|
 Forums at EliYah's Home Page
 Scripture Discussion Forum
 Who is "Hashem"? (Page 9)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Who is "Hashem"? |
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 03-27-2005 09:14 PM
  
quote: Shalom, Chris. Not being a scholar concerning Islam, I do not know how to reconcile that with this excerpt from the first thing that popped up when I did a web search (via DogPile) for "muslim creator":
quote: Maybe the cleric you have referenced is an Islamic heretic, or maybe even Islam has sectarianism within.
quote: Yes, and we commonly share a great concern here. At the moment, any impressive, miracle-working "son" (including one from our adversary already) known around the world as "Jesus" could easily get many people to follow him anywhere, or to do whatever he might say. So then, shall we identify to others our Abba-Father and His Son by mere vocalizations of whatever kind, or shall we learn and teach how to actually recognize them? [This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 03-27-2005).] |
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 03-27-2005 09:20 PM
Hi, Shimson: You wrote: quote: I reply: First of all, I do appreciate your desire for us to better understand each other, as was evidenced by the obvious effort you put into your commentary. As for not reading from the same text, this seems to be some sort of allusion to a belief that those who translated the Hebrew into English (or Greek) didn't really know what they were doing. I'm hoping that isn't what you meant, yet that is the message you seem to be conveying. Otherwise you would not place such a heavy emphasis on the need to learn Hebrew to understand the Bible ... or at least that is what I glean from your writings. I totally agree that it would be wonderful to learn Hebrew, but that certainly doesn't make a person any more spiritual than someone else, nor does it necessarily make him any more savvy about the message Yahueh's Word contains. The very fact that the Septuagint was quoted by those who wrote the New Testament is a clear demonstration that they did not perceive things the way you do. I don't seem to recall any texts enjoining the Greek-speaking believers to "learn Hebrew or else be faced with reading from some alternate text." You wrote: quote: I reply: I agree that there is no command for anyone to attempt to pronounce the name of the Almighty. However, in view of the 6,823 recorded instances in which His name was either written or directly spoken, I am fully persuaded that this is what the ancients did. I believe they would have dismissed your "avoidance rationale" as being mirmâh, as do I. Personally, I believe the adversary would like nothing more than to cause the whole world to forget or otherwise not use the Creator's name, and I believe he has used many people who unwittingly carry out his scheme under the guise that it is "too holy to pronounce" or "too holy to risk mis-pronouncing." Do you believe the adversary wants anyone to call upon the name of the Creator? I certainly do not believe he (the adversary) wants anyone to know or use that name in any praiseworthy manner. You wrote: quote: I reply: Since I know that YHWH is so full of lovingkindness and mercy, I am persuaded that He is in no way offended by the many different theories about how His name is pronounced. In fact, I believe He would consider it a mitzvah (good deed), as well as a hôwd (honor), for those who love Him enough to seek to pronounce it correctly ... even if they don't quite get it right ... or even if they have a hairlip. You wrote: quote: I reply: Of course, you were wise in including yourself with "many Jews," and not with "all Jews," for most Jews do indeed teach that the Almighty's name is "too holy to pronounce." For example, here is a direct quote from a Jewish website:
The above quotation can be read by accessing the following URL: So there are plenty of Jews who teach that the Almighty's name is "too holy to vocalize," but you are the first I have ever heard of who believes it is okay to speak it so long as you are 100% certain you are pronouncing it 100% correctly. As I reflect upon the commandment in Shemosh 20:7, I tend to agree with those Jews who contributed to the commentary found in the Stone edition of the Chumash. Rather than promoting your view that it is wrong to use the Almighty's name in neder without fully knowing how to pronounce it, the commentators (including Rambam) taught that it is forbidden to utter the Almighty's name "casually, for no valid purpose." I agree. His name should only be used in a reverent manner. The Chumash doesn't mention your belief that it would be okay to pronounce the Tetragrammaton "if only" one could know for certain how it's pronounced. Furthermore, I am reminded of what the Jewish contributor to The Encyclopædia Judaica wrote:
I believe the above commentary could just as well be directed at you. Furthermore, by completely avoiding mentioning His name, I believe you assist in perpetuating the practice of “bringing His name to naught,” an interpretation that some folks have of Exodus 20:7. I’m not saying you are doing this on purpose, but the end result is still the same. You continue: quote: I reply: I appreciate your expressed desire to give the Almighty more respect than you would to a just earthly ruler. I am sure that Araunah felt the same way, yet he told King David, "May YHWH thy Almighty accept thee" (2 Sam. 24:23). Of course, I'm sure you believe Araunah was 100% certain of the correct pronunciation, and that's fine. The Jews who contributed to the Encyclopædia Judaica (Vol. 7, p. 680) seem persuaded that the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton wasn't lost in the first place:
While I'm not about to make such a bold assertion as the above author did, mainly due to the fact that I don't have access to a recording of an early believer speaking the Tetragrammaton, I am confident that pronunciations such as Yahweh, Yahuwah, Yahueh, etc., are close enough that our loving Heavenly Father will not be offended by the one who sincerely and reverently calls upon Him or refers to Him while using such pronunciations, even if none of the above renderings is "quite right." If I truly believed that the Almighty is offended by those who sincerely, yet mistakenly, mispronounce His name then I would share your belief that one shouldn't speak that name unless he is 100% certain of its pronunciation. However, this teaching is nowhere expressed in Scripture (apart from your interpretation of it). This teaching does not reflect the Almighty that I have come to know, love and worship. You wrote: quote: I reply: No, I disagree with you on this. Hashem is a name, as I have already demonstrated ... and as the Jewish rabbi from that website agreed, it is pronounced "haw-shem." Furthermore, I continue to maintain that you do indeed use “Hashem” as a name, not as a title. If you wish to prove to me that you do not use it as a name, you need to demonstrate as much. I will explain this in greater detail later in this posting. Your reasoning here reminds me of the argument used by folks who insist upon referring to YHWH as "God." They say, "God isn't really a name ... it's a title." Of course, it's not a title that anyone in Scripture ever used ... but by culturally redefining this ancient Hebrew name, they effectively make it a title. Besides all this, I find it totally inappropriate to ever refer to YHWH as "my Hashem," much less Hashem by itself. But that's just me. You continue: quote: I reply: I agree with the above, with the only exception that I would retain "Hashem" in I Chron. 11:34, where it is the name of an Israelite. The only time I would use "hashem" in relation to the Almighty would be when I say something akin to, "Baruch hashem YHWH." And, of course, I wouldn't use the expression "Name of Elohim." Rather, I would say, "Name of our Elohim." You continue: quote: I reply: Well, if you are so persuaded that the Karaites come the closest to pronouncing the Tetragrammaton correctly, then you should go with that! So long as you honor Him, He knows if you are diligently striving to please Him not only in word and deed, but also with the pronunciation that you believe most closely matches the one regularly used by the believers of Old. Of course, with that having been said, I fail to see how Hebrew texts preserved and copied by Karaite scribes could prove or validate a certain pronunciation over another. I believe the authors of the article in The Encyclopædia Judaica were more interested in how the Name was transliterated into other languages, such as Greek, as this more effectively reveals how the translator (or listener) understood the pronunciation of the name in question. As I'm sure you know, Clement of Alexandria, a 2nd century theologian, wrote that the Tetragrammaton is pronounced Iaoue, which is commonly rendered Yahweh or as some prefer, Yahueh. However, if you give more weight to the rendering supported by the Karaites, then I would respect your decision even if I might not agree with it! You wrote: quote: I reply: Obviously you must not believe the author of the article "God, Names of" in the Encyclopædia Judaica "knows his Hebrew," then. The following quotation indicates that he regards those who use ha-Shem use it to replace YHWH:
Obviously, then, it became a Jewish custom to substitute hashem for YHWH. Just because you and your "community" don't see it this way doesn't mean this isn't the way the majority of Judaism sees it, nor does it negate the reason for why the custom was initiated: to replace the Tetragrammaton. Either way, you achieve the same effect. You continue: quote: I reply: Have I ever expressed a view that I believe any Jew thinks "hashem" is how one should pronounce the Tetragrammaton? I have never believed such a thing, so I guess I don't see why you believe it was so necessary to bold-face/emphasize the above text. You wrote: quote: I reply: Again, you are the first Jew I have ever witnessed who expresses the view of being too fearful of using a certain pronunciation because of "bearing false witness with the pronunciation." I believe this is what the adversary wants you to believe. Since no one in Scripture was ever criticized for mispronouncing His name, and since I'm sure there were variances in dialect, the reasoning you offer is for me a non-issue. As I have mentioned previously, I am good friends with a woman who simply cannot seem to pronounce my name correctly, but she gives it a good try and I am very touched by her efforts. I believe YHWH is honored by those who do their best to pronounce His name correctly, even if they fall short. And if someone as human as myself is impressed by someone who tries to "get it right," I can only imagine how YHWH feels. You wrote: quote: I reply: I believe I have already covered the above reasoning. I believe you misunderstand the application of "bearing false witness" vs. "mispronouncing someone's name." You are correct that intentions have nothing to do with it. It simply is not "bearing false witness" to anyone's name if someone mispronounces it. By the way, speaking of "accusing anyone of anything," I hope you don't believe I have accused you of accusing anyone of anything ... for I don't believe I have done such a thing. From my perspective, we are simply expressing our differences. Since they are "glaring differences," they are bound to stand out more than the minor ones. You wrote: quote: I reply: Well, until you come up with a suitable commentary outlining the "agenda" that Clement of Alexandria had against the "true pronunciation" of the Tetragrammaton, I am more inclined to go with the one he offered than the one offered by, say, the Karaites. I'm not saying that I agree with all of Clement of Alexandria's theology, but I don't see where he had any "ax to grind" in the matter of the Creator’s name, whereas the Jews I have met typically do have an agenda against pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. The author of the article in The Encyclopædia Judaica is an obvious exception to this rule. I believe Clement was being intellectually honest when he stated that the Tetragrammaton is pronounced Iaoue in his language. I try to carefully weigh out all matters, whether it be the commentary from a scholar or the typical “man on the street.” We can learn from each other if we are truly willing to shed our biases. Usually the people whose words I take with a “grain of salt” are the ones who tell me to take the words of others with a “grain of salt.” You wrote: quote: I reply: Well, I will put it this way: I am inclined to put the scholar who composed the article in The Encyclopædia Judaica, as well as the Jewish rabbi whom I questioned regarding this matter, ahead of the research that you have (to this point) offered supporting your view. No offense intended, but I do not know who you are, I do not know your credentials, and I have already found a Jewish rabbi who disagrees with your view on the ancient pronunciation of hashem. Curiously, even though he clearly expressed disagreement with what you offered, it seems as though you are attempting to somehow turn his words into an expression of agreement with your view. I'm not entirely sure what it is that he wrote that leads you to believe he agrees with you, but the fact that you have made such an attempt clearly reveals your bias in favor of using HaShem in reference to the Almighty. It seems obvious to me that it must bother you to think that you might be referring to the Almighty with a term that matches the pronunciation of the name of a man. Otherwise you would not have gone to such great lengths to attempt to demonstrate that this man's name was "more anciently" pronounced differently than "Hashem." If you had no problem with referring to the Almighty with a title whose pronunciation matches the name of a man, you would most likely have agreed that there is a pronunciation match and replied something to the effect of, "So what?" The Jewish rabbi agrees that the Israelite man's name is pronounced "Haw-shem." This same vowel sound matches this man's name as found in the Septuagint, which was certainly in use by the first century C.E. You'll have to excuse me for believing this pronunciation matches the accepted pronunciation as anciently understood by Judaism. The attempt to downplay the Jewish rabbi's answer by suggesting that he check out the Yemenite Hebrew, plus the attempt to downplay the intelligence of those who translated the Septuagint is a clear demonstration of strong bias in the face of conflicting evidence. It also seems to reflect a hidden message that you believe you understand Hebrew better than those who translated the Septuagint. Perhaps you could openly share how you personally rate your knowledge of Hebrew as compared to those who translated the Septuagint. Without the benefit of a recording device and time travel, one can only speculate regarding the precise pronunciation of the first syllable in "Hashem." Until such technology is invented, I am inclined to go along with the Greek transliteration, combined with the vowel-pointing in the available Hebrew text ... which indicates the pronunciation "haw-shem." You'll just have to excuse me for putting Strong's pronunciation (haw-shame, #2044) ahead of the one that you promote. However, if you should decide to put together a concordance and dictionary as he did, I would certainly like to review it. I realize that at the end of your commentary you at least acknowledged that there is "no reason whatever for our neglecting the [Septuagint] version, or not being fully alive to its real value and importance," but until you made that comment, you seemed bent on casting it in a very negative light, as though those who translated it weren't even from Judea, and they really didn't know how to convey Hebraic concepts into the Greek language. This is certainly not how Philo understood the making of this translation, as he outlines in his work On the Life of Moses, II. Philo, as you may know, was a Jew who lived from approximately 20 B.C.E. until around 50 C.E. Here is an excerpt from Philo's commentary regarding the origin of the Septuagint:
As you can see, Philo cast the Septuagint in a much more favorable light than you are willing to do, at least under the current circumstances. I might also add that the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint more than they did the Hebrew text. So did Josephus. I believe they found it more adequate than you are willing to allow. Since this translation renders the first syllable in the name of the Israelite man named "Hashem" with an "ah" sound, ... and since you would much prefer giving that syllable an "oh" sound, it follows that you would not wish to treat the Septuagint translation, nor Philo, with a great deal of respect. This is precisely what I would expect a biased person to do. You wrote: quote: I reply: I believe you are attempting to make this a complicated issue, whereas it really isn't. To me it is very simple: YHWH's name appears in Scripture some 6,823 times. It was used by His people in a reverent manner. The adversary does not want anyone to call upon that name. I believe that is a "given." I believe he will go to great lengths to prevent whomever he can from using that name ... whether it be the belief that the Tetragrammaton is "too holy to pronounce" or the belief that mispronouncing it would constitute "bearing false witness." I'm sure he will come up with additional reasons to keep whomever he can from calling on that name. As for being free to do what we want regarding this issue, that is also a "given." My interest here doesn't lie in what we are "free to do," but what is pleasing in the sight of YHWH. I believe it is a dishonor to refer to Him with the name Hashem, even if one believes it is merely a "title." It has no Scriptural precedent or support, no approved examples in Scripture ... only a modern Jewish tradition that apparently developed from a Samaritan origin. It is beliefs of this type that cause many to reject anything marked by "Jewish tradition." I, for one, think there are some very good Jewish traditions which, even though they do not have a solid foundation in Scripture, they bring honor to the Almighty. Referring to Him as Hashem is not one of them, however. You are certainly free to refer to Him however you please, but thankfully I am free to express disagreement. I know you have in the past expressed misgivings about having to repeat information you have offered over and over. Nevertheless, even though I have already responded to a similar comment you made about not "pressuring" anyone to do anything different from what they are already doing, you went ahead and issued pretty much the same commentary again in the posting I am currently responding to! You had previously written, "As I mentioned before you and any other Sacred Namer can do anything you want in this area. No one is trying to stop you from believing anything or doing anything." I really don't know why you feel the need to keep repeating this same basic commentary, for certainly we are free to do what we want in this area. I'm not really interested in doing what I want, though. I'm more interested in what the Almighty wants, and He has made it plain that His people will know His name. Conversely, those who are not His people will not know it, nor will they really care. I believe they will be more content to use substitutes whenever possible. That's the message I get from His Word. Of course, this goes way beyond just "knowing" His name. It also includes using it and honoring it. If you are not aware of the many verses wherein the ancients are recorded as speaking, praising and honoring His name, I will be glad to post a few here for your review. As I mentioned in my previous posting, Isaiah sure wasn't afraid of mentioning the name of the Almighty. Nor am I, unless I should decide to do so in a dishonorable way. And if I don't quite get it down to the precise resonance and phonetic reproduction of the original, I do not believe He will find me guilty of "bearing false witness." As strongly as I disagree with you on this position, I still sense that you are a very Finally, in response to your comment that this discussion "started on someone questioning Rivkah and myself as Jews, what our stance was on it," this is not entirely true. I began this thread for the same exact reason that I started it back in 1999: I noticed folks using "Hashem," as though such a term honors YHWH, which it does not. This same thing happened back in 1999, and I reacted the same way back then. In fact, here is a link to that particular discussion for those who might be interested: That particular discussion, you may notice, took place at a time in which more folks who were willing to stand up for the name of YHWH contributed to this forum. You wrote: quote: I reply: It is a shame that the Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuagint, as well as the Masoretes who added the vowel points to the Hebrew text, did not know about the "Hheder system." I could not help but notice that you were not interested in explaining what this "Hheder system" is. It seems as though you expect me to "just accept" your word for it without further explanation. Since I had never heard of this "system," and since I doubt anyone else here has either, I think at least a brief explanation would have been in order ... with documentation, of course. The best I could find in my own search for a "Hheder system" is that there is a similar Hebrew word (cheder, #2315 in Strong's) that means "chamber." Regardless of what this system may be (or may have been), it was obviously ignored by those who translated the Septuagint and it wasn't recognized by the Masoretes who added the vowel points in the 7th century CE. Thus, either they refused to accept this "Hheder system" that you promote or else they simply weren't as "on top of things" as you are. Again, as the Jewish rabbi confirmed, the correct pronunciation of the Israelite name commonly rendered "Hashem" is indeed "Hashem," which confirms to me that those Masoretes weren't trying to push the same pronunciation that you are pushing. Moreover, those who translated the Septuagint agreed with the Masoretes. The only one who seems to be in disagreement here is you, and since I do not know you, nor have you to this point offered any credentials that might lead me to put your linguistic understanding above that of the ancients, I am inclined to go along with the accepted pronunciation of "Hashem." You added: quote: I reply: Again, I do not really like having to repeat myself, but in order to answer your comment, I feel that I must. Regardless of how you feel the rules of Hebrew grammar should be applied towards the pronunciation of the Hebrew name Hashem vs. the expression "the name" (HaShem), the ancients simply did not agree with your application, and nothing you have to this point offered persuades me otherwise. If I am forced to pit you against them, I'm afraid I have to give them the nod over you. Moreover, as I have already quoted from A. Cohen in his book Everyman's Talmud, which is simply a comprehensive summary of the Talmud, it was the Samaritans who referred to the Almighty as "HaShem" ("the Name"). I personally prefer to have nothing to do with Samaritan practice or belief regarding the Creator's name. If you wish to carry on a Samaritan tradition, that is certainly your prerogative. You added: quote: I reply: The above does not make any sense to me. How did those four events "make the EXACT pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey"? It seems to me they would have contributed to its having been "lost," as some believe it was. You wrote: quote: I reply: I find it fascinating that you do not believe the Almighty forgives mispronouncing His name (since that, to you, constitutes "spreading false information"), yet you had earlier written that you aren't saying that anyone in the Sacred Name movement is going to burn in hell for mispronouncing His name. Of course, this begs the question of exactly what it is you believe lies in store for those who sincerely and reverently call upon the Almighty with the phonetic representation that they believe is "most correct," yet it turns out the pronunciation they use is "off." Clearly, by your own explanation, this constitutes "lifting up false information" about the Almighty, and you go on to express your view that "HE doesn't forgive such." Now since you don't believe the person mispronouncing the name can be forgiven, yet he or she will not end up "burning in hell," might I ask exactly what you believe awaits such a person? What is his or her destiny? What does the Almighty do with those whom He does not forgive in this matter? I believe another individual contributing to this thread (Chuck) has already addressed your view on this matter sufficiently, as have I ... namely, that there is no Torah mandate requiring that anyone mentioning the Name get it 100% correct or that anyone with a hairlip not be allowed to speak it. I guess it boils down to you and me having completely different views regarding the Almighty's mercy and lovingkindness. He is our Father, not some far-off, distantly-removed, rigid, intolerant being, devoid of concern or sympathy for His children. This is certainly the image you convey to me, especially when you mention that you don't believe He will forgive me if I mispronounce His name as "Yahueh," "Yahuwah," "Yahweh," "Yahveh" or "Yahvah." As I have already pointed out in the quotation from The Encyclopædia Judaica, your fellow Jew who authored the article "God, Names of" in that Jewish reference maintains that your understanding of of Shemoth 20:7 (I believe you intended verse 7 instead of verse 6?) is a flawed one. You wrote: quote: I reply: The Tanakh is a neder?? Say what?? The Tanakh is a vow?? That is what the word "neder" means (Strong's #5088), and since it doesn't make sense to refer to the Tanakh as a vow, I guess this is an appropriate spot for me to express agreement with Chuck regarding your choice to sprinkle in Hebrew words throughout your writings, as though it is simply impossible to convey those thoughts in English. Perhaps you have discovered a more ancient, intrinsic meaning of the word "neder" that neither James Strong nor the authors of The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon were able to uncover. Otherwise, you'll need to (satisfactorily) explain how the Tanakh is a vow. Rather than accept your view that the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was simply lost, and that any attempts to reconstruct it can only be "guesses," I am more inclined to believe that knowledge of its pronunciation back in the second century wasn't as suppressed and hidden as you would like for us to believe, and when Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton, in Greek, is pronounced Iaoue, I believe he was expressing something that was pretty well known, at least among scholars, and conveying it to those who might not have known it. If you choose to believe he was simply offering up a "shot in the dark," that is your prerogative, but I am inclined to disagree. Finally, regarding your view that according to the Tanakh “they seem to be be talking about more than a pronounciation, but more to the actual character of Elohim,” this reminds me of one of the first arguments I heard when I began calling upon the name YHWH. People told me that I was “hung up on the name,” that the concept of “name” applies to His “character,” and that pronunciation was unimportant. In fact, I was given a booklet entitled “Sacred Names: Truth or Error?” in which the author made this very same assertion. I would quote it in its entirety here, but I’m trying to make this response as brief as possible, so I’ll just quote the author’s summary:
Of course, as is the case of most deception, the above actually contains some truth. Without a doubt, a name can be used to express one’s individuality, or character. This is why most parents try to give their children good, meaningful names … as well as names that became respected because of the character of those who originally bore them. Names such as David, Adam, Joseph, Jacob, Joshua, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, etc. are usually selected, not only because they have a “nice sound," but mainly because of the great respect we have for the ones who bore those names … the ones who made them great names because of their character. I believe this also explains why I have never met a Jew named "Haman" or "Adolf." With YHWH, this matter is not in question. When YHWH says, “My people will know My name,” He isn’t saying, “My people will know My character," for His people will already know His character by the time they start wondering what His name is. When YHWH says His people will know His name, He is saying precisely what the word "name" indicates. His people will know the appellative that He gave to Himself. I, for one, cannot imagine wanting to know someone's name, and then choosing to never use it. The word “character” is defined as “The combination of qualities or traits that distinguishes an individual.” For those who are interested in learning what the character of YHWH is like, I would suggest doing a rereading of Scripture. Throughout its pages we learn of the “quality” that distinguishes YHWH from all others. We learn of His righteousness, His lovingkindness, His tender mercies, as well as His jealousy for His name and His laws. Surely Mosheh knew all of this, yet in Exodus 3:13, he wanted to know the Creator’s physical name. Thus, whenever I hear or read from people’s writings that “His name is His character,” … which I have heard before from some folks … or any such view that takes away from the blessing of knowing and calling upon Him by the name He gave to Himself, I immediately perceive the emptiness behind the words. We humans have to earn a good name for it to be well-respected. YHWH, as the name of our Creator, is the epitome of well-respected names. But unless we learn what that name is, we cannot know “who” to respect or “who” to give that respect to. Our Creator didn’t leave us without a name identifying who He is, or who to give that respect to. And He didn’t ever say, “You’d better pronounce it 100% correctly!” either. You wrote: quote: I reply: I believe you are persuaded that you do not use HaShem as a name, but perception is important ... the way others perceive you. That should be important to you, but I sense that it is not, at least not in this case. Otherwise, you would clearly demarcate "HaShem" as a title when using it as such. There is an English grammar "rule" that apparently does not co-exist with the Hebrew language ... a rule that necessitates using either an article or a pronoun in front of a title to clearly distinguish it from a name. Of course, the Bible translators, translating the Hebrew or Greek text literally, ignored this rule, which explains how and why people today actually believe "God" is the Creator's name, whereas "the LORD" is a translation of one of His titles. When the translators came to "Elohim," they simply translated it the way they thought it should be translated ... without adding the article or pronoun ... since Hebrew linguistics do not require employing an article or pronoun in front of the title to distinguish it from a name. Perhaps the translators felt that adding an article or pronoun would be tantamount to "adding to the Word." Regardless of their rationale, the ensuing confusion has led most of the English-speaking world to believe the Creator's name really is "God," whereas "the LORD" is a translation of His title. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not expect you to believe that it is more proper in English to use an article or a pronoun in front of a title to clearly distinguish it from a name, but perhaps if I offer a quotation from an English grammar book it will help you to better understand what I mean and how you could more effectively demonstrate to others that you truly do not use words such as HaShem and Elohim as names. The following instructions are found on page 2 of Language Handbook for Student Writers, McDougal, Littel & Company, Evanston, IL, 1990: Capitalize such words as mother, father, aunt, and uncle when these words are used as names. This same basic rule can also be found online, at such sites as the following: Please notice that these grammar books recognize the fact that words may be used as names. Any word may be used as a name; it simply depends upon the intent of the user. For example, I was once given a calf to raise. I named it "Caffeine." Normally, the word "caffeine" is a simple noun, but when I named my calf, the word became a name whenever I referred to my calf or whenever I called for her. So as to clearly distinguish the common noun "caffeine" from the name, it became obvious from the context of any sentence I used whether or not I was referring to my calf or to the stimulant. For example, if I said, "I had to go to the woods to find Caffeine today," my dad understood that I went looking for my calf, ... not that I was in search of a caffeinated beverage or the like. By the same token, if I were to say, "I like drinking Mountain Dew, but I don't like the caffeine," most people would have understood that I was not referring to my calf, partly by virtue of the fact that I used the definite article "the" in front of the word "caffeine," but also because the context made it obvious. Please understand that I am not saying that this "rule" is an absolute, for it is true that you do not always need to have an article or pronoun in front of a noun to distinguish it from a proper noun. For example, if I were to have said, "Caffeine is harmful to your health," the average person would know that I was referring to the stimulant, and not to my calf, even though I didn't use either a pronoun or definite article to so distinguish it. However, this makes reference to yet another English grammar "rule"; namely, that whenever referring to anything in general, it isn't necessary to place a pronoun or article in front of the word in question. The context clearly indicates what is being referred to. As an example of this rule, I could say something like, "I don't believe expecting mothers should smoke." Since I was only referring to mothers in general, there was no need to capitalize the word, as it was certainly not used as a name. Getting back to the grammar book from which I quoted earlier, I would like to remind you that when using certain words as names, they are to be capitalized. On the following page of the book, (p. 3) it explains the circumstances under which nouns are not used as names: Note that when the noun is modified by a personal pronoun, the noun is not capitalized. Notice that in both of the "non-used-as-a-name" instances above, a possessive pronoun was used in front of the noun, which in turn demonstrated that the noun was not used as a proper noun, i.e., a name. The same rule applies for articles. For example: The mother impatiently awaited her son's arrival. If you were to somehow decide to apply this rule whenever speaking or writing in English, especially with regard to our Elohim, I believe this would be a very concise way for you to effectively communicate and demonstrate to others that you do not substitute titles (common nouns) for names. Thus, you might say, "Every aspect of our Elohim is Qadosh" instead of leaving out the pronoun as you commonly do. Otherwise, whether you wish to admit it or not, by English grammar rules, you employ the title Elohim as a name. Thus, Shimson, regardless of how "confused" or otherwise mistaken you believe my friend is/was when he commented that you use "Hashem" as a name, by the very rules of English grammar, it is you who are mistaken, not him. However, if you would like to clearly demonstrate that you do not use titles as names, you are certainly free to go along with the accepted applications. To do otherwise invites ambiguity and confusion, which I would like to think you do not want to be an author of. Well, I feel as though I have written far too much in this posting, and I will likely be criticized for doing so. I do wish I could express myself more briefly, so I apologize for the length of this response. I guess I cannot decide what it is I need to cut out, so I'm giving you a complete, unedited response, at least to the first portion of your response to me. I realize there is much more that I haven't answered in this posting. Maybe I will address the rest of your commentary in a subsequent posting. Yours in Messiah, |
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 03-27-2005 09:36 PM
quote: How about all mention, references, conclusions and/or implications related to Shimson, Larry? As you should certainly be able to recall, EliYah has clearly said we should be discussing only the actual subject at hand, and not each other. |
|
ChrisDixon Posts: 399 |
posted 03-28-2005 06:52 AM
Shalom Leejosepho, The point I was trying to make and probably doing it badly is that there is only one path to Yahweh and that is through Yahushua the Messiah. Using names/titles like god and lord blur that path because people cannot see any distinction between the three main faiths if they all use the same name/titles. Our concern should be that we purvay that distinction in using His name (and also in deed) so it is a witness verbally in what believe(I follow the beliefs of this site) that differs from mainstream Christianity and its beliefs, Isslam and its beliefs and Judaism also(unless Judaism believes that Yahushua is the Messiah now), these beliefs differ from what Yahushua and Yahweh taught that and is one of the main reasons why He had to come. May Yahwey bless you |
|
ChrisDixon Posts: 399 |
posted 03-28-2005 07:37 AM
Shalom Shimson, I'm sorry brother but you have side stepped the issue of Jerimiah 31:31-34, 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith YHWH , that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH: 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know YHWH: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith YHWH; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. does this include the non-Jew because to my understanding this is the covernant that Yahweh made through the shedding of Yahushua's blood 2000 years ago. There is no mention of the non-Jew. If this does not include the non-Jew then there is no need for us to keep the Torah and there is no salvation for us either. But if we are inluded in this covernant as part of Israel through the Messiah then shoundn't we be keeping all the Torah/law. Paul was not talking about the physical temple either and neither was I (and he was talking to both Jew and Gentile). Peter (not Paul sorry) states; Is he talking about the Jew or all beleivers in the new covernant, most mainstream Christianity believe he is talking to the body of the Messiah. Finally the reason I started this question is to state that I think that we should be using the name of our Father any time we can as long as it is done reverantly and to glorify Him and it sets us apart from the rest of the world and their false doctrines and teachings. May Yahweh bless you |
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 03-28-2005 10:46 AM
quote: Yes, and we are definitely in complete agreement there ... ... and now look just a little closer:
quote: ... yes, whenever *we* might do that, but not because "people cannot see any distinction between the three main faiths if they [others] all use the same name/titles". For in fact, making name/title or any other kind of distinctions between sectarian Judaism, Islam and Christianity does not point people toward the "only one path" you have mentioned. Simson's reason(s) for not speaking HaShem or debating vocalizations and my own reasons for not doing those kinds of things might at times (or in certain situations) be different, but personally, and other than to point out that the mere word "God" is not it, I seldom talk at all with others about mere vocalizations until some far more important (or "immediately relevant") matters of *character* have been addressed, beginning with humility (brokenness). Even in my Christian days I did not make a big deal about the name "Jesus" always and/or first being heard and spoken by everyone, and because of that, my older daughter (StephYahnie) who had clearly told me she did *not* want to hear anything about "Jesus" was eventually able to come to know YahSalvation, Y'Shua. For those of us who have/had been programmed to "preach nothing but 'Jesus'", some of the facts as to what we *really* need to be doing to propagate the Truth Who is Salvation can at first be difficult to accept ... ... but, I can tell you for sure and with absolute certainty: That difficulty *can* be overcome! Shalom. [This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 03-28-2005).] |
|
ChrisDixon Posts: 399 |
posted 03-28-2005 06:16 PM
Shalom Leejosepho, Thanks for your reply as you maybe can tell by the way I write that I am still abit unsure of quite alot of things in my spiritual life right now, and I'm always looking for answers for questions I don't even know how to ask (I'm not even sure that is the right way to phrase it) but in truth I need to know my relationship with Yahweh and Yahushua His Son and my Saviour, plus what He expects of me as far as the Torah Law goes. This site as far as EliYah states one thing our Jewish brother(s) seem to say another if I'm not mistaken. To be perfectly honest even though I was brought up in Christianity since before I can remember and both my father and mother went to bible college and they both have been in the Pentecostal movement since before I was born (I'm 39 by the way) I have only been walking the narrow path about 3 years. 3 years ago or more while watching Jessie Duplantis I recommitted my life back to Yahweh although I did not see it the way I do now. Although I gave my heart to Yahushua while I was about 12 years old I could not cope the stigma(for want of a better word) of living it openly and began to drift away. Yahweh be praised He never drifted away from me or else I would be dead right now. Any way as I said 3 Years back I recommitted my life to be honest to Jesus and in my prayer times I asked Father to reveal the truth of His word to me. I got an answer I did not expect or at the time really want I had just got back to the reality of Christianity or so I thought and Abba Father turned that reality upside down. I was looking for one thing Yahweh showed me the truth about Easter, Christmas and other Pagan based "Christian" festivals. I look on the net for a sermon on Spirituality and Yahweh shows me just how unspiritual Christianity is with their teachings on Lawlessness and such through the teaching on this site and another. The truth is I'm not sure of what to believe any more seens that most of what I've been taught may not be scriptual or just mistranlated. So I'm desperatly trying to find the truth of what I'm supposed to do and how I'm supposed to live because since I have turned away from the teachings of Christianity my spiritual life seems to have taken a nose dive. Oh well time to shut up now. May Yahweh bless you |
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 03-28-2005 09:57 PM
Hello again, Shimson, Once again, I apologize for the lengthy response I gave with my previous posting, and I will try be be briefer this time. Of course, you and I are completely at odds over this issue, but I hope you do not interpret anything I write as being aimed at you personally, for I do sense that you are a nice person. I may not respond to everthing you have written, so if there is anything in particular that you feel I need to answer, please let me know. With this in mind, I will now try to pick up where I left off last night. You wrote: quote: I reply: All I know is, Strong's, which you seem to claim supports your position, lists the Israelite's name as being pronounced "Haw-shame," not "Hoshem," as promoted by you. It is word #2044, so all one has to do is look it up for himself to see what I mean. And as I have previously mentioned, the pronunciation of that first syllable as "aw" is likewise supported by (1) the Jewish rabbi whom I contacted at the Jewish web site and (2) the translators of the Septuagint. Thus, when we include the pronunciation offered by Strong's, these are three clear witnesses supporting the "aw" pronunciation of that first syllable. Thus, regardless of how you wish to analyze all the technical stuff, all I'm interested in is the bottom line, and the bottom line is, the experts (dating back to at least the first century) agree that the first syllable of "Hashem" has an "aw" sound, not an "o." Also, I don't remember trying to make a point that "the Qametz Hatuf and the Pathahh are the same sound." All I remember writing is an observation that the two "vowel point symbols" (the qâmêts & the short qâmêts) look a lot alike ... not that they are pronounced the same. Those two symbols can be found on the "Hebrew Articulation" page at the front of Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. I personally consider James Strong to have been an expert in the Hebrew language, and in his listing for the name "Hashem," he indicated that it is pronounced "Haw-shame." Apparently the experts concur that the symbol used in the first syllable of "hashem" is the "qâmêts," which conveys that "aw" sound. You added: quote: I reply: I visited the first web site whose link you offered (the Jewish Encyclopedia one), and right away I noticed a quotation that you chose to leave out of your posting. Here it is:
As revealed by this bit of information, the "qâmêts" (or kamez, if you will) was pronounced as the "a in father" during the time of the Septuagint, on down to the first century and beyond. Thus, anyone referring to "Hashem" during Messiah's day pronounced it "Haw-shem," not "ho-shem," just as they pronounced "Yah" as "Yaw" instead of the "Yoh" that you promote. I also visited the "Crosswalk.com" website link that you offered, which causes me to have even greater concern than before, especially since it defines "Hashem" as meaning "fat," plus it reveals that it is pronounced "haw-shame," just as Strong's, the Jewish rabbi, and the translators of the Septuagint reveal. It is a fourth witness attesting to the first syllable being pronounced as "aw." But more significantly, based upon what this word means, I could NEVER in good conscience refer to the Almighty as "Hashem." You continue: quote: I reply: I do not question the fact that many words, although spelled alike, are pronounced differently. Again, rather than arguing the technical stuff, I would rather examine the bottom line. The bottom line is, by the time of the Septuagint, which was freely quoted by New Testament writers, the first syllable of "Hashem" was pronounced with an "aw" sound, as was the first syllable of the Creator's name. If the older pronunciation truly was "Hoshem," as you claim, then it changed by the time of Messiah, and no one seemed to care. Well, this is enough for now, as I really don't want to contribute as lengthy a posting as the one I did last night. May the Almighty bless you in your studies. Yours in Messiah, |
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 03-29-2005 08:28 AM
quote: Shalom, Chris, and please know your above words fit my own situation as well. There are many things about which I am yet quite unsure, I am aware of the presence of questions I cannot put into words, and even though "righteouness" at times seems an unreachable goal, I nevertheless want to live in it today.
quote: I do not know whether you are mistaken, but I certainly do understand your thought ... for this can actually be interpreted in more than one way: --- Question: What is a right and properly-applied "scriptural understanding" of "return [to] and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations"? As best I can tell, that is the very discussion you and Shimson are having, and I encourage you to continue in it! I am sure he knows your "challenges" are not personal attacks of any kind, and even if your discussion continues unresolved until the very end of time as we presently know it, an ever-growing volume of attention will have been drawn to The One Who created us, to His Son and to their names!
quote: For myself, I believe it has only been a little over five.
quote: During my teenaged years, the very *last* thing I ever wanted *any* of my schoolmates to know was that I went to the church across the street at least three times each week.
quote: Same here, my fellow.
quote: Just a little further back than that, the same thing happened here. I thought I would soon be helping other "Christians" simply make a few "adjustments" as to the Feasts and Names, and the next thing I know, some information on a certain CD someone had sent to me quickly blew all of that kind of compromised thinking away.
quote: If I might presume to guess just a bit, I would speculate that only your "confidence" that you are/were doing rightly has been shaken a bit while the essential humility (as herein evidenced) of your spiritual life (and your willful pursuit of ever more of it) only grows. Am I close?! Do not be discouraged, our fellow! Blessings to you ... [This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 03-29-2005).] |
|
ChrisDixon Posts: 399 |
posted 03-29-2005 04:23 PM
Shalom Leejosepho, Thanks for your reply brother it blessed me and I know I shouln't winge about anything because I should know that Yahweh has everything in control and He never lets you face anything that you cannot with His Spirit handle. It is just that I have a habbit that I cannot seem to control, and since I have started down this path it has gradually got worse. I also know that the majority of the time it has been because I have willfully given into the temptation rather than resisting it just because I've let my insecurities get the better of me and turned to my sinful crutch instead of turning to Abba Father, and this has probably drained me spiritually the most. That and not been able to enter into fellowship at my church really and my Pastor has put a ban on me talking about my views and the views of this site in which I believe are Scriptually spot on. The only service that I attend know is the Sunday morning communion service because I don't fully believe what they teach but there is nowhere else to go. Any way thanks for your reply it really did bless me. May Yahweh bless and keep you and your familly, |
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 03-29-2005 06:14 PM
Thank you, Chris, and may your own house be as well blessed! A thought came to mind a while ago, and now please notice there is no name-vocalization mentioned in the following: “Your heart [does not need to] be troubled ...” Philip said to Him, “Master, show us the Father ...” “He who has seen Me has seen the Father ... Since our discussion of the matter of YHWH’s name does not seem to be comforting all troubled hearts, Y’Shua’s above suggestions certainly seem to make good sense here: “1) Believe Me [when I say] I am in the Father and the Father in Me; As can been seen by the Son’s own example: Wordings and vocalizations can be helpful, but “the works” are the ultimate witness. My two sons-in-law and I sat down together a couple of days ago, and we talked about the idea of "the guy across the street" being able to recognize "those people (us) that love one another" without ever hearing any words we might say. And of course, if that neighbor might ever happen to ask who had ever made our "the works" possible, we would clearly say, "YHWH!" |
|
Acheson Posts: 1591 |
posted 03-29-2005 10:32 PM
Hello once again, Shimson: I will now continue where I left off in responding to your commmentary of 03-21-2005. You wrote: quote: I reply: I am glad we agree that we should allow for differences in dialect and not push one pronunciation over another ... at least not dogmatically. I believe most of us tend to lean towards a certain pronunciation over another, which I believe is a natural result of our own personal research, but I do not support, say, teaching that the pronunciation Yahweh is more correct than Yahuwah. For one thing, I have read some very good reasons for supporting both pronunciations. With this in mind, when you make the remark that I believe I "possess the right one," this is not technically true, as at least one person who contributes to this forum should know very well. Therefore, to me, this simply is not a matter of people wandering aimlessly around, arms flailing, trying desperately to figure out the precise phonetic representation of the Tetragrammaton. We simply do the best research we can and draw our own conclusions based upon the resources available. I believe YHWH is honored by that, so instead of portraying this matter as a bunch of radical individuals throwing out their "best guesses" (which is how I perceive that you perceive us), I look at it from the perspective of a bunch of folks who love the Almighty and who want to know and respectfully use His name, just as the ancients did. The Almighty wants His children to pursue wisdom, and learning His name is a part of that (Proverbs 4:7, Proverbs 30:4). Yes, it would be nice if we could all reach the same conclusions, but until we attain that perfect understanding, I still believe the Almighty is honored by those who love Him so much they want to call upon Him by name ... just as folks like Abraham did. And if we all fall short in spite of our best efforts, I believe we worship a merciful and loving Heavenly Father who will forgive us. Of course, in discussions such as this, it is important to point out the fact that we could learn the precice pronunciation of His name, but if we do not have love, it is all for naught. Continuing, you also wrote: quote: I reply: It is my understanding that there is one Torah for the home-born and for the stranger. In other words, YHWH doesn't "play favorites" or make distinctions between how His people are to live. Of course, He makes distinctions within the ranks of His people, such as the role of the priesthood, the laws pertaining to women as opposed to men and vice-versa, etc., but He didn't give His Word to simply be a "masorah" (tradition). It is a way of life that has blessings for those who honor it and curses for those who do not. That is the understanding that I have of His Word. Moving along, you wrote the following: quote: I reply: I guess I don't understand your perception of "a Sacred Name problem." To me, this is not a quest in which I try to persuade others what to believe or what not to believe. Since it is only my family that joins in my personal quest for truth, we don't make it our mission to tell others about the Almighty's name, although we do try to capitalize on any opportunity that comes our way. And since we are frequently called upon to defend why we believe as we do, we have authored a few studies ... not as an outreach, but ... to defend why we believe as we do. As for the things you wear that you believe indicate to others "who" you worship, I can certainly agree with your wearing the tzitzith, and I commend you for doing so. However, the kippa is another matter. There is no commandment for any of YHWH's people, apart from His ordained priests, to wear a headcovering. In fact, the Jewish Encyclopedia testifies to the fact that in ancient times men went bareheaded. Here is an excerpt from the article:
The above quotation can be read by accessing this link: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=286&letter=B Furthermore, Rabbi Hayim Halevy, in his book To Be a Jew, notes that the Jewish tradition of a man wearing a headcovering is just that ... a tradition that has nothing to do with obedience to YHWH's Torah. Here is what he wrote, taken from page 180:
Now please don't get me wrong. If you wish to wear a kippa, that is your prerogative. As you yourself have so often told me, "you are free to do as you please." However, if you tell me you wear a kippa as an "indicator of who you worship," then I am inclined to disagree, for it doesn't indicate anything of the sort to me. Wearing a kippa is simply a statement that you accept that particular Jewish tradition ... a tradition whose origin is extra-Scriptural. Of course, different people have different perspectives regarding various customs, so some folks are bound to notice your wearing a kippa and simultaneously grasp that there's a man who worships the Almighty. However, by the same token, people come away with that same feeling when they see the pope. But hey, if your wearing a kippa should happen to lead folks to worship YHWH, then I won't protest, so long as you don't teach that such a thing is commanded ... which I don't believe you do. I realize that discussing the kippa in this thread is "off topic," yet it gives me an opportunity to share what I perceive as being part of the "problem" here: Traditions. I could go to some other forum and have a similar discussion regarding whether or not we should observe the tradition of Christmas, and I'm sure I would upset more than a few people by sharing my perspective on this custom. The fact is, many people are willing to accept or otherwise adopt traditions, and I've found that some people have a more difficult time of letting go of them than others do. Referring to the Almighty as "Hashem" is simply a tradition that has no foundation in Scripture. That in itself doesn't identify it as a "bad custom." However, since it is indeed used as a name to replace the Tetragrammaton, I believe it is a very bad custom ... one that dishonors the Almighty. As I demonstrated in a previous posting, if you can use titles such as "mother," "aunt," "father," etc. as names, the same can be done with virtually any word, including Hashem and Elohim. I believe when we compose our sentences in English, we need to make a conscious effort to show others that we in no way replace the Almighty's name. One way to do this while using honorable titles is to place either an article (such as "the") or a pronoun (such as "our") in front of the title. Since I have never heard anyone do such a thing with "Hashem," this is a clear indication that this word is only used as a name. Well, once again, I don't want to post too lengthy of a response to your commentary, so I will close for now. May the Almighty bless you! Yours in Messiah, |
|
ChrisDixon Posts: 399 |
posted 03-30-2005 07:04 AM
Shalom Leejosepho, Thankyou Chris |
|
ChrisDixon Posts: 399 |
posted 03-30-2005 07:08 AM
Shalom Larry, Great post Yahweh bless you |
|
leejosepho Posts: 2969 |
posted 03-30-2005 07:38 AM
quote: Greetings, Larry. Certainly, the word "HaShem" should never be used as a substitute for HaShem, but it actually *is* quite possible to use that word *without* it being a name ... just as I have just done, thereby proving the absence of a preceding article or pronoun might also at times prove it is *not* being used as a name. Personally, I believe the first time or so I ever took notice of the word "HaShem" was when someone had said (written) something like "learning about HaShem" (with no article or pronoun preceding it), and when I asked what that meant, I was told it meant "learning about 'The Name'" of The One who created us. And as yet another example: I cannot say for certain that I have *never* used the word "HaShem" as HaShem, but I can say I have used HaShem (as best I might know it) as HaShem of The One who created us ... and I hope my sentence structure and punctuation have just been completely clear. It is not for others of us to second-guess why Shimson or anyone else might never yet speak HaShem, and I can tell you I greatly respect the fact that The One who bears HaShem has either inspired or at least accepted their reverence for both Him and HaShem. Truly, Shalom. [This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 03-30-2005).] |
This topic is 16 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EliYah's Home Page
Please read the disclaimer. If you see any violations of forum guidelines, please contact the moderator.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e