A24- Is the doubt about its pronunciation the main reason which prevents the use of the Name and Is the use of the Tetragram really important, or is it just a question of taste ?

The pronunciation of the name Jesus is widely accepted in spite of its genuine pronunciation Yeshua’. On the other hand the beginning of the name Yehow-ah is in agreement with all the other theophoric names (Yehô-natan, Yehô-zabad, Yehô-hanan, etc.). In actual fact the main reason which prevents the pronunciation of the Name is above all affective, that is to say that one who do not love another people who do not use his name too. For example, when Jesus spoke with Satan (Mt 4:1-11) he systematically used the Name (In the translation of C Tresmontant (Catholic) one reads the name yhwh. In that of A. Chouraqui (Jewish) IhvH and in that of J.N. Darby (Protestant) *Lord, that is to say Jehovah according to the note on Matthew 1:20, http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/sacredname.html ), but Satan only used the anonymous title "God". In his book Proverbs of the Jewish Wisdom, Victor Malka explains that, according to the Jewish popular wisdom only the names of those who don't like are forgotten, therefore the name of God cannot be forgotten. In addition, «only the very name of the wicked ones will rot» (Pr 10:7).

In the Bible, refusing to mention the name of a god means refusing to worship this god (Ex 23:13) and that is why Satan incited the Israelites, by means of the prophets of Baal, not to use the Name (Jr 23:27). In actual fact refusing to use the Name means refusing to be saved (Rm 10:13 quoting Jl 2:32).

A24- Is the doubt about its pronunciation the main reason which prevents the use of the Name and Is the use of the Tetragram really important, or is it just a question of taste ?

The pronunciation of the name Jesus is widely accepted in spite of its genuine pronunciation Yeshua’. On the other hand the beginning of the name Yehow-ah is in agreement with all the other theophoric names (Yehô-natan, Yehô-zabad, Yehô-hanan, etc.). In actual fact the main reason which prevents the pronunciation of the Name is above all affective, that is to say that one who do not love another people who do not use his name too. For example, when Jesus spoke with Satan (Mt 4:1-11) he systematically used the Name (In the translation of C Tresmontant (Catholic) one reads the name yhwh. In that of A. Chouraqui (Jewish) IhvH and in that of J.N. Darby (Protestant) *Lord, that is to say Jehovah according to the note on Matthew 1:20, http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/sacredname.html ), but Satan only used the anonymous title "God". In his book Proverbs of the Jewish Wisdom, Victor Malka explains that, according to the Jewish popular wisdom only the names of those who don't like are forgotten, therefore the name of God cannot be forgotten. In addition, «only the very name of the wicked ones will rot» (Pr 10:7).

In the Bible, refusing to mention the name of a god means refusing to worship this god (Ex 23:13) and that is why Satan incited the Israelites, by means of the prophets of Baal, not to use the Name (Jr 23:27). In actual fact refusing to use the Name means refusing to be saved (Rm 10:13 quoting Jl 2:32).

quote:

---

Originally posted by KittyCat:
There should be no misunderstanding on the pronunciation to Yahweh's name. It is the four vowels and has no need of man-made vowel points anyway. Why put the vowel points on it? The answer is: To disguise the sacred name.

One point of interest here is the reason that Yahushua will return with a name that no man knows, which one must consider what "know" means in the Hebrew and is thought in the Book of Rev. Research this term, to know something. It means more than a simple knowing in our mind-set of how we understand today. It means a deep knowing, something deep inside himself. Since Yahushua inherited his father's name and he's unified with him in purpose, I'm sure that he has a really deep knowing of Yahweh's name, which is now his name too. To know carries a deeper sense just as to see does. Any of mankind today cannot "know" the name Yahweh as Yahushua knows it. It's impossible! They can't "know" it yet like he does.

And I find that people saying that you can't find the pronunciation is so incorrect, which means basically they have not studied the issue and also they have disregarded the evidence. BTW, while one can find the pronunciation, does this mean one must pronounce it exactly? Well, what if they can't. I had a deaf friend who couldn't hear the pronunciation at all, what does this mean for him? What if someone can't speak at all, vocalize anything, for the sacred name to come out of their mouth?

My deaf friend really wanted to hear the sacred name Yahweh, but he did try to pronounce it and did very good since it's the 4 vowels. If you guys are relying on those stupid vowel points supplied to the Hebrew, they're nothing but a lie anyway and are a late addition. That whole thing is so lame. And for the person who cannot utter one word because they can't speak, usually they still have their mind and can talk to Yahweh in their minds, which is what he wants us all to do anyway. Which do you think means more to Yahweh: what comes out of a man's mouth or from his innermost self?

KC

---

Shalom KC,

i wouldn't go so far as to say the vowel-points are lies, but i do agree that they may not hold as close a take on pronunciation as the ancient language might have been spoken.

but as for the 4 vowels -- have you studied that? this idea, purported by Josephus, is about how the Name was rendered *per transliteration* from Hebrew to Greek, since the Greeks got their alphabet from the Hebrews, but in their newer version those 4 letters became vowels, which is not totally the case in Hebrew, since it can be argued that the "Heh's" in the Name are definitely consonants, even if the other two letters are taken as vowels. so really, the "4 vowel" idea doesn't provide any real help, but is actually somewhat misleading.

but i do agree totally that pronunciation is not the true issue behind the Name topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:

Shalom KC,

i wouldn't go so far as to say the vowel-points are lies, but i do agree that they may not hold as close a take on pronunciation as the ancient language might have been spoken.

but as for the 4 vowels -- have you studied that? this idea, purported by Josephus, is about how the Name was rendered *per transliteration* from Hebrew to Greek, since the Greeks got their alphabet from the Hebrews, but in their newer version those 4 letters became vowels, which is not totally the case in Hebrew, since it can be argued that the "Heh's" in the Name are definitely consonants, even if the other two letters are taken as vowels. so really, the "4 vowel" idea doesn't provide any real help, but is actually somewhat misleading.

but i do agree totally that pronunciation is not the true issue behind the Name topic.

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

---

Edited note: I see the Hebrew fonts did not come through after posting. Please view the article at Wikipedia under "Matres Lectionis".

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia. While their are those that would doubt this source, the same info can be found in Hebrew grammars. Also, the chart after the first paragraph looks better on the Wikipedia site.

quote:

---

Matres lectionis (Latin "mothers of reading", singular form: mater lectionis) is an early method for indicating vowels in the Hebrew alphabet. The consonant letters Yod ?, Waw ? and ’Aleph ? were used to give a rough indication of the quality of long vowels. Most commonly, Yod ? indicates i or e, while Waw ? indicates o or u. ’Aleph ? was not systematically developed as a mater lectionis in Hebrew (as it was in Aramaic and Arabic), but it is occasionally used to indicate an a vowel. (However, a silent ’Aleph — indicating an original glottal stop consonant sound which has become silent in Hebrew pronunciation — can occur after almost any vowel.) At the end of a word, He ? can also be used to indicate that a vowel should be pronounced. In some verb forms, matres lectionis are used almost always. Examples:

Letter Name vowel quality Example
? Aleph mostly ? ???? P?r?n
? He mostly ? or e ??? L?'?
?? Se
? Waw ? or ? ???? Y?'?l
???? B?r?kh
? Yod ?, ? or ? ???? D?w?d

Later, it became clear that the system of matres lectionis did not suffice to indicate the vowels precisely enough, so that supplemental vowel pointing systems (diacritic symbols indicating vowel pronunciation and other important phonological features not written by the traditional basic consonantal orthography) were developed accordingly.

Historically, the practice of using matres lectionis seems to have originated when [ay] and [aw] diphthongs (written using the Yod ? and Waw ? consonant letters respectively) monophthongized to simple long vowels [?] and [?]. This epiphenomenal association between consonant letters and vowel sounds was then seized upon and used in words without historic diphthongs.

In general terms, it is observable that early Phoenician texts have very few matres lectionis, and that during most of the 1st millennium B.C.E. Hebrew and Aramaic were quicker to develop matres lectionis than Phoenician. However, in its latest period of development in North Africa (referred to as "Punic"), the Phoenician language developed a very full use of matres lectionis (including the use of the letter `Ayin ?, also used for this purpose much later in Yiddish orthography).

In pre-exilic Hebrew, there was a significant development of the use of the letter He ? to indicate word final vowels other than ? and ?. This was probably inspired by the phonological change of the third-person singular possessive suffix from [ah?] > [aw] > [?] in most environments. However, in later periods of Hebrew the orthography was changed so that word-final ? was no longer written with the letter He ? (except in a few archaically-spelled proper names, such as Solomon ???? and Shiloh ???). The difference between the spelling of the third-person singular possessive suffix (as attached to singular nouns) with He ? in early Hebrew vs. with Waw ? in later Hebrew has become an issue in the authentication of the Jehoash Inscription.

---

Since Josephus was specifically addressing the four letters written on the high priests mitre, I doubt he was referring to Greek vowels.

Shalom,
John

Concerning matres lectionis, these contested letters are read as vowels in this unique manner ONLY when paired with actual consonants. So immediately the theory fails on that standard alone. If one believes the Name consists of 4 vowels, a proper understanding of how matres lectionis was utilized quickly dispels that notion. It would certainly be nice if it did work that way, cause I would love to be able to find a method of pronouncing the Name that actually holds water scholarly, but this method doesn’t provide an accurate path to the uncovering of the Name.

But going back to Josephus, we DO find that he was not telling anyone how to pronounce the Name, as even he is willing to admit:

Whereupon God declared to him his holy Name,
which had never been discovered to men before;
concerning which it is not lawful for me to say anymore.”
(Antiquities 2:12:4.)

Here, speaking of the revelation to Mosheh, he says concerning the Name that it is not “lawful” for him to speak of it any further, ie, the pronunciation, as understood from the context of the passage.

So obviously he wasn’t about to divulge the pronunciation of the Name. Yet in another passage, he declares about the golden tzitz of the priestly garments this confusing statement:

“In which was engraved the sacred name. It consisted of four vowels.”
(Wars. 5:5:7.)

The four vowels he speaks of are the Iota=Yod, the Epsilon=Heh, the Upsilon=Vav, and once again the Epsilon=Heh. They are all vowels in the Greek alphabet, not the Hebrew. He makes mention that they are 4 vowels because he WAS writing specifically to the Greek-speaking population. Basically, it would be like a Hebrew writing this to an Englishman who had no knowledge of the Hebrew, and using English letters to convey the Name: YHWH/YHVH consists of 3 definite consonants, and one sometimes consonant/vowel, Y. So the statement in the imaginary writing would be legitimate as saying “It consisted of 3 consonants.” or “It consisted or 4 consonants.” It is no different in Josephus’s writing, where he was speaking to Greeks about a language that the majority had no real knowledge of. So using Greek letters to convey the idea best expressed his thoughts.

In his own words, here it is:

“I have one thing to add, of which the Greeks are perhaps unaware, before reverting to the narrative where I left it. With a view to euphony and my reader’s pleasure these names have been Hellenized. The form in which they appear is not that used in our country, where their structure and termination remain always the same.”
(Antiquities 1.6.1.)

So concerning Josephus’ statement about the Name consisting of 4 vowels, I really can’t see how that works in Hebrew. With an understanding of Hebrew grammar as well as understanding the context of Josephus’ own statements, I don’t think there is any supporting evidence to it which is of any weight.

If you choose to believe otherwise, you are certainly welcome, but I have to have something of far more weight before I make faithfully any move in that direction. I really don't think there is adequate information available at the moment to correctly and definitively deduce the true pronunciation. Dogmatism in this area yields only man's opinions elevated to improper heights, and so I am content to surrender an "I don't know" to the whole issue at the moment. One day we shall know, but now I think it is all speculation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:
Shalom John,

Concerning matres lectionis, these contested letters are read as vowels in this unique manner ONLY when paired with actual consonants. So immediately the theory fails on that standard alone. If one believes the Name consists of 4 vowels, a proper understanding of how matres lectionis was utilized quickly dispels that notion. It would certainly be nice if it did work that way, cause I would love to be able to find a method of pronouncing the Name that actually holds water scholarly, but this method doesn’t provide an accurate path to the uncovering of the Name.

---

Can you direct me to a reference that clearly states those letters cannot be pronounced as vowels unless in conjunction with consonants? Also, is it possible that those four letters must be used in conjunction with consonants in modern Hebrew or in Hebrew which contains vowel points, but that that was not the case in Josephus' day and earlier?

quote:

---

But going back to Josephus, we DO find that he was not telling anyone how to pronounce the Name, as even he is willing to admit:

---

I agree. He was merely telling us the quality of the four letters.

quote:

---

“In which was engraved the sacred name. It consisted of four vowels.”
(Wars. 5:5:7.)

The four vowels he speaks of are the Iota=Yod, the Epsilon=Heh, the Upsilon=Vav, and once again the Epsilon=Heh. They are all vowels in the Greek alphabet, not the Hebrew. He makes mention that they are 4 vowels because he WAS writing specifically to the Greek-speaking population.

---

As I understand it, a vowel is a letter that is pronounced without touching the tongue to any part of the mouth. The opposite would be true of consonants. Therefore, how can a consonant in Hebrew which requires touching the tongue become a vowel in Greek without touching the tongue?

If Josephus was doing as you say, then his intent would be something like this; "The sacred name consists of four vowels in Greek in which you say them without touching your tongue on anything, but in Hebrew they are consonants in which you must touch your tongue. Therefore, your way is incorrect." It just doesn't seem to make sense to me yet.

Also, it would be very strange for Josephus to tell his Greek readers the four letters are vowels in Greek when he didn't even tell them what those letters were. They would have no basis on which to understand what he was talking about. However, if he was referring to the Hebrew letters, he would be giving them a basis for understanding the name.

quote:

---

In his own words, here it is:

“I have one thing to add, of which the Greeks are perhaps unaware, before reverting to the narrative where I left it. With a view to euphony and my reader’s pleasure these names have been Hellenized. The form in which they appear is not that used in our country, where their structure and termination remain always the same.”
(Antiquities 1.6.1.)

---

This statement was made in reference to names which Josephus spelled out such as "Noah". Since he never spelled out the four letters, I don't think this applies.

quote:

---

So concerning Josephus’ statement about the Name consisting of 4 vowels, I really can’t see how that works in Hebrew. With an understanding of Hebrew grammar as well as understanding the context of Josephus’ own statements, I don’t think there is any supporting evidence to it which is of any weight.

---

You may be correct, but I would need to see grammatical evidence to the contrary, in particular, a reference for my first questions above.

I’ll see if I can find something that explicitly states that. At the moment I don’t know of anything offhand. But regardless, to bolster my point through simply thinking it through, matres lectionis is the very employment of letters combined with indisputable consonants to provide a clearer idea of pronunciation. This device served a good purpose, but was not perfect by any means, leading Hebrew grammarians to create the vowel-point system for further clarification, at least in *their* minds this was the intention. So in essence, the presence of a consonant in a word *has to be the case* for matris lectionis to even be employed. Do you see what I mean?

As for your understanding of what makes a vowel and a consonant, you are a bit misinformed, and I would suggest going back and doing a study on how those sounds are pronounced, especially the consonants, and you might be changing your mind, which would inevitably alter some of your other questions, as well. But for now, take B, M, F, P, R, for example. Go ahead and make those sounds with your mouth and see what parts of your mouth you are using. All are consonants, and yet the tongue is not “touching” the mouth in these instances. According to your definition of what makes a vowel/consonant, these would then become vowels, and this is not the case. I would seriously advise checking it out and see how it changes your current view.

Concerning the 4 vowels, it must be remembered that the Greeks “borrowed” the Hebrew/Aramaic alphabet to create their own. They already of course had the sounds they wanted, and used the Hebrew letters that were applicable as such. But the Hebrew letters they utilized for vowels weren’t all vowels in the Hebrew language. As for the other vowels in the Greek, they were alpha, eta, omicron, and omega. Alpha=Aleph, eta=Chet, omicron=Ayin, omega=n/a. None of these, of course, are used in the Name. Therefore, the Romans reading Josephus’ writing would hopefully have been aware of the backwards-transliteration of Greek to Hebrew, since that is where they derived their alphabet. Knowing he was referring to a Hebrew Name, they know doubt would have understood that the vowels he spoke of were not really vowels in the language he was ultimately referring to, but consonants. Assuming they had no familiarity with the actual Hebrew letters of the Name is probably not a good route to take, but rather just keeping it down to the idea that knowledge of how the language was *spoken* was probably limited, seems to be a safer route. In that case, Josephus’ writing would have been sufficient for the reader to realize what he was talking about and not become confused. In other words, “to you Greeks, it is 4 vowels, but of course the Name is Hebrew, so the backwards transliteration is required for adequate representation.” If he wasn’t willing to go into any more depth concerning the pronunciation of the Father’s Name at that previous passage, I highly doubt that he would be “teasing” his pagan readers with how to pronounce the Name in Greek. But that is just my opinion, of course.

Anyhow, I’ll still see if I can find where I read that about matres lectionis, but hopefully at least the explanation provided above shows why there has to be a consonant in place for that device to even be used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:
John,

As for your understanding of what makes a vowel and a consonant, you are a bit misinformed, ...

---

I think John's description of a consonant was correct as far as it went, only incomplete. A consonant is made by some combination of lips, tongue, and/or teeth touching (except 'h', which is a special case). I think most would agree with that description.

quote:

---

... As for the other vowels in the Greek, they were alpha, eta, omicron, and omega. Alpha=Aleph, eta=Chet, omicron=Ayin, omega=n/a. None of these, of course, are used in the Name.

---

Note: it appears (to me at least) that the 1st 'hey' in the Name had the sound of 'ah' (=alpha), and was phonetically transliterated in the Greek form "IAOUE" (=English "YAHWEH"); but seems to have been visually translated to form the Savior's Name - "IHSOUS" (where the 'h'='eta'), resulting in "YAY-SOUS", instead of the phonetically closer "YAH-SOUS". (And of course, the last syllable '-sous' is Hellenized.) Also, as shown the final 'hey' appears to have been phonetically transliterated as 'epsilon' ('eh') in "IAOUE", MAYBE because that's the actual pronuncaition.

Note2: while Greek doesn't have a letter for the 'h' sound, it often adds the 'h' sound to the beginning of words that begin with a vowel, such as the word for 'six' = 'hex' = 'epsilon-xi'.

All this is speculation anyway. And i might add that the Name YHWH isn't Hebrew, since He existed long before there was any human language, so we cannot force His Name to conform to ANY of our grammatical rules or speculations. Josephus' declaration of the "4 vowels" seems to be the simplest & best clue i've seen so far.

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

quote:

---

by Chuck Baldwin
All this is speculation anyway. And i might add that the Name YHWH isn't Hebrew, since He existed long before there was any human language, so we cannot force His Name to conform to ANY of our grammatical rules or speculations . Josephus' declaration of the "4 vowels" seems to be the simplest & best clue i've seen so far.

---

I definitely have to agree with you here, Chuck. The wife and I had been discussing the grammatics of the Babylonian Hebrew and came to the same conclusion. We also feel there is a great possibility that the original paleo'Hebrew' probably had more information in the letters themselves. For example: aleph = ox = strength, lamed = staff = authority and so on.

Here is an interesting web site concerning that:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_words.html

We also think another interesting "clue" would be Yahudah. Could it be just that simple? It seems that the Babylonian Hebrew grammatics, much like the english, is complicated and confusing. Askanazi or suphardic??? Which is it, take your pick. V or W. Interesting when we look into the dictionary definition of V or W, both have roots pointing to the U. I think the paleo'Hebrew' would have been much simpler, Yahuah knows I do well with pictures anyway.

Watchman555

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:
Shalom again, John,

I’ll see if I can find something that explicitly states that. At the moment I don’t know of anything offhand. But regardless, to bolster my point through simply thinking it through, matres lectionis is the very employment of letters combined with indisputable consonants to provide a clearer idea of pronunciation. This device served a good purpose, but was not perfect by any means, leading Hebrew grammarians to create the vowel-point system for further clarification, at least in *their* minds this was the intention. So in essence, the presence of a consonant in a word *has to be the case* for matris lectionis to even be employed. Do you see what I mean?

---

Yes, if a word contains consonants, then it needs vowels. Yes, vowel-points would further clarify pronunciation in a word with consonants, but that does not mean there cannot be a word that only consists of vowels (matres lectionis) and therefore is in no need of additional vowel-points. I need to see proof from reliable Hebrew grammars that say matres lectionis cannot stand alone in a word or that they can only be used in conjunction with consonants. I await that proof.

quote:

---

As for your understanding of what makes a vowel and a consonant, you are a bit misinformed, and I would suggest going back and doing a study on how those sounds are pronounced, especially the consonants, and you might be changing your mind, which would inevitably alter some of your other questions, as well. But for now, take B, M, F, P, R, for example. Go ahead and make those sounds with your mouth and see what parts of your mouth you are using. All are consonants, and yet the tongue is not “touching” the mouth in these instances. According to your definition of what makes a vowel/consonant, these would then become vowels, and this is not the case. I would seriously advise checking it out and see how it changes your current view.

---

Forgive me for not being detailed enough. Yes, I know there are consonants that do not require the tongue. I even discussed that with my wife before reading your post. The point remains the same. A vowel in any language requires the same (the tongue, teeth and lips do not touch each other). So a consonant in Hebrew cannot become a vowel in Greek and vice-versa. Perhaps my position is only opinion and not fact, in which case I await the facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burning one:
John,

As for your understanding of what makes a vowel and a consonant, you are a bit misinformed, ...

---

[This message has been edited by chuckbaldwin (edited 09-02-2007).][/QUOTE]

Shalom Chuck,

i brought out the discrepency about John's presentation of a vowel/consonant because it honestly didn't fit completely with what he presented. if he thought differently, i have no problem with that, but his presentation of his understanding gave a different take, which would simply alter the definitions. but since he's cleared up his meaning, it doesn't matter.

concerning your take on what Hebrew letters parallel the Greek, i am not following, since every Hebrew-to-Greek table i've seen lists them the way i mentioned in my last post as well as in the one previous. maybe we're using different lists, though i've checked in a couple different sources and everything lines up with what i've presented. so there is some confusion going on somewhere...

as for your last paragraph, i agree completely. it isn't Hebrew, and yet He spoke it to one who spoke and wrote Hebrew, right? i wonder how much that would actually have been a problem. i honestly don't know, but i might add that highlighting that fact could possibly make it even more difficult to ascertain the correct pronunciation of His Name, if it does not even conform to the rules of the language in which it was written. see what a can of worms that would open up?

in the end, like i mentioned before, i am not at a point to faithfully say "this is it and no other," concerning His Name. so i'm not being dogmatic, just stating the reasons why i have a issue with particular takes on it. could it be 4 vowels? very possibly so, but i need more evidence than just Josephus's statement to bolster that idea.

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Cordaro:
So a consonant in Hebrew cannot become a vowel in Greek and vice-versa. Perhaps my position is only opinion and not fact, in which case I await the facts.

Shalom,
John

---

Shalom again,

concerning this, take a look at a Hebrew-to-Greek alphabet table, and see what sounds convert to consonants or vowels. it should answer you sufficiently in that matter. you can find them easily online if you don't have a hard copy, or i can post a link if you need.

as for the grammatical proof you requested concerning matres lectionis, i haven't forgotten. hopefully i can dig up something for you. i'll let you know as soon as i find something. i have an ancient copy of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar that should speak to it, but it will require time to scour the pages, if you're familiar with his exhaustive take.

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Watchman555:
Shalom Chuck and all~

I definitely have to agree with you here, Chuck. The wife and I had been discussing the grammatics of the Babylonian Hebrew and came to the same conclusion. We also feel there is a great possibility that the original paleo'Hebrew' probably had more information in the letters themselves. For example: aleph = ox = strength, lamed = staff = authority and so on.

Here is an interesting web site concerning that:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_words.html

We also think another interesting "clue" would be Yahudah. Could it be just that simple? It seems that the Babylonian Hebrew grammatics, much like the english, is complicated and confusing. Askanazi or suphardic??? Which is it, take your pick. V or W. Interesting when we look into the dictionary definition of V or W, both have roots pointing to the U. I think the paleo'Hebrew' would have been much simpler, Yahuah knows I do well with pictures anyway.

Watchman555

---

Shalom to you Watchman555,

ancient-Hebrew.org is a great site! they are doing some wonderful work over there, and have been a major help to me as well. i'm "picture-oriented" too, and even though i had started learning the modern Hebrew alphabet years ago when i stepped into the task of learning the Hebrew language, when i stumbled across the "Old Negev" version it made my ability to learn even smoother, as the way in which the letters are implemented to form words really makes a whole lot of sense!

to this day when reading the modern script i will constantly revert back in my mind to the images the letters represent, and so much jumps out that otherwise would go unnoticed.

thankfully the Father is good enough to us that He has provided countless ways in which we are able to draw near to Him. so many tools have been given, and there is so little time!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:
as for your last paragraph, i agree completely. it isn't Hebrew, and yet He spoke it to one who spoke and wrote Hebrew, right? i wonder how much that would actually have been a problem. i honestly don't know, but i might add that highlighting that fact could possibly make it even more difficult to ascertain the correct pronunciation of His Name, if it does not even conform to the rules of the language in which it was written. see what a can of worms that would open up?

---

You make a very good point there, i must admit. Considering the differences between modern American English vs British English vs King James English, i wonder what differences there are between modern Hebrew vs 1st century Hebrew vs ancient (paleo-) Hebrew? And how can we even know, without going back in a time-machine and actually hearing them speak? Just rhetorical questions.