shalom Shimson,

What you say is true if you overlay it on YHYH. I am overlaying it on YHWH and so we get Yahweh rather than Yahyeh. Also this follows the western Hebrew (except for the use of the w rather than the v) since this is the dialect that most people in the western world will learn when starting to learn Hebrew. I was not taking the older, eastern dialects into consideration here.

Later,

Shlomoh

---

Greetings Shlomoh,

I pray you are well. I was correcting this statement you made, "If derived from hayah, when brought over into the third person, gives us Yahweh." If from howeh, then Y'howeh is the correct form. If from yiyeh, then Yihweh. Add to this the different dialects, and the number of actual possibilites increases. Hayah is from Hey-Yod-Hey and in the form you are talking about it would make it Yahyeh. I think you meant hawah for (Hey-Waw-Hey) for Yahweh. The Yod in these cases don't change to Waw/Vav. This isn't dialect, it is the what the verb becomes in the Binyan you are referencing. Hayah when going into another Binyan would still retain the Yod.

I just noticed that I had some mistakes in the info I gave you. Here is the corrected version. Just a few corrections on what you posted. Yahweh is a Hiphil, 3ms, Imperfect of Hey-Waw-Hey. Hey-Yod-Hey in the Pual, 3ms, Imperfect would produce Yahyeh. Yihweh is the 3ms, imperfect, Qal of Hey-Waw-Hey. The types are derived from the Shoreh (three letter root) as they vary based on the Binyan, not the verb form. Howeh a Active Particle, 3ms, Qal of Hey-Waw-Hey. Hayah is the perfect, 3ms, Qal, of Hey-Yod-Hey. Yihyeh is the imperfect, 3ms, Qal, of Hey-Yod-Hey. Hey-Waw-Hey is considered to be the older Shoresh as compared to Hey-Yod-Hey.

Hope that helps.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
To get back to the original subject of this thread, here's my 2 cts worth:

Shimson wrote:
There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion.

I reply: What about Psalm 68:4 - "...extol Him...by His Name YAH...", and the many examples of this in the word HalleluYah.

---

Greetings Chuck,

I pray you are well. All Jews pronounce haleluYoh when Tehillim are sung in Hebrew because it is known without a Shadow of a doubt how Yod (Qametz) - Hey is pronounced. In the more ancient forms of Hebrew the Qametz is an "o" sound. So it is pronounced more like haleluYoh. Now in terms of Yahweh it is interesting to note that in this form (3rd Masc. Singluar, Hiphil) the vowel under the Yod is a Pathahh. The Pathahh and the Qametz don't have the same sound. That being said, the short form and Yod-Hey in Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey don't have the same sound. Besides not all scholars call "Yod-Hey" a "short form." Some simply call it th poetic form.

Besides the Hebrew text of Tehillim 68:5 (Hebrew text) doesn't have to be read the way your translation has it. Shmo means more than "His Name" as I showed in my previous post. Check my previous post where I listed sources.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
While that only referenced the short form, there are many commands to call upon, praise, or bless His Name, all using the tetragrammaton, plus hundreds of examples of how to do so, especially in the Psalms. Interestingly, none of them state that it must be pronounced exactly right.

---

This goes back to something that I been alluding to earlier in this thread and in others. I am a Jew, and our ways are different than the ways of other nations. For us to claim that the Name of Elohim is one thing and then for it end up being not correct makes the claim false. As a Jew if I were to present something that I know has any degree of incorrectness to it, I am potentially passing myself off as a false witness. The Torah says that Benei Yisrael are to be a Goi Qadosh and Kohanim. This doesn't mean we are better than the nations, and it doesn't mean that the nations have to do things like we as Jews do. It means that a Benei Yisrael is to be a servant to all of humanity and as such we are held to a different level of accountability.

In the Hebrew text this is made clear in Shemoth 20 that a Jew is not allowed to bear such a false witness especially against something pertaining to The Name of Elohim. I know that the non-Jewish stance is different on these matters, and I respect that. I don't put down anyone who feels that they can call Elohim by the wrong name. As I mentioned before I know of about 10 different pronunciations tauted in the Sacred Name movement. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Add that to the fact that most scholars are operating from knowledge of Hebrew dialects from the Mishnaic period, and there are some issues left out when they discuss their findings. That is my entire point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
I must ask, how do you sing or read aloud any of the Psalms without pronouncing His Name?

---

Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey when I get to Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey and holleluyoh for Hey (Qametz) -Lamed-Lamed (Sheva) - Yod (Qametz) - Hey.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
Or how would you answer the question "WHO is your Elohim?", where the questioner is obviously looking for a proper name?

---

Once again I can only speak from the standpoint of the fact that I am a Jew. I have yet to meet anyone who didn't know who my Elohim is when they find out I am a Jew. As soon as I mention Israel, the Torah, etc. it is has always been clear to everyone I have met.

This was true when I was in Ethiopia, Israel, and everywhere I have been in America. Besides when a Jew discusses the character of Elohim and shows someone in the Tanakh where these characteristics are people are EXTREMELY clear. They know we are not Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I have yet to meet anyone who has confused who HaQadosh shel Am Yisrael is.

I don't run into people who are SIMPLY looking for a Name. I meet people who are looking for the characteristics of Elohim. Characteristics evident for the Tanakh and what those characteristics have done in my life. Besides anyone who asks me about The Name of Elohim, I give them all of the POSSIBILITIES of how His Name was (is) possibly pronounced. I also give the flaws in each theory, and also explain the issues of the dialects shifts I listed in the previous posts. If all they want is a pronunciation I can give them all of the POSSIBILITIES without acting like one is 100% it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
To totally disregard a command, simply because one doesn't know 100% how to perfectly obey it, makes no sense. It would be like, since i'm not 100% sure what i can or cannot do on the Sabbath, i'll just refrain from trying to keep the Sabbath until my knowledge is 100% complete. The key word is "trying". YHWH respects our attempts to obey Him to the best of our understanding.

---

Actually Chuck, your understanding of the word "Shem" in Hebrew is different than mine to begin with our interpretations of the Miqra are easily going to be different. I also believe that we read from different texts. I read from the Hebrew Teimanim Tajjim Tanakh texts, the Shameri Hebrew Torah text, and the Ohr-Torah. So as you can see we are not on the same page, so it is easy to see that we have two different understandings of the Miqra. There is no command in the Hebrew text that says, "Lemor Benei Yisrael, atem mitztorkhim lebate hasheym sheli af im atem lo yod`im haniqqudim. Mashehu atem qorim oti zeh beseder." You show me where in the Hebrew Tanakh such a statement exits and I will agree with you. Besides your statement about to me sounds like any vowels a person decides to come up with that fits into Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, no matter how wrong it is is okay.

I don't agree that TRYING to call Elohim something that has a good chance of not being correct is okay. We will have to agree to disagree on this, but the Hebrew text makes no such claim it is okay for me as a Jew to spread potentially false info. The Hebrew text doesn't say "Mispronounce my Name any way you like, I don't mind." Maybe the English text does, but I can't vouch for those. The rules of Shemoth are different in the non-Jewish world on this matter. For a Jew we are not allowed to bear false information as the Yeshayahu 8:20 points out in the Hebrew Tanakh. Besides anyone who has ever asked me what is The Name of Elohim has gotten ALL the information I know of on the subject. Your point is quite mute.

As I mentioned before I am a Jew, those of us who live in traditional communities don't have any question what to do on Shabboth. I live in a Teimani community, and Shabboth is a no brainer for us. Our ancestors have been living it for thousands of years. It has been clearly lined out for us just as Acts 21:18-24 talks about when it says that Jew is to remain in the Minhagei Torah. As has been discussed in a few threads such as the Masorah Har Sinai thread, we have Jews don't fall into the category of not knowing how to be Shomer Shabboth. Our ancestors preserved that understanding for us. I know in the non-Jewish world, that keeps the Sabbath there are debates about "how" to keep the Sabbath. That doesn't exit in my community as a Jew. We are Shomer Shabboth like our ancestors were. That whole "what is okay and what is not okay" to do on the Sabbath thing is only a western thing for people who are pretty much new to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
My impression is that those who refuse to pronounce "YHWH" without being 100% sure are exchanging the "Jewish fable" that "the Almighty's Name is too holy to pronounce", for a fable of their own, that "His Name is too holy for anyone with a speech impediment, or a dialect, or who's not 100% sure, to pronounce".

Using "HaShem" (or any title for that matter) to the total exclusion of the Name of YHWH, is a de facto replacement or substitution. But "HaShem" is especially annoying, because it is an obvious substitution for "YHWH", and even as a title, it makes no sense. Notice a few examples:

"Hello, my name is Name; what's yours?" or
"Ladies & gentlemen, his majesty, King Name". or
"Mr. & Mrs. Name and their son Name Jr. are coming over for dinner."

And using "the named one" instead of just "Name" doesn't help any, because it still doesn't say what their "name" is.

When i first learned that there were those who used "HaShem" as an appellation for YHWH, i thought it had to be a joke. Unfortunately, i was wrong.

[/B]

---

If that is your impression Chuck then run with it. Besides anyone who has ever asked me what is The Name of Elohim has gotten ALL the information I know of on the subject. I.e. I give them EVERY single possibility and every flaw in it so they search themselves. Look around this forum. I have done it here more times than I can count. So your point is quite mute. I take it that Sacred Namers and former Christians have this problem of people not knowing who they serve. Doesn't happen to me.

As I mentioned before the non-Jewish world is not called to the level of responsibility that a Jew is on this and other matters. If your Masorah says that it is okay to do things the way you are then do them. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to live as a Jew. The Hebrew text is very clear about bearing false information. I have also made it very clear, that there are some language issues that are ignored in the Sacred Name venues. There are also Sacred Namers who say that unless a person pronounces Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey the way they feel it should be pronounced them the person is wrong. That is why there was such much HEATED debate on The Name when I first got here. As I mentioned before. Besides Yeshua covered the concept of prayer in Mattithyahu 6, and his example is quite clea since his model is used in Synagogogues when we pray the Shemoneh Esreh.

As I mentioned before show me where in the Hebrew Tanakh such a statement as this "Lemor Benei Yisrael, atem mitztorkhim lebate hasheym sheli af im atem lo yod`im haniqqudim. Mashehu atem qorim oti zeh beseder. " exits and I will agree with you.

If people meet you and can't figure out what you believe in then do as you please and tell them whatever you need to tell them. As I mentioned I don't have that problem. So I will once again restate what I stated earlier. ANYONE HERE WHO BELIEVES THAT THEY KNOW THE NAME OF ELOHIM CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT! I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF ANYTHING. A person asked a quesion, and I am answering. You don't have to like the answer.

Take care,

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq