quote:

---

Originally posted by Shimson bar-Tzadoq:
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. " exists and I will agree with you.

---

I have no way to address the above request, because i have no idea what it says. This is true of many of your posts (and not only you but others as well), which are a confusing mixture of English and Hebrew words. I wish that people posting to this and other forums would write in English, and limit their use of Hebrew words to statements that are specifically about the words as such. The object, after all, is to communicate, isn't it?

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

You replied:Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey when I get to Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey ...

It's hard to believe that you actually do this, but if you say you do then i guess you do. It's like parents spelling words that they don't want their children to understand. But to spell the Name of YHWH every time you encounter it while reading Scripture, seems like a real stretch of the imagination to me. He wants his children to know and understand His Name, or He wouldn't have inspired to be written in the Scriptures to begin with. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the whole subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
Originally posted by Shimson bar-Tzadoq:
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. " exists and I will agree with you.

Greetings Shimson,

I have no way to address the above request, because i have no idea what it says. This is true of many of your posts (and not only you but others as well), which are a confusing mixture of English and Hebrew words. I wish that people posting to this and other forums would write in English, and limit their use of Hebrew words to statements that are specifically about the words as such. The object, after all, is to communicate, isn't it?

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

You replied:Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey when I get to Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey ...

It's hard to believe that you actually do this, but if you say you do then i guess you do. It's like parents spelling words that they don't want their children to understand. But to spell the Name of YHWH every time you encounter it while reading Scripture, seems like a real stretch of the imagination to me. He wants his children to know and understand His Name, or He wouldn't have inspired to be written in the Scriptures to begin with. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the whole subject.

---

Greetings Chuck,

I pray you are well. I use Hebrew in areas where a dinstinction needs to be made between how Hebrew is and and how English is. As I mentioned before you and I don't read from the same texts, so we are not on the same page. If we both were reading from an agreed upon Hebrew text using the Hebrew as the source, and not some translation then I could agree with using some similar word styles. As I mentioned before I am a Jew, our ways are not the ways of the nations. I don't agree that any translation has validity over the Hebrew text so I gave you the statement only in Hebrew, because I referenced that I would only believe it based on the Hebrew text not some translation. I read from the Hebrew Teimanim Tajjim Tanakh texts, the Shameri Hebrew Torah text, and the Ohr-Torah. If you are not reading from the same texts, then my friend we are not on the same page.

It is no different than how the Scriptures translation chose not to involve themselves in using their own judgement on exactly How Elohim's Name is pronounced by keeping His Name in Hebrew. Now another translation puts what their own judgement says to put there. People reading from these two different texts are not on the same page in terms of this issue if the debate it. I have seen so many people debate what statements mean in translations, due to the fact that different translations chose different words. Anyone reading Hebrew konws why this happens.

In fact:

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.

Translations differ based upon 1) how one interprets the language, 2) how one understands the cultural idiom of the language, 3) how one understands the culture of the audience the text was written for, and 4) who the receptive audiance of the translation is. Also, various translations use set words for translating words from Hebrew, instead of giving you all the possible meanings that a statement can mean.

A person named Acert93 who used to post here named posted something innteresting about translation. The response of his I am referencing is the third post on this page.

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001632.html

Thus my statement I kept in Hebrew so that if anyone were to read it in Hebrew they would understand EXACTLY what statement it would take to convince of your point, instead of guessing at what I meant. So that being said you and I should be able to agree that if we are not using the same texts we are not on the same page. There is nothing wrong with us not being on the same page, because we come from two different cultures and ways of life.

On your statement. Please re-read this from my previous post.

Shimson wrote earlier
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.

Shimson wrote earlier
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.

Shimson stressed several times earlier
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.

In response to Shlomoh's statement Shimson wrote earlier
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.

Shimson wrote earlier
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 most scholars AGREE that one form is THE ONE then you have to take their agreement with a grain of salt.

Also, in the following forums I have been more than open to tell people of all the info I know about the issue of The Name of Elohim. Since these are from different periods of time you will have to excuse places where I made grammer mistakes, because my learning has been through progression.

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001285.html

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001452.html

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001233.html

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001723-2.html

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/000076-3.html
posted 12-07-2002 07:44 AM

Take care,

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

I realize I have already pretty much expressed my views on this subject, and I really do not wish any ill will towards those who have expressed disagreement with me. I would, though, like to add my "two cents' worth" to something that Shimson wrote:

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.

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 most scholars AGREE that one form is THE ONE then you have to take their agreement with a grain of salt.

---

Speaking for myself, I can't help it that some folks "lost" the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, if this is what happened. If, indeed, that is what happened, I'm not about to "blame" anyone for it, but at the same time I cannot help what happened. I would rather do my best to "work around it."

Based upon the fact that the precise pronunciation is so controversial, the question I am faced with is, "Since no one knows 'for sure' how the Almighty's name is pronounced, would it be an affront to Him to do the best research I can, then use that name ... even if it should turn out that I didn't quite get it right?"

To answer such a question as this, I would like to contribute an excerpt from an e-mail that I sent a friend yesterday regarding the topic of the Creator's name. I'm modifying it somewhat to make it better suited to this thread. The general question I addressed was whether or not we should refer to the Almighty with what we believe is the "most correct" pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton if we aren't 100% certain that the one we use is pronounced phonetically correct. Here is what I wrote:

I really hope you understand that all I'm trying to do here is consider all the possibilities. I try to be open, and to be frank, I still have not reached a definitive conclusion [regarding the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton]. In the eyes of some, to make this sort of remark is a sign of either weakness or ignorance. I would like to know how you view such a remark.

I would like to know how you view the Almighty when it comes to His perception of those who don't quite get his name right. How do you believe He regards those who, through prayer and study, conclude that His name is pronounced "Yahweh," when in fact it may actually be pronounced "Yahuwah"?

I hope the heart of the Almighty is at least something like mine, at least in this regard. I know a Mexican lady who doesn't know a word of English, and she pronounces my name something akin to "Law-ri." Five hundred years from now, there could be a heated debate regarding the first vowel (sound) in my name. Friendships could be dissolved over whether or not the first vowel sound in my name is "AY" (as in "air") or "AH" (as in "all").

All I know is, this lady is like a sister to me, and I don't even give her pronunciation of my name a second's thought. I hope YHWH is like that, and I believe He is. Thus, if I were to conclude that the form "Yahweh" is "most correct," I sure would hope you wouldn't think any less of me if that's the form you see me use. If it's not precisely correct, I don't believe He would.

This is why I frequently comment, "I may not know precisely how it is pronounced, but I know precisely how it isn't pronounced." My conscience tells me to do the best I can based upon the resources available to me. I am thankful that I worship a merciful and loving Heavenly Father who knows my heart far better than any man does.

Referring to the texts you read, are there any translations into English, or, if not, is there presently, or have there been, any attempts to do so?

In Yahushua, duane

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
Shalom to all:

I realize I have already pretty much expressed my views on this subject, and I really do not wish any ill will towards those who have expressed disagreement with me. I would, though, like to add my "two cents' worth" to something that Shimson wrote:

Speaking for myself, I can't help it that some folks "lost" the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, if this is what happened. If, indeed, that is what happened, I'm not about to "blame" anyone for it, but at the same time I cannot help what happened. I would rather do my best to "work around it."

Based upon the fact that the precise pronunciation is so controversial, the question I am faced with is, "Since no one knows 'for sure' how the Almighty's name is pronounced, would it be an affront to Him to do the best research I can, then use that name ... even if it should turn out that I didn't quite get it right?"

To answer such a question as this, I would like to contribute an excerpt from an e-mail that I sent a friend yesterday regarding the topic of the Creator's name. I'm modifying it somewhat to make it better suited to this thread. The general question I addressed was whether or not we should refer to the Almighty with what we believe is the "most correct" pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton if we aren't 100% certain that the one we use is pronounced phonetically correct. Here is what I wrote:

I really hope you understand that all I'm trying to do here is consider all the possibilities. I try to be open, and to be frank, I still have not reached a definitive conclusion [regarding the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton]. In the eyes of some, to make this sort of remark is a sign of either weakness or ignorance. I would like to know how you view such a remark.

I would like to know how you view the Almighty when it comes to His perception of those who don't quite get his name right. How do you believe He regards those who, through prayer and study, conclude that His name is pronounced "Yahweh," when in fact it may actually be pronounced "Yahuwah"?

I hope the heart of the Almighty is at least something like mine, at least in this regard. I know a Mexican lady who doesn't know a word of English, and she pronounces my name something akin to "Law-ri." Five hundred years from now, there could be a heated debate regarding the first vowel (sound) in my name. Friendships could be dissolved over whether or not the first vowel sound in my name is "AY" (as in "air") or "AH" (as in "all").

All I know is, this lady is like a sister to me, and I don't even give her pronunciation of my name a second's thought. I hope YHWH is like that, and I believe He is. Thus, if I were to conclude that the form "Yahweh" is "most correct," I sure would hope you wouldn't think any less of me if that's the form you see me use. If it's not precisely correct, I don't believe He would.

This is why I frequently comment, "I may not know precisely how it is pronounced, but I know precisely how it isn't pronounced." My conscience tells me to do the best I can based upon the resources available to me. I am thankful that I worship a [b]merciful and loving Heavenly Father who knows my heart far better than any man does.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry[/B]

---

Greetings Larry,

I pray you are well. As I mentioned before there is nothing wrong with you making that choice for yourself. I never critized your choices, nor your intetions on this issue. The question that started this whole thing from the other thread was a question that Lee had towards Rivkah and I as Jews. We don't expect everyone to be like Jews nor does the Tanakh, and you and others have the complete freedom to handle this matter as you see fit. We at least agree that Mashi'ahh will clear up all things, so why not just leave it in his hands?

You can't more non-partisan than that.

Take care.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by truthtreker:
Shimpson, Blessings to you

Referring to the texts you read, are there any translations into English, or, if not, is there presently, or have there been, any attempts to do so?

In Yahushua, duane

---

Greetings Duane,

The issue is that most Westerners, including many Western Jews, know nothing about Jewish history outside the history of European Jews, and also how the West interprets history. That being said, information from what is often deemed as a minority group is overlooked by scholars and others. So when you have a minority only certain people on the scholarly level are interested in them.

There are no direct translations of the Yemenite Torah Tajjim into English that I know of. The reason for this text is because most Yemenites Jews in this era are Israelis or children of Israelis who live in the Yemenite Jewish communities. Yemenite Jewish children learn how to read and speak Hebrew at early ages. They also learn how to read the Torah without vowels in the Yemenite Dialect of Hebrew at young ages.

I had heard of someone working on translating the Shameri (Samaritan) Torah, but I don't think they are anywhere near completed. I really don't know if there is even any progress on this. Same thing on Samaritans, all of them live in Israel and they learn as children how to read Ancient Hebrew in the Shameri (Samaritan) dialect of Hebrew.

There are translations of the Oh-HaTorah text. This text is the standard of many Torah translations that come out of European and Sephardic Jewish communities. You could probably get one from any Judaica book store. Just ask them for their Chumash section they will have various translations. You have to remember though that translations can vary, and there really is no such thing as a "more accurate one." Normally to compensate for this, some Jewish translations come with various commentaries, that are used to help fill in the gaps. Even this can be selective, since not all commentators have valid opinions, and you have to realize that both with translations and commentaries you are dealing with someone's opinion. The choice of one word over another for translations is an opinion process.

Sorry I couldn't help you more on this. If you desire to at the least acquire the Hebrew text I can point you in the right for that. If you go to http://www.nehora.com and type in Yemenite or Yemen you should be able find a Tajj Torah text there. It has the Hebrew without vowels, and the Hebrew with vowels. If you go to http://www.chayas.com they also sell the Tajjim with Hebrew (without vowels)-wih vowels, and also the Aramaic Onkelos translation of the Hebrew.

If you contact the Samaritans at http://www.the-samaritans.com and look for the bookstore. They sell the Shameri Torah, which is written in Ancient Hebrew. Look for Osher Sassoni. He can help you.

Hope that helps.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shimson bar-Tzadoq:
There are no direct translations of the Yemenite Torah Tajjim into English that I know of.

---

Greetings, Duane.

Assuming just a little here ...

There are many of us who might like to see/hear "the original" in our own native tongue, but the great differences between whichever version of Hebrew and whichever coloquial English seem to make that at least quite problematic, if not altogether impossible.

So then, the "challenge" for the Westerner (at least in my own case) is to become capable of having useful and insighful conversation with those who *do* have and understand "the original" ... or something like that.

What, exactly, are the advantages (if any) of reading a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, over other Hebrew texts ? And for future consideration, would you recommend the purchase of one text over the others ?

Thanks for the information, I will check out those web sites,I appreciate it. I guess I was just hoping to get in the back door without having to work for it.

And Lee, to you blessings as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by truthtreker:
Years ago, I didn't think I would ever need any help from others ...

---

Whew ... do I ever resemble that remark!

quote:

---

... when I was fifteen, I stood up in my high chair and said "Tater" just as plain.

---

Uh ... would that have been fifteen months, I hope?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by shofarshogood:
Shalom Shimson !

What, exactly, are the advantages (if any) of reading a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, over other Hebrew texts ? And for future consideration, would you recommend the purchase of one text over the others ?

Thank you !

---

Greetings Shofarshogood,

The BHS is a good source Hebrew Torah. It provides you with the Masoretic notes which give varients and such. Basically, my rule of thumb is to get Torah text, which come from different communities and locations and compare everything from there. For example I listed several Torah texts that I currently use. Yet, I still want to get the Lenigrad Codex (the book that actually have the photos), and the Aleppo Codex. What you do is compare the various texts to each other in order to get a broader picture of certain words, which can be pointed in various way, etc.

I am a firm believer that the more texts you have the better. So the BHS is a good choice. It is not as much it being a advantage over another text, but rather of using the texts ot compare each other.

Hope that helps,

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

I am awaiting delivery of Page H. Kelley's Biblical Hebrew Grammar, so I am taking the first steps to seriously pursuing an understanding of Biblical Hebrew. I also have "Teach Yourself Biblical Hebrew", by R.K. Harrison. From the customer feedback on Amazon, these two books seem to be highly recommended as primary grammars. I also have Kelley's Masorah of the BHS, for future reference; when I am ready to study at a more advanced level. On that subject, are there any advanced grammars you would recommend for future reference ?

I'm looking forward to the journey, Brother, and I too encourage others to learn Biblical Hebrew. I believe the reward for diligently studying Biblical Hebrew will, one day, produce a bountiful harvest.

Man, I've been reading alot in this topic just to catch up, so many long posts, so much technical info. I probably could have filled up an entire page of notes and questions I wanted to ask. But I will stick with those questions that remain at the forefront of my brain.

#1 - Why would Our Father tell us to pray in, praise & proclaim His Name, He commanded it actually, He stated that it would be His Name from Generation to Generation, forever. Why would He command us to do something that would force us to sin, as you imply attempting to obey those commands would force you to do Shimson? WHY?

#1a - Yahushua had something to say about this I believe. If a lamb falls down a well on the Sabbath, is it a sin to work to get the animal out of the well? Is it breaking the Sabbath, or does a higher law/principle supercede the stone cold black & white literal interpretation of that one single Commandment/law/instruction? It seems that our Messiah Yahushua had alot of things to say about the Jewish leaderships human traditions and interpretations of the Torah. How is it that you can believe in the Messiah, yet then turn around and trust the Torah interpretations and traditions and customs of how to observe Sabbath that have been handed down to you over the centuries by Jews who do not acknowledge the Messiah Yahushua? Now I am in no way saying that Gentiles can tell Jews whether they are right or not in how they interpret their own Jewish scriptures, but, come to think about it, yes I am saying that its possible for a Gentile to know better how to interpret the Hebrew Torah/Tanakh. How is this possible? Anything is possible with Our Father Yahweh. It's possible through Yahweh's Ruach HaQodesh, which can guide the righteous gentile into the truth, whereas the Jew, despite being raised up in it all, without the guidance of the Ruach HaQodesh, can easily be misled. Oh there is so much more I could say about this, but I won't, for I'm going off on numerous tangents, all related, but still tangents.

#2 - Whose fault is it that Jews are supposedly not 100% certain as to the pronounciation of Our Father's Sacred Name?

#2a - I find it quite telling that Jews can claim 100% accuracy in all things related to the Sabbath, because they supposedly handed it down through the centuries, as if that gaurantees 100% accuracy? Yet haven't a clue about the Name of Their Father in Heaven? I find your comments about how Jews don't have the questions Gentiles do with the Sabbath to be quite condescending, to be honest. I'm not saying this from an Anti-Semitic angle at all, either, for I left the Churches, put away Christianity for the very reason that so much of it is based on the opinions and interpretations and translations of anti-semitic western pagan loving Greek Church Fathers, to state it in an over generalization. I loathe Christians who seem to care so little, even hate any talk of the Hebrew roots of their faith. But I also am taken aback by Jews who CAN come across, though I doubt they mean to, as if they have a stranglehold on scriptural interpretation.

#2b - I also find it quite telling that the Jews have had superstitious beliefs about the pronounciation of the Sacred Name(Human traditions) that brought about this supposed ignorance, and that now they have all these "excuses" to supposedly justify their following human traditions against the direct command of scripture.

Your reference of HalleluYAH being Halleluyoh, to me seems like another attempt by Jews to HIDE the Name of the Creator, like they did with all of the Yah & Yahu beginnings of hebrew names. This is an acknowledged fact that the Jews did this. I honestly would be kind of suprised if you denied this FACT. But then again, you seem to be full of surprises, I've found in my time in here, so I won't be THAT surprised if you deny this, or have some sort of excuse/explanation to explain away this practice.

I question how much of modern and even ancient hebrew grammar rules were originated to justify the practice of hiding the Name of the Father?! Many languages have rules that were tailor made to make the language fit the practices of the culture. I believe I've read that Greek rules of grammar were changed to accomodate greeks wanting to honor their gods, especialy Zeus? It seems so obvious to me that this has occurred. It seems that I've read several Jewish sources admit to this practice as well, with any qualms, because their beliefs about not pronouncing the Sacred Name in their opinion justifies the practice, so there is no reason to deny the practice, right?

This seems to me to be something that Jews like to ignore when considering this issue, especially in reference to the Messiah's Name. Strongs Concordance shows it to have originally been Yahushua, or Yehoshua if you go with the Jewish human traditional practices, but I hardly believe that the Angel accomodated for human traditions when telling the Messiahs parents what to name their child. Calling him Yeshua strips the Father's name from the Messiah's name. Can that possibly be seen as an acceptable practice?! Not in my opinion. Yahushua never seemed to accomodate his teachings or actions to human traditions, why would his Father in heaven do so, or the Angel he sent to tell Yahushua's parents what to name him?

#3 - And why would the Jewish Almanac state that the pronounciation "WAS NEVER LOST", if it was and has not been recovered? I've researched this issue pretty thoroughly, in comparison, and I found basically that the scholars, Jewish, Christian & secular are all in agreement that Yahweh is the pronounciation of the Sacred Name. There is evidence that shows a consistency in pronounciation from the time of King David to the time of the Early Church Fathers and beyond. Josephus' statement about the Sacred Name consisting of 4 vowels also fits perfectly into this theory.

#3a - So you state that there are 6-10 legitimate theories as to the correct pronounciation of the Father's Sacred Name, but what I find is that 1 theory has the backing of 99% of the scholars, while the other 5-9 theories all COMBINED share approximately 1% of the rest of the scholars opinions out there. Throw into the mix the impression I get from the scripture, the implication by Our Father that His people will know His Name, and its hard for me to come to any other conclusion. And I know that you will say, thats fine for you, but I just don't agree, but whatever happened to "ONE faith," ONE this, ONE that. etc.?
Also, in researching the issue, I can't say that I found anymore than 1 legitimate possibility that fits ALL the issues, that answers all of the questions, other than Yahweh?

#4 - what is your opinion about Josephus' statement that the Sacred Name consisted of 4 vowels?

I know its designed for readers of the KJV, but my Strongs Concordance shows the 3 letters making up the Sacred Name, the Yod, He & Waw to be vowels and consonants.

#5 - Shimson, do you believe in the Brit Chadashah(or as westerners call it the New Testament)? I ask because you seem to make reference to Yahushua as if you believe in him as the Messiah, but you rarely refer to anything he taught, or to these writings. If you do, do you believe that they were written 100% in Hebrew originally, or 100% Aramaic or 100% Greek or a little bit of 2 or all 3 of those languages, then translated later into Greek?

#5a - What do you think of the very legitimate theory that Yahushua came speaking and teaching the Father's Sacred Name, which would have meant the earliest believers in Messiah would have known the correct pronounciation, which lends to the theory of where the early Church Fathers getting their transliterations into Greek being from a Messianic source, NOT from devil worshipping magicians. Funny how the earliest Church Fathers transliterations of the Sacred Name into Greek match up perfectly basically with both Josephus' statement and the vast majority of the historical data. Why wouldn't the earliest Church Fathers have received the knowledge of the true pronounciation from the earliest believers who got it directly from the Messiah himself.

Doesn't even the Talmud tell a story that seems to try to explain away Messiah's miracles by claiming that he stole the pronounciation of the Sacred Name from the Holiest of Holies by writing it down on a paper and then sticking it into a wound he inflicted upon himself, under the skin, so that when he left the Holy of Holies and forgot the pronounciation, as was the belief of those who wrote this story, that he'd look in his wound and find the paper and then remember how to say the Sacred Name. This is how they claimed he performed his miracles, implying that they one, could not deny that miracles occurred that they could not explain away, and two, that he obviously pronounced and used the Sacred Name of the Father. The textual evidence seems to suggest just the same thing.

#6 - In relation to question #5, you seem to speak of Jews as being separate from Gentiles? But from my understanding of the Messianic writings(BC/NT) as I'll refer to them from here on out, the Gentiles are grafted into Israel. What? Probably the first 100,000 believers in the Resurrected Messiah were Jewish, so the Messianic Faith was never supposed to be a separate entity. Shaul states that believers are to be the Priesthood of Believers, the same concept that you claim for Jews, that you are to be a Nation of Priests. The early Gentile believers were told only to hold to a minimum of rules, but what else were they told? To go back and attend synagogue basically, to continue learning Torah. They were supposed to become apart of Israel. You seem to speak as if there are different standards for Jew and Gentile? Different rules, differenent laws, different instructions? Where in the scriptures can you back this up?!

The SAME TORAH LAWS applied to the foreigner, stranger, sojourner in the land, did they not?

I sometimes get the impression that Jews don't want Gentiles to start being Torah Observant, because they may sense that the Gentiles just might make them look bad, or that the Jews will lose their "Chosen people" status if Gentiles become like them? I've been told by Jews that the food laws were not for Gentiles?! Hello?! Did that Jew want me to eat unclean meats and get sick?!

Jews may not want Gentiles proclaiming the Sacred Name either, for the same reasons, it may make them look bad, that here the Gentiles praise and proclaim the Name of the Father, but the Jews don't?!

Then there is the issue that I know could offend Shimson, but it may not apply to him, but it could be relevant nonetheless, that there is widespread acknowledgement out there, even in the Jewish Almanac, that 90% of those today who claim to be Jews, aren't even descended from the 12 Tribes of Israel?! That many are descended from the Khazars?! Now how would this affect all of these issues if this is true?!

Shimson throws around the phrase, "Take with a grain of salt" alot, well, if 90% of Jews are not even descendents of Jacob, and descend from the Khazarian empire around the turn of the last Millenium, then shouldn't we take much of Jewish culture and tradition and translation and interpretation with a grain of salt??????

Lets look at the Septuagint. Look what Jews did to that translation. So its not like Jews should be totally free from suspicion?

And remember Shimson, I do actually value what you post in here, but I just have alot of questions, even many of my statements should be taken more as questions or things simply to be pondered, than authoritative declarations. They are just my opinions, and my education of all the pertinent and related data is no where near extensive.

Oh, one more issue I have with something you said. You seem to act kind of arrogantly towards westerners when it comes to interpreting and understanding hebrew, and that is probably warrented. But as someone born and raised on english and only english. It seems to me that you have a severe misunderstanding or comprehension of english, that comes out in one significant way, but I think it betrays a bias in you more than an actual lack of understanding english, but your statement about how Yahweh and Yahueh and Yahuwah are so irreconsilably different. You listed in fact numerous variations, some that I've honestly never seen before, and I've looked at HUNDREDS of Sacred Name websites. In fact, the most variation of names I've EVER seen, yes, in fact 95% of the variation of usage in relation to the Sacred Name has been in the lists of various renderings given by skeptics of the Sacred Name Movement.

I've checked out hundreds of sites of sacred namers and found basically the same renderings at each site, if not spelled exactly the same, the reasons why they were spelled differently were often simply misunderstandings, that upon further knowledge, would easily correct themselves.

Examples, Yahweh and Yahueh. How are these renderings different? They are not, they are identical in that both the "w" & the "u" are simply english letters that represent the same sound. Its true that different renderings can mislead and CAN be pronounced differently, but only when those doing the pronouncing are not yet aware of all of the relevant information.

I've seen people insert the "u" before the "w", which is simply betraying the fact that they are not aware that the "w" represents the "oo" sound, same as the "u" does, so there is simply no need to insert the "u" before the "w", there is only the need to inform whoever it is that the "u" and the "w" represent the same thing. It's like spelling the name Staci. It can be spelled Stacy as well, or Stacie, or Stace even, or Stacey. All 5 renderings produce the SAME SOUND.

I mean, you've stated that you don't believe in transliteration, so it would only be understandable that you would not understand the concepts and rules of transliteration.

I actually am partially in agreement with you, that only the original paleao-hebrew letters for the Sacred Name should be used when writing the Father's Name in Scripture. But I feel that an explanation in english or spanish or japanese is required in those translations as to how to pronounce those letters, and to do so, transliteration of the Sacred Name needs to be done. Also, I'm not convinced either way that using the Sacred Name in common usage is either wrong or right? I lean towards it being right right now, for how else are we to get the word out? The whole world will know The Name, or recognize it before the end. Will all humans be taught hebrew? Or will the hebrew letters for the Sacred Name merely be made known along with the proper pronounciation?

I have to disagree that we are to wait until Messiah comes back to find out and then start saying the Sacred Name. For unless you are a Pre-Tribber, many of the scriptures that speak of the righteous using the Fathers Name, have to be fulfilled BEFORE the Messiah returns. At least thats my opinion.

Well, that was way too long of a post, and I can't imagine how long your response COULD BE, if you answered all my questions? I guess I don't expect you to, necessarily? I don't know? I just feel better getting all of that off my chest. Hope you didn't take it as an attack, and if I falsely accused you of anything, I didn't mean to, make sure and let me know and I will try to make it right. Its hard sometimes, the line dividing merely expression your impressions, and making false accusations seems to be different for the sender and the receiver? My perceptions may be false, but that doesn't automatically make them to be false accusations or bearing false witness, but I AM trying to become more sensitive to that issue, so I'm fine with your pointing out whereever you may feel that I crossed the line with my comments. I may have made some generalizations about Jews as well, but understand that they ARE just generalizations. I have a ton of respect for Jews. I've been accused of being anti-gentile before because of how much I was promoting Jews and Jewish culture in comparison to western culture. So all you got was some of my issues with Jews & Jewish culture, not any of my MANY positive feelings about Jews and Jewish culture.

Most of what you have posted I have already answered in this or other threads so I will re-post what is pertinant to your questions, and then add more clarifiers where needed. In order to save on time, I will deal with each of your questions one at a time.

My Stance on Non-Jews

THE GER

1. Legal provisions

(1) Principles

(2) Rules

2. Relation to Sacrifice and Ritual

3. Historical Circumstances

II. THE TOSHAV

III. THE NOKHRI OR BEN NEKHAR

1. Marriage

2. Exclusion of Some Races from the Assembly

IV. THE ZAR

Four different Hebrew words must be considered separately:

(1) ger, the American Standard Revised Version "sojourner" or "stranger";

(2) toshaV, the American Standard Revised Version "sojourner";

(3) nokhri, ben nekhar, the American Standard Revised Version "foreigner";

(4) zar, the American Standard Revised Version "stranger."

I. The Ger.

This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6; Judges 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Judges 19:16). It is also particularly used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position of such that this article deals. This position is absolutely unparalleled in early legal systems (A. H. Post, Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz, I, 448, note 3), which are usually far from favorable to strangers.

1. Legal Provisions:

(1) Principles.

The dominant principles of the legislation are most succinctly given in two passages:

He "loveth the ger in giving him food and raiment" (Deuteronomy 10:18); "And if a ger sojourn with thee (variant "you") in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The ger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were gerim in the land of Egypt" (Leviticus 19:33). This treatment of the stranger is based partly on historic recollection, partly on the duty of the Israelite to his God. Because the ger would be at a natural disadvantage through his alienage, he becomes one of the favorites of a legislation that gives special protection to the weak and helpless.

(2) Rules.

In nationality the freeman followed his father, so that the son of a ger and an Israelitess was himself a ger (Leviticus 24:10-22). Special care was to be taken to do him no judicial wrong (Deuteronomy 1:16; 27:19). In what may roughly be called criminal law it was enacted that the same rules should apply to gerim as to natives (Leviticus 18:26, which is due to the conception that certain abominations defile a land; Leviticus 20:2, where the motive is also religious; Leviticus 24:10-22; see SBL, 84; Numbers 35:15). A free Israelite who became his slave was subject to redemption by a relative at any time on payment of the fair price (Leviticus 25:47). This passage and Deuteronomy 28:43 contemplate the possibility of a stranger's becoming wealthy, but by far the greater number of the legal provisions regard him as probably poor. Thus provision is made for him to participate in tithes (Deuteronomy 14:29; 26:12), gleanings of various sorts and forgotten sheaves (Leviticus 19:10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19,20,21), and poor hired servants were not to be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14).

2. Relation to Sacrifice and Ritual:

Nearly all the main holy days apply to the ger. He was to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; 23:12, etc.), to rejoice on Weeks and Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16), to observe the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29), to have no leaven on the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:19). But he could not keep the Passover unless he underwent circumcision (Exodus 12:48). He could not eat blood at any rate during the wilderness period (Leviticus 17:10-12), and for that period, but not thereafter, he was probihited from eating that which died of itself (Leviticus 17:15; Deuteronomy 14:21) under pain of being unclean until the even. He could offer sacrifices (Leviticus 17:8; 22:18; Numbers 15:14), and was subject to the same rules as a native for unwitting sins (Numbers 15:22-31), and for purification for uncleanness by reason of contact with a dead body (Numbers 19:10-13).

3. Historical Circumstances:

The historical circumstances were such as to render the position of the resident alien important from the first. A "mixed multitude" went up with the Israelites from Egypt, and after the conquest we find Israelites and the races of Palestine living side by side throughout the country. We repeatedly read of resident aliens in the historical books, e.g. Uriah the Hittite. According to 2 Chronicles 2:17 f (Hebrew 16 f) there was a very large number of such in the days of Solomon, but the figure may be excessive. These seem to have been the remnant of the conquered tribes (1 Kings 9:20). Ezekiel in his vision assigned to gerim landed inheritance among the Israelites (47:22 f). Hospitality to the ger was of course a religious duty and the host would go to any lengths to protect his guest (Genesis 19; Judges 19:24).

II. The Toshav.

Of the toshav we know very little. It is possible that the word is practically synonymous with ger, but perhaps it is used of less permanent sojourning. Thus in Leviticus 22:10 it appears to cover anybody residing with a priest. A toshav could not eat the Passover or the "holy" things of a priest (Exodus 12:45; Leviticus 22:10). His children could be purchased as perpetual slaves, and the Torah of the Jubilee did not apply to them as to Israelites (Leviticus 25:45). He is expressly mentioned in the Torah of homicide (Numbers 35:15), but otherwise we have no information as to his legal position. Probably it was similar to that of the ger.

III. The Nokhri Ben Nekhar.

The nokhri or ben nekhar was a foreigner. The word is far wider than those considered above. It covers everything of alien or foreign character regardless of the place of residence. By circumcision a foreign slave could enter into the covenant with Abraham. Foreigners were of course excluded from the Passover (Exodus 12:43), but could offer sacrifices to Israel's God at the religious capital (Leviticus 22:25). The Israelite could exact interest of them (Deuteronomy 23:20) and the payment of debts in cases where an Israelite debtor was protected by the release of Deuteronomy 15:3. Moses forbade the appointment of a foreigner as a ruler (Deuteronomy 17:15, in a Torah which according to Massoretic Text relates to a "king," but in the preferable text of Septuagint to a ruler generally). Later the worship of God by foreigners from a distance was contemplated and encouraged (1 Kings 8:41-43; Isaiah 2:2; 56:3,6; etc.), while the case of Naaman shows that a foreigner might worship Him abroad (2 Kings 5:17). A resident foreigner was of course a ger. The distinction between these three words is perhaps best seen in Exodus 12:43,45,48 f. in the first of these verses we have ben nekhar, used to cover "alien" generally; in the last the ger is contemplated as likely to undergo a complete naturalization; while in 12:45 the toshabh is regarded as certain to be outside the religious society.

1. Marriage:

In the earlier period marriages with foreigners are common, though disliked (e.g. Genesis 24:3; 27:46; Numbers 12:1; Judges 14:3, etc.). The Torah provides for some unions of this kind (Deuteronomy 21:10; compare Numbers 31:18), but later Judaism became more stringent. Moses required the high priest to marry a virgin of his own people (Leviticus 21:14); Ezekiel limited all descendants of Zadok to wives of the house of Israel (44:22); Ezra and Nehemiah carried on a vigorous polemic against the intermarriage of any Jew with foreign women (Ezra 10; Nehemiah 13:23-31).

2. Exclusion of Some Races from Assembly:

Deuteronomy further takes up a hostile attitude to Ammonites and Moabites, excluding them from the assembly of the Lord even to the tenth generation, while the children of the third generation of Edomites and Egyptians could enter it (23:3-8 (Hebrew 4-9)). From 1 Kings 9:20,21,24; 1 Chronicles 22:2 we learn of the existence of foreign quarters in Israel.

IV. The Zar.

The remaining word zar means "stranger" and takes its coloring from the context. It may mean "stranger in blood," e.g. non-Aaronite (Numbers 16:40 (Heb 17:5)), or non-Levite (e.g. Numbers 1:51), or a non-member of some other defined family (Deuteronomy 25:5). In opposition to priest it means "lay" (Leviticus 22:10-13), and when the contrast is with holy, it denotes "profane" (Exodus 30:9).

As mentioned above the Benei Noakh is a term, which modernly describes the requirements of non-Jews.

1) According to the Torah, the differences between a Benei Yisrael, the sojourner, stranger, etc. was based on what respeonsibilities HaShem called them to. For example, if a Benei Yisrael was from the trip of Lewi he was called to a higher standard and a higher responsibility set. The Lewi (Levites) were not given a territory of their own, they were given cities. Some of these cities were places of refuge. The Lewi (Levites) and the Kohanim were dedicated to Elohim, so their service to Him was their reward. A Benei Yisrael who was not from the tribe of Lewi was called to other responsibilities. A Geir lived like a Jew, a Geir Toshav lived by a more limited group of Torah commands, so on and so on. Yet, a Geir and a Geir Toshav lived amongst Israel and their status was different than a non-Jew who did not live amongst Israel. In this day and time the only thing I can say is that a non-Jew has to start from where they are. A good place is to start at Noah. If you feel that you are called to more than that then you will have to pray to Elohim for guidance.

2) Because historically a Noakhide did not live amongst Israel, and because the Noakhide could make his/her own choices beyond that. The Rabbis in Tractate Sanhedrin 56b derive from the Torah the six broad categories of laws that HaShem forbids all of humanity:

1. Murder is forbidden.
2. Theft is forbidden.
3. Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden.
4. Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden.
5. Idolatry is forbidden.
6. Cursing the name of Elohim is forbidden (Blasphemy).

They also derived one positive category of laws:

1. Establishing a system of legal justice

This gives rise to the common expression of "seven" laws. According to the standard computation, these break down into 66 laws that non-Jews are obligated to observe. According to the Rambam, in order to merit the Olam HaBa, the World to Come, Gentiles must observe these obligations specifically because they were commanded by Elohim through the Torah (see Bereshith (Genesis) 9).[2] The Rambam thus regarded anyone who observed these laws as one "assured of a portion in the Olam HaBa."

This is the traditional outlook for a Benei Noahh from Judaism, that is in total there are 66 mitzwoth for the Benei Noahh. The complicated part of this is because there currently is no believing Beith Din to guide a Benei Noahh, you are stuck in a limbo where you will have ot figure out where you are supposed to stand. It is also interesting to note that some people say that Jewish Council in Jerusalem who believed that Yeshua was Messiah in Acts 15:21-31 laid out a similar path for the non-Jew. The fact that non-Jews had been hearing the Torah in the Synagogoues means that many of them were basically Ger Toshav's or Noakhides for their time. Anyone who is a fulfulled Geir is not called a non-Jew in the Jewish community. It goes against Jewish law to call a Geir a non-Jew or treat them as if they are anything less than legally a Jew. A Geir is considered an honored position and is considered to have more blessings associated with him/her than a Jew. A Jew is born with the responsibility and a Geir makes a choice to walk in it. The Geir's decision is more honorable according to the Sages because of the free will choice he/she makes.

There are some who suggest that the Acts 15 decision was the first clear distinction of the Noakhide Laws for the non-Jew. Some say that it is a first step, others say it is the bare minimum for a non-Jew to receive salvation. You will have to be the judge on that one. I am not an authority to tell non-Jews what they should and shouldn't do. I can provide what I know of a matter, as a Jew, but I don't claim to be an authority to non-Jews. I believe Paul did a good job on this, and he is more than suffient. Besides in Romans 10-11 he covers this whole issue.

As I have mentioned before I have never told a non-Jew not to live by the Torah. The Torah as I have shown before deals with the mitzwoth of the various types of non-Benei Yisrael. Just look around the threads I have commented on, and you will see that haver NEVER discouraged any non-Jew from doing what they feel is right before Elohim.

Hope that helps,

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

quote:

---

ANewman37 wrote:
#5 - Shimson, do you believe in the Brit Chadashah(or as westerners call it the New Testament)? I ask because you seem to make reference to Yahushua as if you believe in him as the Messiah, but you rarely refer to anything he taught, or to these writings. If you do, do you believe that they were written 100% in Hebrew originally, or 100% Aramaic or 100% Greek or a little bit of 2 or all 3 of those languages, then translated later into Greek?

---

Greetings ANewman37,

I pray you are well.

On the issue of how the Brith Hhadashah (New Testament) or as it is called in Aramaic Qyama Hhadtah, how are they looked at. My personal view is a bit more complex because I am a Jew who believes that Yeshua was (is) Mashi'ahh, at least in the Mashi'ahh ben-Yoseph (Messiah son of Joseph) sense, and will return as Mashi'ahh ben-Dawith (Messiah son of David) as the sages of Israel said (mentioned in detail in Sukkah 52a).

According to the Aramaic document the Qyama Hhadtah the various texts are categorized as the following.

1) Divrei Shelikhim of the Yerushalayim Netzarim/Yishai'im (Accounts of Yeshua and the Jews and nonJews who believed him to be Mashi'ahh)
2) Igeroth and Responsa to various Yehudi Qehiloth (Letters and responsa to Jewish communities)
3) Igeroth and Responsa to variou non-Yehudi Eklisia (Paul's letters to non-Jewish communities)
4) Hitgaluth shel Yohhanan (The un-vieling given to Yohhanan)

I for one don't see the text as something that trumps, or even attempts to trump, Torah nor Masorah of Har Sinai and at least from the Aramaic texts no hint of such a thing is given. My personal view is that if each indivitual text, at least from the Aramaic stand point, is taken and seperated out based on the progression the text took it make more sense, instead of trying to act like it is some book or even some addition to the Miqra.

In terms of what language they were written in. I personally believe that the events and sayings of Yeshua may have actually been oral for a number of years and then put down into writing onc the message started going out. Some say that the writingS of the initial accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John started about 15 years or so after the events. Some say it was more years before it was written. Most agree that Yeshua spoke Western Aramaic to the regular people, and Mishnaic style Hebrew to the Parushim, Tzaduqim, and Soferim when he would discuss and debate with them. My personal belief is that these messages went out in any language they could get it out in. I personally read from whatever Aramaic and Hebrew text I can get my hands on said to be from a pre-middle ages date. This is because it is recorded that the Jews who believed for the most part had a letter from Matthew penned in either Hebrew or Aramaic. It is further said that the Jews in Syria received an account from Yohhan

Actually, I have mentioned Yeshua and his teachings many times. The following links will show you when and where.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/forum/search.cgi?action=simplesearch&SearchIn=&ForumChoice=ALL&SearchTerms=&BooleanAND=&SearchDate=&SearchUser=Shimson+bar-Tzadoq&ExactName=yes&File=t emp-2453430-124944-6rww.cgi&Total=0&StartAt=10

I have also provided information about the DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew that I have and also the Aramaic Qyama Hhadtah (New Testament). I have also provided information concerning how even Jewish traditional understanding of Torah, mostly from the Beith Hillel, matches what Yeshua taught in about 95% of the time. I have also shown in several (is)

Hope this helps,

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