The opinions/attitudes expressed on this forum are not necessarily those of EliYah or of Yahweh's people as a whole.

  Forums at EliYah's Home Page
  Scripture Discussion Forum
  Who is "Hashem"? (Page 7)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

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"?
Acheson

Posts: 1591
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-06-2005 08:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Acheson     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Shalom again, Shimson:

In my previous posting, I addressed some comments that you directed to others who have contributed to this thread. I would now like to focus on your latest response to me.

You wrote:

quote:
As you mentioned both the Lexicon and Strong's have Qametz under the Hey. I never disputed this, but as I mentioned earlier Qametz, Qametz Hatuf, and Patahh are not the same pronunciation and anyone who knows Hebrew knows this. The Rabbi you asked even verified this. Next time you email him ask him what is the difference between Qametz and Pathahh in Biblical Hebrew, and as I mentioned earlier ask him about the specifically Yemenite pronounciation of Hebrew, which most scholars consider to be the most ancient dialect of Hebrew.

I reply: I will be sure to e-mail him that question. In the meantime, I still do not understand why any "vowel pronunciation discrepancy" is so important to you, since the original Hebrew did not have vowel pointings, which in turn means that the spelling HSM (he-shiyn-mem) could have referenced either the name of the Israelite or "the name." Both words are spelled exactly the same in Hebrew.

This is why I still maintain that, from my perspective, if someone in ancient Israel had written, "Hashem spoke to the prophet," and he wrote nothing else to offer us any context to go on, I would need a clarification as to whether or not the Israelite man spoke to the prophet or if the Almighty spoke to the prophet. From what I can see, regardless of how one might choose to distinguish one vowel sound from another vowel sound, this doesn't really change anything, as the spelling is/was still the same.

Something else that puzzles me regarding your desire to use "Hashem" in reference to the Almighty is how, when I pointed out the name of the Israelite with that name, you were very quick to point out that, in the "more ancient" Hebrew, this name is vowel-pointed differently from how it is now vowel-pointed. You did this so as to point out the "correct" understanding regarding the pronunciation of this name, although you didn't seem to offer any dates as to when this pronunciation was changed. I guess what I don't understand is how one can be so certain of a pronunciation differential between "Hashem" and "Hoshem," yet express so much uncertainty regarding the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.

I am trying to understand your perspective, although I'm fairly certain you would say I am "way off," which is fine, but hopefully you know that I am trying. It's just that, if I were so uncertain of the Tetragrammaton's pronunciation that I wouldn't pronounce it out of fear of being off the mark, I don't believe I would be so confident regarding the correct pronunciation of "Hashem"/"Hoshem."

All I know is, I asked the rabbi to provide the ancient pronunciation, and he came up with "haw-shem," not the one you came up with. It thus appears to me that he would not agree with your assessment that it is more anciently pronounced "hoshem," but I will e-mail him regarding the "Yemenite pronunciation," just in case this aspect changes anything.

Finally, in my previous posting, I mentioned how the Septuagint text disagrees with your contention that the poetic form of the Creator's name is "more anciently" pronounced Yoh. It clearly reveals that those Hebrew scholars regarded it as Yah. In the same way, those who translated the Septuagint did not transliterate Hashem's name as Hoshem, as you contend. They transliterated it as Asam. Of course, their transliteration is certainly different from Hashem, yet the first syllable is all I'm really interested in for the purposes of our current discussion. It is clearly an "ah" sound, not an "oh" sound. This is how those 3rd century B.C.E. Hebrew scholars understood the pronunciation of the first syllable of this Hebrew name.

Thus, regardless of how Rabbi Shraga Simmons answers the question you suggested that I ask him, there is no question as to how the 3rd century B.C.E. Hebrew scholars regarded the pronunciation of the first syllable of Hashem's name.

You wrote the following in response to Chuck, which I know is something you have expressed to me several times in this thread:

quote:
Besides I don't "use" HaShem in place of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey as I pointed out, because as I stated several times before HaShem is a title no different than HaQadosh, HaEl, Elohim, Eluwwim, Adanni, etc. I have not USED HaShem in the same way or in place of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in any place where Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey already was in place. To claim that I have used HaShem in that way would have to also be the same for Elohim and Eluwwim, because I have used both of those just as often to describe Elohim in a non-scriptural discussion i.e. when not quoting the Tanakh. When quoting the Tanakh I used Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey or YHWH.

I reply: You say you don't "use" HaShem in place of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. I guess that, once again, this is simply a matter of different perspectives. You may recall from a previous posting where I quoted a sentence you had written containing "HaShem" in which I personally believe it was used as a name. I realize you do not agree, and that's fine.

I read that quote to a friend I know just to see if he thought you used "HaShem" as a name or not. Here, again, is the quote:

quote:
So the Har Sinai experience for a Jew is the crown of the exodus from Egypt. It was the time in history where HaShem changed history and the physical reality by causing all of Israel to receive a gift from on high.

In the estimation of my friend, "HaShem," as used in the above sentence, was used as a name, or to be more precise, instead of a name. I only asked my friend his opinion so as to get a "second opinion," just in case I was the only one who feels as I do. In our opinions, then, you are indeed replacing the Creator's name with a name/title, especially since we know that HaShem is indeed a name.

I realize that we are simply going to disagree on this one, but before I move to the next aspect of our discussion, I would like to at least wonder out loud if I couldn't just say, "God bless America" or something like that, and make the same assertion that you make, i.e., that I have not USED "God" in the same way or in place of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in any place where Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey already was in place.

I could also say things like, "The LORD sure has blessed us with beautiful weather today!" and make the same claim, right? This is why I believe it's all a matter of perspective. The perspective I am most interested in is that of the Almighty Himself. Over and over again there are Scriptures that literally jump at us showing where His people routinely spoke His name. I don't believe I need to go into that here, but if you ask me to produce the texts, I will.

One verse that I will quote that vividly illustrates how the prophet Isaiah felt about this issue can be found in Isaiah 26:13, where he wrote:

13O YHWH our Eloheinu! Lords other than You possessed us, but only Your name shall we utter.

The above translation, by the way, except for the words "YHWH" and "Eloheinu," is taken from The Tanakh - The Holy Scriptures, by The Jewish Publication Society. Isaiah, then, who was speaking on behalf of himself and his fellow Israelites, felt not the slightest hesitation in uttering the Creator's name. Thus, when it comes to speaking the Creator's name, I may not be in a lot of company, but I am in good company nevertheless.

This, to me, is not about a popularity contest with "my people" or anyone, for that matter. It is about pleasing the Father. We all have our unique perspectives on how to please Him, and sometimes when opposing views are offered, some folks are offended. That is too bad, and I certainly mean no offense to anyone, yet I will state that I will put the honor of YHWH above the feelings of others. Certainly, if you believe I dishonor the Almighty by referring to Him by the name He gave to Himself ... even if I may pronounce it incorrectly ... then I believe you should point that out to me, but I need something concrete from His Word specifying this. And if you ask me, referring to Him as "HaShem" represents a graver falsification than any poor attempt at pronouncing it correctly.

You wrote:

quote:
If anything I think you need to put blame on those who taught you as a child, instead of us. If you read a Christian bible as a kid that didn't teach you about these matters your blame should be one the people who produced the bible you read from.

I reply: What have I written that gives you the impression that I blame anyone?

You also wrote:

quote:
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 reply: What have I written that gives you the impression that anyone is trying to stop me from believing or doing anything? Of course, both you and I can do anything we want in this area. I could step outside right now and yell curses at everyone and even the Almighty ... if I wanted to. I would deserve death for such a thing, but the worst it would get me here in Texas is a trip to the local mental hospital. My point here is, I don't know why you are telling me that I can do anything I want in this area, as nothing could be more obvious than that. It's not a question of what we can do, it's a question of what we should do, and there are obviously a plethora of opinions on that. While I try to consider all opinions as I formulate my own, I focus more on the opinions that have a solid foundation from Scripture, combined with historical support. Historically, the term "HaShem" was applied to the Creator by the Samaritans, at least according to A. Cohen in his book Everyman's Talmud. If someone can prove that he gave incorrect information, I will consider whatever is offered. Otherwise, this seems like yet another reason to avoid referring to the Almighty in this manner. Yet, as I believe we have established, you are certainly free to worship the Almighty however you believe best. No one is trying to stop you, I'm just expressing disagreement, which I trust can be done without offending you.

You wrote:

quote:
If I don't have 100% proof something, I abide by Yeshayahu 8:20. As a Jew this is the standard I am called to.

I reply: Do you have 100% proof that "HaShem" is pronounced differently than the name of the Israelite referenced in I Chronicles 11:34, even though they are both spelled the same?

Is any "risk" involved in possibly referring to the Almighty with a word spelled and pronounced the same as that of a man more acceptable to you than the risk of trying, yet not quite succeeding, to pronounce His true name correctly?

You wrote:

quote:
If the nations feel that they know The Name then Kol HaKavod (more power) to them. I am not one to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't do. I am no ruler or authority over the non-Jewish world, and I don't wish it any ill will. In fact if I did I wouldn't post here.

I reply: Personally-speaking, I believe as I do based upon what the Word says, not what the Jews say, nor what the "nations" say. If His Word were to say something to the effect of, "My people don't need to know My name," then I wouldn't worry about it. However, His name is obviously important to Him, and I believe He wants His people to know His name ... and use it reverently. As far as I'm concerned, then, it is His Word, not the Jews', not the "nations'" ... that is the authority I go by. I am doing my best to leave any unscriptural traditions I may have picked up along the way behind. I'm sure I have a long way to go, but I am trying anyway ... not because it makes me any better than anyone else, but simply because I want to honor Him the way He wants to be honored as opposed to how others may say I should do it.

As for not wishing anyone any "ill will," the same goes for me. You and I do not seem to agree on very much, yet I am persuaded that you are a very nice person who would not harbor any ill feelings towards those who disagree with your beliefs.

You wrote:

quote:
I have NEVER told anyone they should not use what they BELIEVE the Name to be.

I reply: Great! Neither have I. We should prove all things to the best of our abilities.

Take care and may the Almighty bless you.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Posts: 827
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 03-21-2005 07:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shimson bar-Tzadoq     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Greetings Larry,

In order for us to better understand each other, let me restate a few things. As I mentioned to Chuck before, I do believe that we are not speaking the same language here because we don't read from the same text and because our theologies are different. I will answer further areas of your questions later. I am on a tight schedule right now.

Item #1: The Name of Elohim from a Jewish Perspective
There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST ATTEMPT to pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion. As I mentioned before outside of Prayer, Tanakh reading, Oaths, and Temple service there is no requirement for me to say His Name (in the situation of His Name being 100% known). So with at least 10 or more theories out there people are only assuming their way of doing it is right. The prophets that have writings found in the Tanakh were making nederim for Elohim before all of Yisrael. They also lived in a time when the knowledge this matter was more direct, and Elohim spoke to them directly so there was no divergence on what they know about Him and His Name. That is a different time then now, because at their time there were no theories about the pronunciation the information was there 100%.

For me and many Jews it has nothing to do with His Name being "too holy say" that plain expression is more of a wives tale, even though EVERYTHING about Elohim is extremely QADOSH. The issue here is that because every aspect of Elohim is Qadosh, for a Jew to start making neder and such with 100% knowledge of The Name of Elohim, he/she goes against the clear command in Shemoth 20:6.

Yet, if I am before a just earthly ruler and I would personally prefer not to call him by a wrong Name, then of course I would give Elohim even more respect. That is why I would never write His Name out as it is pronounced except in Ancient Hebrew, and even then I wouldn't do it casually. Besides as I mentioned before the Torah uses lots of titles for Him. There is no prohibition in calling Him by a title and HaShem is a title. I would never make a copy of a Torah Scroll or Text and put HaShem in it. Besides as I mentioned before all one has to do is keep the Tanakh in Hebrew, or at least The Name of Elohim in Hebrew, and there is no issue.

You mentioned the Karaites, and I am glad you did because I personally consider their Minhag and Halakhah to be a part of the Masorah Har Sinai. As mentioned before concerning them. An interesting note on all of this. The Karaites who are said to have put together the Mesoratic Version of the Torah say that the name of Elohim is correctly pronounced Yihweh. The Kariates also say, In fact, most printed Hebrew Bibles are either directly or indirectly based on the "Ben Asher" Bible Manuscripts, which were produced by Karaite scribes in the 9th-10th centuries!”
http://www.karaite-korner.org/light-of-israel/loi23eng.shtml

So as I mentioned before I consider the Kariate's opinion about Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey to be valid enough to mention it. Especially since it is true that most Hebrew texts came from their Scribes. So if that be the case it would also stand to reason that Yihweh is more than possible also.

As I mentioned before. Also, a few things that I must state here. Jews don't replace Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in the Hebrew text with ANYTHING. Look in any Hebrew text and there is no replacement of the Name of Elohim anywere. Before the Masorites came up with the nuqqudim there were no vowel markers, except Mater lectiones, in the text so even they did not replace the Shem HaMeyuhhad. Even without the vowel markers the understanding of the pronunciation was preserved. The niqqudim were only marks to facilitate the sound that had already existed in the language.

Also, no Jew (who knows their Hebrew) considers Hey (Patahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem a "replacement" for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. HaShem is a title no different than Elohim, Eluwwim, Adonai, Adani, etc. The qualifier here being that, No Jew who knows their Hebrew would ever act like HaShem is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced. The issue here goes into what I mentioned about not bearing false witness about the Name of Eluwwim, and even Jews who are not overly Torah observant are most often not willing to bear false witness of the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey if they don't have 100% evidence of what it is. The last section is the qualifying part of this statement. Even though there are a LOT of opinions out there the issue goes right back to this that I stated earlier:

    So if everything else is false, and only one is correct the people using the wrong ones are bearing false witness to the Name of Eluwwim. That being said, I am not accusing anyone of anything nor am I saying that the Sacred Name movement is going to burn in hell, and shouldn't do what it is doing. Their intentions have nothing to do with this. What I am saying is that something people no matter who they are need to consider is INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. If the scholars AGREE that one form is THE ONE then you have to take their agreement with a grain of salt. How do you know they are not bearing false witness? How do you know the won't change their opinons in a few years as scholars do. If you yourself have not done the EXACT research they have then you are taking their word on it. What if the scholars who make the majority are liers and cheats and the people in the minority camp are trustworthy? Without your own first hand research i.e. learning the languages and such you are taking someone's word for it that their scholarship and their intentions are correct.

    I find it interesting that the English translation produced by The Institute of Scriptural Research called "The Scriptures" mentions in their preface about the different ways they thought about writing The Name of Eluwwim in their text. Yet, they even mention that they choose to write in Hebrew (Modern Hebrew) because and I quote, "In any event, we decided to avoid the contraversy over the precise pronunciation and to render it in Hebrew characters...." (The Scriptures by the ISR preface page xii). Makes sense to me keep it in Hebrew and you don't involve yourself in the debate.

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

    Note: The questions I asked in that post were retorical you don't have to answer me. The most pressing of them being, "If you yourself have not done the EXACT research they have then you are taking their word on it."


Now you asked how I can be so sure on the pronounciation of the person Hoshem or Hawshem depending on how you decide to write it in English. That is because everyone preserved the knowledge of how the Tanakh was read by way of the Hheder system. The rules of Hebrew grammer also make it apparenet how Hoshem or Hawshem was pronounced because it is a proper name, where HaShem is not due to the Hey (Pathahh), which is a definate article.

As I mentioned before several events made the EXACT pronounciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. A review is the following.

1) The concealing of the pronunciation by certain Kohanim due to corrupt Kohanim.

2) The changes in the Hebrew dialect due to the dispersion after the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

3) The lack of the Temple in Jerusalem being the central point of information.

4) The fear of pagans defacing The Name of Elohim.

These are three of the factors that Jewish history mentions in terms which pronunciation is correct. Because of all the speculation involved in the issue most Jews would rather wait until the information is 100% accurate because we are commanded to accurate in such a matter. Mashi'ahh, in our eyes, will be the one to restore what has been lost.

For a Jew,as I mentioned before, the Hebrew Torah commands us not to lift up false information about Elohim. In the Teimani Torah Tajj, Shemoth 20:6 it states, "Lo tiso' ath shem YHWH Alohakho lashow' ki lo yinaqqah YHWH ath ashar yiwo shmo lashow.'". Translated this means, You will not lift up/raise up/bear/ Name/Renown of YHWH your Elohim to falsehood/false (or incorrect nedarim). Because YHWH does not forgive whom will lift up/raise up/bear His Name to falsehood/false (or incorrect nedarim)." You can take that and interpret that anyway you want it, but as a Jew I am prohibited from spreading false information about any aspect of Him because HE said that HE doesn't forgive such. Because the Yemenite Torah Tajjim are clear on Shemoth 20:6 the issue is a straight and easy one, and the Aramaic Tarjum of Onkelos also indicates this (La teme bishma daYHWH lemagana are la yezake YHWH yath deyeme bishmeh leshiqra).

As I mentioned before the Tanakh is a neder so it is completely understand why it records times when Israel knew EXACTLY how to pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. Yet, it does not record everything because casual conversation in our eyes is not a neder. Also, all of the prophets knew exactly how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in their time because of they predated the events that caused the uncertainity. Besides in order for them to be prophets they would have had to have known exactly how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced. Yet, as I mentioned according to the Hebrew Tajjim Tanakh they seem to be be talking about more than a pronounciation, but more to the actual character of Elohim.

Item #2: The TITLE HaShem [Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem]
In terms of your friend believing that HaShem is being used as a name instead of a title, I would have to disagree with your friend. If that were the case he should have just as much problem with the words Elohim, Adonai, Eluwwim, Adanni, El, Eloah, El Elyon, Elah, etc. Besides as I mentioned before where I quote the Tanakh I put either YHWH or Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. It would also stand to reason that your friend would be confused by all the various pronunciations used by various groups, many of which don't sound anything alike. Also, the theory that certain theories with three sylables and some with two being made out to sound alike should be just as confusing. Your friend, if he or she, were already impartial in the matter would also need to have the entire conversation explained to them since Masorah Har Sinai should also be just as complicated. But since I am guesing that the information was not presented to an impartial spectator, I would have to suggest that your friend should read the ENTIRE conversation that the quote was pulled from. I.e. your friend should go and read the thread that that quote came from, because your friend would be confused without it. No different than someone being confused with 10 different pronunciations of one word, without a BACKGROUND in how all the different pronunciations came about, and the pros and cons of each one. It is not as if the Sacred Name Movement is not confusing to people who are not a part of it.

Besides I don't "use" HaShem in place of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey as I pointed out, because as I stated several times before HaShem is a title no different than HaQadosh, HaEl, Elohim, Eluwwim, Adanni, etc. I have not USED HaShem in the same way or in place of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in any place where Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey already was in place. To claim that I have used HaShem in that way would have to also be the same for Elohim and Eluwwim, because I have used both of those just as often to describe Elohim in a non-scriptural discussion i.e. when not quoting the Tanakh. When quoting the Tanakh I used Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey or YHWH.

As I mentioned before no Jew who knows His/Her Hebrew believes that HaShem is a replacement for Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. Some Jews say HaShem when they see Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey because they are not 100% sure of the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, some Jews say HaShem in settings where they are quoting scripture. Yet, there are many who don't do either and say HaShem in they are not quoting Scripture, and would never use HaShem when quoting it.

Your problem on this issue seems to be with the translations that render Hashem when they translate. As I stated before I don't care for relying on translations no matter who makes them (Jewish or not), except the Tarjumim (Aramaic) so your issue is really with them, not me. Just because a translation comes from a Jew doesn't make it accurate or even trust worthy no different than any human on the planet. This was the problem that many of the early Hhokhmei Yisrael had with translations to begin with. I agree with the Karaites that every Jew should do the work and learn Hebrew for themselves. That is how it is done in the community I come from, and that is the way it used to be done in the majority of Jewish communities. It was mainly the reform movements and the secular who started the shift away from the Hheder system of teaching children how to read Tanakh in Hebrew.

Item #3: Pronunciation of Qametz, Qametz Hatuf, and Pathahh
Strong's mentions that Qametz and Pathahh don't have the same sound. Thus Strong's agrees that there is no way that a Hey with (Qametz) could be confused with a Hey with (Pathahh). As I stated earlier. Thus Strong's agrees that there is no way that a Hey with (Qametz) could be confused with a Hey with (Pathahh) because they don't have the same sound. Thus for example entry number 4427 the Qametz is written as "aw" and the Pathahh is written as "a." Obviously Strong's believed that the Qametz and the Pathahh have different sounds this is even EASILY distinquished for someone who is not a Hebrew scholar.

As mentioned before anyone who ACTUALLY KNOWS HEBREW would not pronounce Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem the same because the Qametz and Pathahh are not the same sound. Any person reading a Hebrew text in a formal setting who would make such a mistake would be corrected. Synaogogues do not allow people to make mistakes during a reading of the Tanakh.

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

As I mentioned before Hey (Qametz) - Shem (Tzere) - Mem and Hey (Pathahh) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem are not the same. Even your Strong's and the Rabbi you asked confirmed this. Furthermore in terms of pronunciation.


    Jewish Encyclopedia
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=549&letter=P&search=Babylonia

    This would tend to support the theory of a Palestinian origin for the Sephardic pronunciation. But against it are the following considerations: The analogy of the Syriac would indicate that the "Kamez" was pronounced ā in Babylonia and ô in Palestine. There is no proof that the Babylonians in early times pronounced the "Kamez" like ô. The o sound of that vowel was known even to Philo of Alexandria (Siegfried, in "Merx's Archiv," vol. i.), and, according to Abraham ibn Ezra ("Zahot," p. 3b), was the prevalent one in Tiberias and North Africa in later times. Two of the systems of vocalization which have been handed down had, according to tradition, their origin in Palestine, and agree with the traditional Babylonian system of vocalization in representing "Kamez" as o.

In terms of the meaning of Hoshem (Ancient Hebrew) I didn't say that the Lexicon gave the meaning of it, I said that the Lexicon shows that it is not from the same shoresh (root) as Shin-Mem meaning it is not the same word. I also gave you two sources on the issue the second being (Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew by Matityahu Clark, page 264).

Also, the following web-site offers further information about the word Hey (Qametz) - Shin (Tzere) - Mem, and it gives the meaning that I mentioned earlier.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02044&version=kjv

In the Introduction Hebrew Dictionary page v. Strong's mentions that Qametz and Pathahh don't have the same sound. Thus Strong's agrees that there is no way that a Hey with (Qametz) could be confused with a Hey with (Pathahh). Once again this is dependent on people knowing their Hebrew. As I stated earlier.

I am not fixiated on Vowel points, I am talking about pronunciation. Of course there were no vowel signs, these things are not necessary when someone understands the language, as Torah scrolls are written without vowels. Torah scrolls read in Synagogoues are REQUIRED to not have vowel points in order for them to be kosher to use. Vowel signs are only SYMBOLS of pronunciation. The issue as I mentioned before is that anyone who knows their Hebrew knows the difference between what is known to be read because the grammer and the context determine pronunciation. Therefore it is common knowledge that the sounds that Qametz and Pathahh represent are different. The symbols used have nothing to do with symbols because as you know there were two systems of vowel signs, a working knowledge of Hebrew is the issue.

Once again I challenge you to read any modern Hebrew book, and see how many words are spelled alike, but are known to have different pronunciations. Qedem and Qadam are spelled the same in unpointed in Hebrew, but it is known which is the correct one when people know the language.

Item #4: The Dialects of Ancient through Modern Hebrew
As with the issue of the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, I haven't dealt specifically with one dialect of Hebrew. I also have not PUSHED a preference either. I mentioned what most SCHOLARS say, not what I say. No different than someone claiming that most scholars say that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced Yahweh. If I am guilty of pushing one dialect over another someone pushing one pronunciation over another should be just as guilty. Yet, I have also given the OTHER dialect posibilites and placed the word "IF" in many places since as with the pronunciation there are various opinions.

The fact that I have mentioned ALL of the dialects I know about proves this. I have shown that MOST scholars agree that there are certain dialects more ancient than others. The fact that there were more than one dialect also indicates that some translations are influenced by whatever dialect the translator knew. On the issue of Yeshua and his dialect of Hebrew, that is not known outside of the fact that He obvioiusly spoke various dialects of Aramaic (Galilee and Israel proper had different Aramaic dialects and since he was a Ribi he had to have known them) and knew the Hebrew of the time as well as ancient Hebrew. In terms of how he pronounced Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, once again there is only conjecture on this issue also, but that is an entirely different disucussion. You believe you possess the right one, good for you. As I mentioned before you and the people who give a completely different pronunciation all can't be correct at the same time. Someone is correct and someone is wrong simple as that. What ever Elohim will do with the wrong is His decision.

In order to further what I posted, I will restate the following.

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

According to Ethnologue, dialects of Hebrew include Standard Hebrew (General Israeli, Europeanized Hebrew), Oriental Hebrew (Arabized Hebrew, Yemenite Hebrew). In practice, there is also Ashkenazi Hebrew, still widely used in Ashkenazi Jewish services and studies in Israel and abroad. It was influenced by the Yiddish language.

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

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

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

Item #5: The Responsibility of a Jew vs. the Responsibility of a Non-Jew/Non-Geir
For a Jew,as I mentioned before, the Hebrew Torah commands us not to make false information about Elohim. In the Teimani Torah Tajj, Shemoth 20:6 it states, "Lo tiso' ath shem YHWH Alohakho lashow' ki lo yinaqqah YHWH ath ashar yiwo shmo lashow.'". Translated this means, You will not lift up/raise up/bear/ Name/Renown of YHWH your Elohim to falsehood/false or incorrect nederim. Because YHWH does not forgive whom will lift up/raise up/bear His Name to falsehood/false or incorrect nederim." You can take that and interpret that anyway you want it, but as a Jew I am prohibited from spreading false information about any aspect of Him. Because the Yemenite Torah Tajjim are clear that Shemoth 20:6 is clear, and the Aramaic Tarjum of Onkelos also indicates this (La teme bishma daYHWH lemagana are la yezake YHWH yath deyeme bishmeh leshiqra).

As I mentioned before this kind of consideration is something that for the most part is not imcumbant upon non-Jews or non-Geirim who don't live in a Jewish community. For a Jew, who lives by Torah, the pieces of the Emunah of Torah that has been lost will be restored by Elohim upon the return of Mashi'ahh. If you feel that you or others have those peices already, then more power to you and I pray you well. If you feel like attempts that the various movements that can be deemed Sacred Name, are okay in their assessments of their faith systems then once again I pray you well in this. The Masorah that you have and the Masorah that a Jew has are not the same, it is simply as that, and there is no command in the Torah that they have to be the same to begin with.

Item #6: The Direction of some of my statements
In your last response you asked why I made certain statements I made. The following should give you a refresh on why I have made some of the statements I made.


    quote:
    ANewman37 wrote:
    Your reference of HalleluYAH being Halleluyoh, to me seems like another attempt by Jews to HIDE the Name of the Creator, like they did with all of the Yah & Yahu beginnings of hebrew names. This is an acknowledged fact that the Jews did this. I honestly would be kind of suprised if you denied this FACT. But then again, you seem to be full of surprises, I've found in my time in here, so I won't be THAT surprised if you deny this, or have some sort of excuse/explanation to explain away this practice.

    Shimson Responded
    I pray you are well. You can believe what you desire on this. I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I provided sources for the information I presented so you can really take that information any way that you desire. Refute the sources, and prove to me that the Qametz Hatuf is pronounced EXACTLY the same as a Pathahh. That is what your claim seems to be.

    You don't have to trust any Jew on this, NO ONE is asking you to trust a Jew and there is no command for you to do things Jews do in terms of Minhagei Torah mentioned in Acts 21:18-24. Jews have VARIOUS opinions on this, and other things so there is no UNIVERSAL opinion as you seem to claim. Besides ANY PERSON who reads a Jewish Torah text with commentary can find that many of them list all the possibilities of the pronounciation. I know of SEVERAL Torah texts where the commentaries give ALL the possibilities, so nothing is being hidden in the Jewish community. Anyone who learns Hebrew can also find all of the possibilities. If anything I think you need to put blame on those who taught you as a child, instead of us. If you read a Christian bible as a kid that didn't teach you about these matters your blame should be on the people who produced the bible you read from.


quote:
Acheson2 wrote:
Of course, when you cite references that I do not have access to, I am left to trust your conclusions as "authoritative" over other scholars. This is not an accusation, this is simply the impression you give me when you make these sorts of remarks. If I had not first heard such a remark from the elder of a cult group that "Using Strong's is akin to using a first-grade primer to prove Eintein's theory of relativity," I might "just accept" your testimony without question, as I'm sure many have and will. My previous association with a cult group causes me to be skeptical of those who claim to have a "better understanding of Hebrew" than James Strong did. I hope you don't perceive this as a threat to your scholarship, yet I hope you understand that I will not be as easily persuaded as some are.

It is this statement here and others that I have been responding to when I make mention that you don't have to trust or follow any Jew on this matter, and you are free to do what you want on this. It is this statement that I have been responding to since this statement seems to be something of you thinking that I am trying to convince you of something. As I mentioned before the issue seems to be that someone asked me and Rivkah a question, and there are some who don't like the answer. As I mentioned in regard to this, Strong's is not a source for people using a Hebrew text, it says who the audiance is in the introduction that is a reality.

As I mentioned before IF the Sacred Name Movement has a hard time with people knowing who they worship then that is a Sacred Name problem. I have yet to meet anyone who knew I was a Jew and didn't know who I worship and that consists of. The tzitzith and the kofia (kippa) I wear are clear indicators. The fact that I read Hebrew Tanakh's and talk about the ratzon (will) of Elohim is also clear. The character that I am called to exibit and the lifestyle I am called to live are clear indicators of WHOM I serve (Avodah HaLev). If they want to know what His characteritics are, I tell them that. If they want to know of the various THEORIES of how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, I also discuss ALL of them with anyone who desires that information. Anyone who doesn't know who Elohim is can easily be shown by way of a Torah Tajj it is quite clear. Once again this is not a problem I have experienced in any country I have ever been in. Saying that a title like HaShem is ambigious is just like saying that Elohim, HaEl, and Eloah is ambigious. Shin - Mem is Hebrew just like Aleph - Lamed, and is not some foreign term.

The English Terms Lord and God
Now in terms of the English terms Lord and God, I think this once again goes back to one of my original points. Take away the English translations and the those two words go away. If memory serves the Sacred Name position on these two words is that they are of pagan origin. So if they are of pagan origin as the SN Movment and various scholars claim, then that is a reason alone why they are problematic. This is not the same for a word, which is derived from Hebrew like HaShem. Besides the Ancient Egyptians had a moon deity by the name of Yah, the Canaanites had a deity by the name of El or Il. There are even those who say that Yahweh was originally the name of a a Canaanite deity. Just as with anything else there are a lot of opinions on matters such as this and that is a matter of opinion to some.

In the settings I am in personally because most of the people I am around are Israeli the word Lord and God are not used because Elohim is only described in Hebrew terminology. In settings where people don't know the character of Elohim, I have no problem explaining what I know on the matter in terms that they can understand. I also, as I mentioned before, can tell them all of the theories that I know about in the areas of faith, including the ones on Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey.

The History of the LXX: Septuigent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
A. According to Tradition

The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. Here, in substance, is what we read of the origin of the version. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (287-47 BC) had recently established a valuable library at Alexandria. He was persuaded by Demetrius of Phalarus, chief librarian, to enrich it with a copy of the sacred books of the Jews. To win the good graces of this people, Ptolemy, by the advice of Aristeas, an officer of the royal guard, an Egyptian by birth and a pagan by religion, emancipated 100,000 slaves in different parts of his kingdom. He then sent delegates, among whom was Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, to provide him with a copy of the Law, and Jews capable of translating it into Greek. The embassy was successful: a richly ornamented copy of the Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe, were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos, where they began their work, translating the Law, helping one another and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them. At the end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, The translation was read in presence of the Jewish priests, princes, and people assembled at Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with the Hebrew original. The king was greatly pleased with the work and had it placed in the library.

Despite its legendary character, Aristeas' account gained credence; Aristobulus (170-50 B.C.), in a passage preserved by Eusebius, says that "through the efforts of Demetrius of Phalerus a complete translation of the Jewish legislation was executed in the days of Ptolemy"; Aristeas's story is repeated almost verbatim by Flavius Josephus (Ant. Jud., XII, ii) and substantially, with the omission of Aristeas' name , by Philo of Alexandria (De vita Moysis, II, vi). the letter and the story were accepted as genuine by many Fathers and ecclesiastical writers till the beginning of the sixteenth century; other details serving to emphasize the extraordinary origin of the version were added to Aristeas's account" The seventy-two interpreters were inspired by God (Tertullian, St. Augustine, the author of the "Cohortatio ad Graecos" [Justin?], and others); in translating they did not consult with one another, they had even been shut up in separate cells, either singly, or in pairs, and their translations when compared were found to agree entirely both as to the sense and the expressions employed with the original text and with each other (Cohortatio ad Graecos, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria). St. Jerome rejected the story of the cells as fabulous and untrue ("Praef. in Pentateuchum";"Adv. Rufinum", II, xxv). likewise the alleged inspiration of the Septuagint. Finally the seventy two interpreters translated, not only the five books of the Pentateuch, but the entire Hebrew Old Testament. The authenticity of the letter, called in question first by Louis Vivès (1492-1540), professor at Louvain (Ad S. August. Civ. Dei, XVIII, xlii), then by Jos. Scaliger (d. 1609), and especially by H. Hody (d. 1705) and Dupin (d. 1719) is now universally denied.

Criticisms

(1) The letter of Aristeas is certainly apocryphal. The writer, who calls himself Aristeas and says he is a Greek and a pagan, shows by his whole work that he is a pious, zealous Jew: he recognizes the God of the Jews as the one true God; he declares that God is the author of the Mosaic law; he is an enthusiastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.

(2) The account as given in the letter must be regarded as fabulous and legendary, at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the official intervention of the king and the high priest, the number of the seventy-two translators, the seventy-two questions they had to answer, the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary assertions; it is difficult, moreover, to admit that the Alexandrian Jews adopted for their public worship a translation of the Law, made at the request of a pagan king; lastly, the very language of the Septuagint Version betrays in places a rather imperfect knowledge both of Hebrew and of the topography of Palestine, and corresponds more closely with the vulgar idiom of Alexandria. Yet it is not certain that everything contained in the letter is legendary, and scholars ask if there is not a historic foundation underneath the legendary details. Indeed it is likely -- as appears from the peculiar character of the language, as well as from what we know of the origin and history of the version -- that the Pentateuch was translated at Alexandria. It seems true also that it dates from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and therefore from the middle of the third century B.C. For if, as is commonly believed, Aristeas's letter was written about 200 B.C., fifty years after the death of Philadelphus, and with a view to increase the authority of the Greek version of the Law, would it have been accepted so easily and spread broadcast, if it had been fictitious, and if the time of the composition did not correspond with the reality? Moreover, it is possible that Ptolemy had something to do with the preparation or publishing of the translation, though how and why cannot be determined now. Was it for the purpose of enriching his library as Pseudo-Aristeas states? This is possible, but is not proven, while, as will be shown below, we can very well account for the origin of the version independently of the king.

(3) The few details which during the course of ages have been added to Aristeas's account cannot be accepted; such are the story of the cells (St. Jerome explicitly rejects this); the inspiration of the translators, an opinion certainly based on the legend of the cells; the number of the translators, seventy-two (see below); the assertion that all the Hebrew books were translated at the same time. Aristeas speaks of the translation of the law (nomos), of the legislation (nomothesia), of the books of the legislator; now these expressions especially the last two, certainly mean the Pentateuch, exclusive of the other Old Testament books: and St. Jerome (Comment. in Mich.) says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to King Ptolemy." Besides, the versions of the various books of the Old Testament differ so much in vocabulary, style, form, and character, sometimes free and sometimes extremely literal, that they could not be the work of the same translators. Nevertheless, in spite of these divergencies the name of the Septuagint Version is universally given to the entire collection of the Old Testament books in the Greek Bible adopted by the Eastern Church.

B. Origin according to the commonly accepted view.

As to the Pentateuch the following view seems plausible, and is now commonly accepted in its broad lines: The Jews in the last two centuries B.C. were so numerous in Egypt, especially at Alexandria, that at a certain time they formed two-fifths of the entire population. Little by little most of them ceased to use and even forgot the Hebrew language in great part, and there was a danger of their forgetting the Law. Consequently it became customary to interpret in Greek the Law which was read in the synagogues, and it was quite natural that, after a time, some men zealous for the Law should have undertaken to compile a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch. This happened about the middle of the third century B.C. As to the other Hebrew books -- the prophetical and historical -- it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year. It is difficult also to say where the various translations were made, the data being so scanty. Judging by the Egyptian words and expressions occurring in the version, most of the books must have been translated in Egypt and most likely in Alexandria; Esther however was translated in Jerusalem (XI, i).

Who were the translators and how many? Is there any foundation for their number, seventy or seventy-two, as given in the legendary account (Brassac-Vigouroux, n. 105)? It seems impossible to decide definitely; the Talmudists tell us that the Pentateuch was translated by five interpreters (Sopherim, c.i.). History gives us no details; but an examination of the text shows that in general that the authors were not Palestinian Jews called to Egypt; and differences of terminology, method, etc. prove clearly that the translators were not the same for the different books. It is impossible also to say whether the work was carried out officially or was merely a private undertaking, as seems to have been the case with Ecclesiasticus; but the different books when translated were soon put together -- the author of Ecclesiasticus knew the collection -- and were received as official by the Greek-speaking Jews.

The Septuagint.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1035&letter=B

The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint" ("Interpretatio septuaginta virorum" or "seniorum"). It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria; not of classic Greek, nor even of the Hellenistic style affected by Alexandrian writers. If the account given by Aristeas be true, some traces of Palestinian influence should be found; but a study of the Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, is said by both Mahaffy and Deissmann to show a very close similarity between the language they represent and that of the Septuagint, not to mention the Egyptian words already recognized by both Hody and Eichhorn. These papyri have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden," 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life.

It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the "Peshi?ta."

Being a composite work, the translation varies in the different books. In the Pentateuch, naturally, it adheres most closely to the original; in Job it varies therefrom most widely. In some books (e.g., Daniel) the influence of the Jewish Midrash is more apparent than in others. Where it is literal it is "intolerable as a literary work" (Swete, ib. p. 22). The translation, which shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage, was evidently made from a codex which differed widely in places from the text crystallized by the Masorah. Its influence upon the Greek-speaking Jews must have been great. In course of time it came to be the canonical Greek Bible, as Luther's translation became the German, and the Authorized Version the English. It is the version used by the Jewish Hellenistic writers, Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artabanus, Aristeas, Ezekiel, and Aristobulus, as well as in the Book of Wisdom, the translation of Ben Sira, and the Jewish Sibyllines. Hornemann, Siegfried, and Ryle have shown that Philo bases his citations from the Bible on the Septuagint Version, though he has no scruple about modifying them or citing them with much freedom. Josephus follows this translation closely (Freudenthal, "Hellenistische Studien," ii. 171; Siegfried, in Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 32). It became part of the Bible of the Christian Church.

Manuscripts

The three most celebrated manuscripts of the Septuagint known are the Vatican, "Codex Vaticanus" (fourth century); the Alexandrian, "Codex Alexandrinus" (fifth century), now in the British Museum, London; and that of Sinai, "Codex Sinaiticus" (fourth century), found by Tischendorf in the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1844 and 1849, now part at Leipzig and in part in St. Petersburg; they are all written in uncials.

The "Codex Vaticanus" is the purest of the three; it generally gives the more ancient text, while the "Codex Alexandrinus" borrows much from the hexaplar text and is changed according to the Massoretic text (The "Codex Vaticanus" is referred to by the letter B; the "Codex Alexandrinua" by the letter A, and the "Codex Sinaiticus" by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet Aleph or by S). The Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris possesses also an important palimpsest manuscript of the Septuagint, the "Codex Ephraemirescriptus" (designated by the letter C), and two manuscripts of less value (64 and 114), in cursives, one belonging to the tenth or eleventh century and the other to the thirteenth (Bacuez and Vigouroux, 12th ed., n. 109).

Printed Editions

All the printed editions of the Septuagint are derived from the three recensions mentioned above.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/intro.html
In examining the version itself, it bears manifest proof that it was not executed by Jews of Palestine, but by those of Egypt: -- there are words and expressions which plainly denote its Alexandrian origin: this alone would be a sufficient demonstration that the narrative of Aristeas is a mere fiction. It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 B.C. there were Jews in Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs, and how differently they were situated from the Alexandrians as to the influx of Greek settlers.

Some in rejecting the fabulous embellishments have also discarded all connected with them: they have then sought to devise new hypotheses as to the origin of the version. Some have thus supposed that the translation was made by Alexandrian Jews for their own use, in order to meet a neccesity which they felt to have a version of the Scriptures in the tongue which had become vernacular to them.

There would be, however, many difficulties in the way of this hypothesis. We would hardly suppose that in a space of thirty-five years the Alexandrian Jews had found such a translation needful or desirable: we must also bear in mind that we find at this period no trace of any versions having been made by Jews into the languages of other countries in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria.
The most reasonable conclusion is, that the version was executed for the Egyptian king; and that the Hellenistic Jews afterwards used it as they became less and less familiar with the language of the original.

The variety of the translators is proved by the unequal character of the version: some books show that the translators were by no means competent to the task, while others, on the contrary, exhibit on the whole a careful translation. The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.

It would be, however, too much to say that they translated with dishonest intention; for it cannot be doubted that they wished to express their Scriptures truly in Greek, and that their deviations from accuracy may be simply attributed to the incompetency of some of the interpreters, and the tone of mental and spiritual feeling which was common to them all.

One difficulty which they had to overcome was that of introducing theological ideas, which till then had only their proper terms in Hebrew, into a language of Gentiles, which till then had terms for no religious notions except those of heathens. Hence the necessity of using many words and phrases in new and appropriated senses.

These remarks are not intended as depreciatory of the Septuagint version: their object is rather to show what difficulties the translators had to encounter, and why in some respects they failed; as well as to meet the thought which has occupied the minds of some, who would extol this version as though it possessed something resembling co-ordinate authority with the Hebrew text itself.

One of the earliest of those writers who mention the Greek translation of the Scriptures, speaks also of the version as not fully adequate. The Prologue of Yeshu the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather's work, states: ou) ga\r i)sodunamei~ au)ta\ e)n e(autoi~j 9E?brai"sti\ lego&mena, kai\ o#tan metaxqh~| ei)j e(te&ran glw~n bibli\wn ou) mo&non de\ tau~ta, a)lla\ kai\ au)to\j o( no&moj kai\ ai( profhtei~ai, kai\ ta\ loipa\ tw~n bibli\wn ou) mikra\n e!xei th\n diafora\n e)n e(autoi~j lego&mena : "For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them." The writer of this Prologue had come into Egypt from the Holy Land: he had undertaken the translation of his grandfather's work into Greek, but in explanation of the difficulty which he had to encounter in this work, he refers to the defects found even in the version of the Law, the prophets, and the other books, of which he had previously spoken. Doubtless coming into Egypt he was more conscious of the defects of the Septuagint version than could have been the case with Egyptian Jews, who had used the translation commonly and habitually for a century and a quarter.
Thus, whatever may be our estimate of the defects found in the Septuagint -- its inadequate renderings, its departures from the sense of the Hebrew, its doctrinal deficiencies owing to the limited apprehensions of the translators -- there is no reason whatever for our neglecting the version, or not being fully alive to its real value and importance.

So with all of this being said. You believe that you possibly know the pronunciation, good. If you believe that everyone should be speaking the same language on the matter then ask Elohim to make it so. We Jews pray for this three times a day in the Aleinu. I will have more later. Be well.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

[This message has been edited by Shimson bar-Tzadoq (edited 03-21-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Posts: 827
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 03-22-2005 08:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shimson bar-Tzadoq     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Acheson wrote:
I reply: With all due respect, I know this isn't true simply because of the differences taught and practiced by the Jewish sect known as Karaites. As I understand the history of things, mainstream Judaism decreed that all Jews should eat hot meals on the Sabbath so as to show the Karaites how much they "need" the Oral Law, since the Written Law does not sanction heating food on Shabbat. The Karaites do not eat warm food on the Sabbath, whereas mainstream Judaism does. Thus, while you may not experience any internal debates over the proper way of observing the Sabbath, this has not always been the case within Judaism, and it is still a point of contention between various sects, so it is not "only a western thing."

Here is a URL that you can access if you wish more information about this ancient schism:
Within any denomination, there is usually no discord with regard to the various applications of Scripture. For example, we have attended Seventh-Day Adventist groups in many different cities, and they all have no problem with warming up food on the Sabbath. They also drive to their place of worship on the Sabbath.
We know another group of believers known as Soldados de la Cruz that does not warm up their food on the Sabbath, nor do they drive that day. That's just the way things normally are within established groups, or at least that has been my experience. Some groups attract "free spirits," where different aspects of the various applications of Torah are frequently discussed and even debated. Some groups allow it; others do not. Since many folks are actually looking for men to lead them, they pretty much do whatever the leadership does or teaches without asking too many questions. I have found that questioning a group's teachings can have some very negative ramifications. Many leaders do not appreciate it when their flock asks too many questions or is critical of them in any way. This method of control is their way of "maintaining unity," but it also protects traditions that may have no foundation in Scripture.


Lets go back to my statement, and highlight the important part.
I know in the non-Jewish world, that keeps the Sabbath there are debates about "how" to keep the Sabbath. That doesn't exist in my community as a Jew. we are Shomer Shabboth like our ancestors were. That whole "what is okay and what is not okay" to do on the Sabbath thing is only a western thing for people who are pretty much new to it.

The process of being Shomer Shabboth, and the process of Takkanah (devopment) and Posek Din (religious decisions) both exist today in the Masorah I mentioned before. This is the process Jewish ancestors had for determing matters for the greater communities before the dispersion, and afterwards the major differences in MY COMMUNITY are in what is called Minhag (cultural) issues. Any Masorah based Beith Kenesseth I go to there are some things that pretty much the norm, the ones I listed in the previouis thread that originally spoke on these issues. The debates that take place within my community deal with getting the heart of understanding the halakhah as it stands and the differences in Minhag. Not what is allowed and what is not allowed. That was the point that I was making earlier. This is not a deminational issue it is a cultural one. Ashkenzi Jews and Sephardi Jews are not a part of a domination, they simply have a cultural mediem, which dictactes how they interact with each other even though they have a few differences in traditions. The major items though are the same, and the spirit under which these things are handled may differ.
One of the basic tenants of the community I come from is that we can question and argue with the Rabbis, especially since the Rabbis are not our leaders. They are only resources and teachers. The only communities I know of that treat Rabbis as if they can't be questioned are ones that give them that power. Yet, because Jews argue by nature, I have yet to meet a Rabbi who was above being questioned and debated with.

In terms of eating hot meals on the Shabboth. First off not all in mainstream Judaism eat three hot meals on the Shabbat. There are a number of traditional synagogoues that eat a cold Seudah Shlishi (third meal). Before the Tzedukim (not the Karaites, there were no Kariates at that time ca. 250 BCE - 70 CE) there were many Jews who ate hot meals on Shabboth in some cases up to four meals. The Parushim only encouraged the people to have hot food on Shabbat due to dispute with the Parushim, i.e. they only encouraged what was already being done since there was already a custom of starting a fire in a stone furnace before shabboth and putting food on top of it to keep it warm. The eating of three hot meals is only a Minhag (custom) not a halakhah in all communities.

The Gemara records the following in regards to why three or four full meals are eaten.

R. Abba said: On the Sabbath it is one's duty to break bread over two loaves, for it is written, (On the sixth day, when they apportion what they have brought in, it shall prove to be) twice as much bread. (Exodus 16:5)

R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana held two [loaves] but broke bread over one, observing, "(On the sixth day) ‘they gathered' (double the amount of bread)" is written, (Exodus 16:22)(and not "they ate")."

R. Zera broke enough bread for the whole meal.

Said Rabina to R. Ashi: But that looks like greed?

Since he does not do this every day but only now [the Sabbath], it does not look like greed, he replied.

....(The text now discusses the previous Mishnah, which focused on what may be saved from a burning house on Shabbat. The Mishnah states:: FOOD FOR THREE MEALS MAY BE SAVED..., HOW SO(On what basis does the maker of this statement maintain that three meals are needed for Shabbat, since it's assumed that only food for that Shabbat itself may be saved. Wouldn't the amount of food to be saved depend on WHEN the fire broke out...)? IF A FIRE BREAKS OUT SABBATH NIGHT, FOOD FOR THREE MEALS MAY BE SAVED; [IF] IN THE MORNING, FOOD FOR TWO MEALS MAY BE SAVED; AT [THE TIME OF] MINCHAH (in the afternoon), FOOD FOR ONE MEAL. R. JOSE SAID: AT ALL TIMES WE MAY SAVE FOOD FOR THREE MEALS.

R. Jose seems to disagree with the beginning premise that we may only save enough food for the Shabbat meals; this, at first, seems radical...

(The Gemara, commenting on the Mishnah statement HOW SO? IF A FIRE BREAKS OUT, etc.notes): Our Rabbis taught: How many meals must one eat on the Sabbath?

Three.

R. Hisda said: Four.

R. Yochanan observed, Both ("Our Rabbis" and R. Hisda) expound the same verse (Exodus 16:25): And Moses said, Eat it (the Shabbat manna) to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath to the Lord: today you will not find it in the field.

(The Torah text uses the word "today" three times; Each use of the word "today" implies a meal. Therefore, "the Rabbis" conclude that we should eat three meals on the Sabbath. This is a classic use of Torah text to establish a Rabbinic rule...)

R. Hisda holds: These three ‘to- days' are [reckoned] apart from the evening (meal, thus making four meals) whereas the Rabbis hold, They include [that of] the evening.

(Having established an assumption that Jews should eat either three or four meals on Shabbat, the Talmud gets back to the point of the Mishnah.)

We learned, IF A FIRE BREAKS OUT SABBATH NIGHT, FOOD FOR THREE MEALS MAY BE SAVED: surely that is where one has not [yet] eaten?

No: it is where he has [already eaten].

[IF] IN THE MORNING, FOOD FOR TWO MEALS MAY BE SAVED: surely that is where one has not yet eaten?

No: [where] he has eaten.

AT [THE TIME OF] MINCHAH, FOOD FOR ONE MEAL: surely that is where one has not eaten?

No: [where] he has eaten.

Each of these answers assumes that R. Hisda is correct in pushing for four meals. The Talmud now notes that no one in the Mishnah, neither "The Rabbis" represented by the anonymous stater of the Mishnah (called a Tanna....), nor R. Jose agrees that there should be four meals.)

But since the final section (of the Mishnah) states, "R. JOSE SAID: AT ALL TIMES WE MAY SAVE FOOD FOR THREE MEALS," it follows that the first Tanna holds [that] three [are required]. Hence it is clear that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Hisda....

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Shabbat/TO_Shabbat_at_Home.htm
At a time when most of humanity only ate two full meals a day, Jewish tradition called for a sumptuous three meals on Shabbat (between sundown on Friday and just after sundown on Saturday) to ensure that one could relax and celebrate with a full stomach. Even if a person had to live in penury the entire week, Shabbat was a day for which they would purchase wine, challot (braided bread loaves), and food for a fitting set of meals. Even if they wore rags during the week, Shabbat was a day for wearing one's finest clothing. Even if they could not rest a minute because of the need to pursue a livelihood, Shabbat was a day of complete rest and rejuvenation.

"Judaism, and Shabboth in particular, are processes of continual spiritual growth. The Shabbat table is the ideal place for this important process."

So as I made clear before in the other thread where the differences between the Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative movement don't exist in my community because we are rooted in the the Minhag and Halakhah based on the Te'udah or Masorah our ancestors left us. This includes a method with, which to live on Shabboth so that we have a method to (observe) the Shabboth. The debates are about learning the details, the details are already there for us. All a Jew has to do is pick up the Masorah and go from there. As I mentioned before I learn from all the ancient Benei Yisrael Masorah i.e. that of the Parushim, Rabbonan, Teimanim Morim, Ethiopian Jewish Kessim, Karaites, Samaritans, etc. All of these make up the Masorah I study and learn by.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

chuckbaldwin

Posts: 2753
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 03-23-2005 11:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chuckbaldwin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Greetings Shimson,

I am responding to just a few items in one of your posts:

quote:
There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST ATTEMPT to pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion.
There are several instances of this command; i will give one example - Psalm 113:1-3
1 Praise ye YHWH. Praise, O ye servants of YHWH, praise the name of YHWH.
2 Blessed be the name of YHWH from this time forth and for evermore.
3 From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same YHWH's name is to be praised.
Notice, there are two commands given: first, simply to praise YHWH; secondly to praise/bless YHWH's Name. I don't think the Scriptures waste words; when it says to praise His Name, it means it, and it's impossible to praise His Name without saying it.

Based on what you wrote above, please show us the Scripture that says it's only OK to pronounce the Almighty's Name if you have "100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation"? I understand that you consider any variation in pronunciation to be "giving false information", but i must disagree, as i've shown before. Consider the fact that in one instance, Ephraimites were identified by the way they pronounced "Sibboleth/Shibboleth". I wonder if every tribe prounced Y_H_W_H the same as every other. I doubt it, and it also doubt that YHWH made a big issue about it. If He did, He failed to mention it anywhere in Scripture.

quote:
For me and many Jews it has nothing to do with His Name being "too holy say"...
I guess the "many Jews" you speak of are not the same as the "most Jews" that i've always heard believed in that superstition. I have heard a number of Jews confirm to that belief, but i've never heard any deny it (except you and the "many" you mentioned).
quote:
The issue here goes into what I mentioned about not bearing false witness about the Name of Eluwwim, and even Jews who are not overly Torah observant are most often not willing to bear false witness of the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey if they don't have 100% evidence of what it is.
If they (i'm speaking of most Jews) are so concerned about "bearing false witness", then i wonder why so many recite Deut.6:4 as Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad, with "Adonai" being substituted for "YHWH"?

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

leejosepho

Posts: 2969
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 03-23-2005 12:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leejosepho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
I don't think the Scriptures waste words; when it says to praise His Name, it means it, and it's impossible to praise His Name without saying it.

Not so, Chuck! Listen up:

I praise the name of The One who created us!

See ... uh, I mean, "hear" that?!

quote:
Based on what you wrote above, [Shimson,] please show us the Scripture that says it's only OK to pronounce the Almighty's Name if you have "100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation"?

Come on, Chuck! Shimson has never said that.

quote:
I understand that you [Shimson] consider any variation in pronunciation to be "giving false information" ...

Again: Oh, come on. Our fellow Shimson has never said any such thing.

quote:
Shimson: For me and many Jews it has nothing to do with His Name being "too holy say"...

Chuck: I guess the "many Jews" you speak of are not the same as the "most Jews" that i've always heard believed in that superstition.


Come on, Chuck. The issue here is vanity, and neither superstition nor "too holy".

quote:
If they (i'm speaking of most Jews) are so concerned about "bearing false witness", then i wonder why so many recite Deut.6:4 as Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad, with "Adonai" being substituted for "YHWH"?

Shimson: I do not know how to respond to that one!

Blessings to you, fellow Chuck!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Posts: 827
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 03-23-2005 02:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shimson bar-Tzadoq     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
I don't think the Scriptures waste words; when it says to praise His Name, it means it, and it's impossible to praise His Name without [b]saying it.

Greetings Chuck,

That is your understanding then. The word Shin-Mem means more than just a pronuciation. Besides as I mentioned before I don't agree with you on this. I believe it is possible to praise His Shem i.e. name/fame/renown without a full knowledge of what His Name is and without using theoritical pronunciations. The fact that there is more than one theory about the exact pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, and the fact that even the one that many scholars "beleive" to be the one they don't claim 100% knowledge of means that every is calling on what they "believe" to be His Name and some are wrong some are right. Those who have incorrect pronunciation are in the same boat if they are wrong because wrong information is wrong information simple and plain. Several people on this forum have claimed that if people use an incorrect pronunciation of His Name as long as those people are trying they are okay. It can't be both. If saying Jehovah is not good because it is not proper pronunciation than anything else, which is incorrect i.e. not exact in terms of sound should fall into the same category. As I mentioned before the issue has nothing to do with avoidance, it is for a Jew a matter of not raising up a incorrect pronunciation and claiming that it is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is supposed to be pronounced. During the time of the events of the Tanakh the Name of Elohim was known 100%, "YHWH ehhad ushmo ehhad!" YHWH is one and His Name/fame/renonwn is one. All Jews pray for a return to that same state, without the influence of the yetzer hara (evil inclanation) or course. It is our belief as Jews that Elohim Himself will establish such by way of Mashi'ahh ben-Dawith.

quote:
{B]Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:[/B]
Based on what you wrote above, please show us the Scripture that says it's only OK to pronounce the Almighty's Name if you have "100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation"? I understand that you consider any variation in pronunciation to be "giving false information", but i must disagree, as i've shown before.

As Lee pointed out I never made any such statements. I never said that there was a the Scripture that says it's only OK to pronounce the Almighty's Name if you have "100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation"? I said that Shemoth 20:6 from the Hebrew Tajjim Torah texts forbid a Jew from lifting up false information about The Name of Elohim. Incorrect and potentially incorrect information is the issue I have been speaking on Chuck.

If I really fell into the frame work you are talking about then I would never tell anyone the various theories of how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is believed to have "possibly" been pronounced. I would also never talk about the pros and cons of each pronuciation, which I have always been more than open to do. I refuse to lift up one thing over another especially when there are several possibilities and all of the possibilities have flaws. 100% knowledge in this area would change everything, and that at this point in history will only come from the initiation of the Malkhuth HaShamayim being interconnected with our reality by way of Mashi'ahh.

I also never said that any variation of in pronunciation was a matter of "giving false information." I said that incorrect information is false information. If the Creator of the Universe said His Name said His Name was for example Yihweh, as the Karaites say it (was) is, Yod (Hhireq)-Hey-Waw (Seghol)-Hey, then everything else is incorrect. As I pointed out the various theories are different in their pronuciation (In Hebrew) to the point where they are not the same pronunciation. So if the Name of Elohim is Yahuwah for example that means that the Karaites are incorrect and have been spreading incorrect information since they say that it is Yihweh.

3 syllable and 2 syllabe words are not the same, at least in Hebrew that is a fact. Yihweh and Yahweh are not the same, Yahuwah and Yehowah are not the same, etc. Incorrect information is no different than false information. A false answer whatever the reason is an incorrect one. In terms of how Elohim deals with that with humanity is up to Him, I have no say in that nor should I. Yet, what He does say for the Jew is as I posted before.

You believe that The Name of Elohim should be proclaimed, so do we Jews. We pray three times a day for Elohim to FULLY reveal Himself to the world. If you believe that The EXACT pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey should be on the lips of every human being then pray that Elohim will make such information known with 100% accuracy, that is the standard of a prophet and is the standard that would convince every to walk one path or another. As I mentioned before Torah Jews pray for that three times every single day. I would also note that I personally believe that Yeshua's sample prayer he gave to his Talmidim as recrorded in Matithyahu 6:9 "Avinu shebashamayim yithqadash shemkha tavo Malkhuthekha ye'aseh retzonkha ba'aretz ka'asher na'asah vashamayim ten lanu hayom lekhem hhuqenu ....." seems sufficient for a person to he heard by Elohim.

quote:
{B]Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:[/B]
Consider the fact that in one instance, Ephraimites were identified by the way they pronounced "Sibboleth/Shibboleth". I wonder if every tribe prounced Y_H_W_H the same as every other. I doubt it, and it also doubt that YHWH made a big issue about it. If He did, He failed to mention it anywhere in Scripture.

As I mentioned before I don't buy into the idea that every tribe had its own pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. If they did then the Sacred Name proofs for one pronunciation over another shouldn't matter, and the history used to prove one over another would be irrelavent. So for example one tribe said Yehovah, anther Yahweh, another Yihweh, yet another said Yahuweh, and another said Yahuwah, etc. If that were the case it must have been extremely confusing when the Temple was built. This sounds almost like the Zohar where it says that there was a 42 letter Name of Elohim, or Islam that says that there are 99 Names of allah. As I mentioned before the job of the Nevi'im (Prophets), the Kohanim and the Lewi (Levites) was to keep Benei Yisrael ground in proper Torah and Te'udah as mentioned in Yeshayahu 8:20. When this ceased to happen things changed. I personally don't believe that each tribe had their own pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey because Jewish history on the matter says that each tribe was always blessed with prophets. Each tribe housed Lewi'im (Levites) cities where learning of the Nature and Characteristics of Elohim could be acquired.

Any time there was a time of national disunity Elohim always raised up someone to turn the tide. A prophet was in a position to know the exact Name of Elohim because he/she was in direct contact with Elohim. That situation is completely different now, and the fact that there are numerous theories and pros and cons on each one is proof of this.

That is why I personally beleive that Mashi'ahh will return and put ALL things in the proper place and proper perspective. I am personally patient enough to wait.

quote:
{B]Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:[/B]
I guess the "many Jews" you speak of are not the same as the "most Jews" that i've always heard believed in that superstition. I have heard a number of Jews confirm to that belief, but i've never heard any deny it (except you and the "many" you mentioned).

As I mentioned before the Talmud and various other Jewish sources talks about the many ROOT reasons why The Name of Elohim became uncertain and less commonly pronounced even in the Temple grounds. This of course started due to the social and moral conditions The result of which are the number of reasons Jews do what we do in this regard. In terms of the many and most number of Jews that you interact with. How many of the Jews you interact with are from the following backgrounds Israel, Yemenite, Ethiopian, Iraqi, Syrian, Indian, Morocco, Nigeria, Portugal, Spain, or Heriedi. Lets deal with that and then we can determine if Jews that you know reference a broad spectrum of Jewish society.

If the issue were simply that the Name of Elohim were to holy to say, then Jews would also not say it when the Olam Haba (World to Come) takes place. I.e. when Mashi'ahh restores all aspects of faith in Elohim.

As an experiment in this matter, as any Jew if in the Olam Haba when Mashi'ahh is present and when the Temple is rebuilt and the presence of Elohim dwells clearly as He on Har Sinai and when Solomon built the Temple if they would have reservations of saying The Name of Elohim (nederim, and halliloth), once the knowledge of it is restored 100% to everyone. If it were a matter of it being to holy to say then the response would no that they would not EVER pronounce His Name no matter what the circumstances are. His Name is to Qadosh for a Jew to lift up with false information concerning it. Of course there are Jews throughout history who have and paid the price.

quote:
{B]Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:[/B]
If they (i'm speaking of most Jews) are so concerned about "bearing false witness", then i wonder why so many recite Deut.6:4 as Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad, with "Adonai" being substituted for "YHWH"?

Two reasons that some Jews say Adonai where they see Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey.

1) for the reasons I mentioned earlier that ones who do this don't believe that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced as Aleph-Daleth-Nun-Yod, but because of the problems I listed earlier in terms of the true pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey they say Adonai. These people say that they will wait for Messiah to restore EVERYTHING about not only the pronunciation, but also the entire character of Elohim. The people who fall in this group, that I have met never make the claim that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced Adonai nor do they spread Adonai as the exact or even theoritical pronunciation.

2) Another group uses Adonai simply because the vowels placed in the Masoretic text have supplied the vowels for either Elohim or Adonai. So thee people say Adonai in the situations where the vowels for Adonai show up and Elohim. These people say that they will wait for Messiah to restore EVERYTHING about not only the pronunciation, but also the entire character of Elohim. The people who fall in this group, that I have met never make the claim that Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced Adonai nor do they spread Adonai as the exact or even theoritical pronunciation.

The people who fit into both 1) and 2) don't go around saying that Adonai is how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced. They are in a situation where the lack of knowledge caused a choice, a choice that each one of them prays that Elohim would correct through Mashi'ahh. That is why the majority of Torah commentaries talk about the various theories in how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey may have been pronounced.

Now there are several other groups of Jews who have a different method.

1) The Karaites say that the Name of Elohim is Yihweh and they pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey when they see it in the Miqra and they seem to imply that they are correct since the Masorites were Karaites.

2) The Samaritans pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey in a way I believe similar to Yabe when they see it in the Miqra.

3) There are also some Jews who simply say Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, and others who say Yah or Yoh when they see The Name of Elohim.


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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

[This message has been edited by Shimson bar-Tzadoq (edited 03-23-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ChrisDixon

Posts: 399
Registered: Dec 2004

posted 03-23-2005 05:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ChrisDixon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Shalom Shimson,

I can see your point on not saying Yahweh's name because you believe that in doing so you would break the commandment of Shemoth 20:6 forbiding the Jew?(is the rest of Israel exempt from this) from giving false information about the name of our Father. But I'm sure the last time I read the book of Deuteronomy Moses states in his address to the children of Israel that the reason Yahweh brought them out of Egypt was so His name would be made known among the nations. His name is important and the problem is when we use titles and not His name we bring Him down to the level of all the gods of this world who use the same titles(god, adonai).

Does not Adonai mean Lord, does not Baal also, when we call Him lord are not we calling Him Baal but in a different language the meanings are still the same.

You mentioned Jehovah in one of your posts the problem is that it is a totaly different word to Yahweh with a totaly different meaning.

I agree that we need to know the true pronounciation of our Fathers name but I don't think that by stopping saying it is the answer either does that not just break the commandment of bringing His name to nothing. Yahweh will soon make His name's pronounciation known to us especially if He deems it important enough.

Our Father is Holy, His name also but when we use titles like god and lord He becomes no different to Allah(god), Buddah and Baal etc.

It annoys me when I'm in church and people are quoting verses from the scriptures about our Fathers name about glorifying His name and lifting His name on high and they use titles like god and lord as substitutes for His name, it certainly does not make His name holy. Thats why I wam't to glorify His precious and Holy name because nobody really knows it and it is about time they did and if Yahweh think the pronounciation is important He will make sure we will know that as well.
Because it is about time that the name of our Father is made sepperate from all the lies and false doctorines of this world and the truth of His name made known.

Yahweh bless you
Chris

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

leejosepho

Posts: 2969
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 03-23-2005 07:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leejosepho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
... Moses states in his address to the children of Israel that the reason Yahweh brought them out of Egypt was so His name would be made known among the nations.

Greetings, Chris.

Yes, that is so, but what was/is to be made known is far more than how to speak a given word. Languages and vocalizations aside, it was/is His very name-character to be made known among the nations.

Blessings ...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Posts: 827
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 03-24-2005 08:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shimson bar-Tzadoq     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
Shalom Shimson,

I can see your point on not saying Yahweh's name because you believe that in doing so you would break the commandment of Shemoth 20:6 forbiding the Jew?(is the rest of Israel exempt from this) from giving false information about the name of our Father. But I'm sure the last time I read the book of Deuteronomy Moses states in his address to the children of Israel that the reason Yahweh brought them out of Egypt was so His name would be made known among the nations. His name is important and the problem is when we use titles and not His name we bring Him down to the level of all the gods of this world who use the same titles(god, adonai).


Greetings Chris,

I pray you are well.

In terms of time of Mosheh there are two issues here.
1) Elohim was calling Benei Yisrael out of Egypt to denote His character to the world. To be a Goy Gadol and Goy Kohanim that is a great nation and a nation of Priests. The terminology in Hebrew of Shin-Mem denotes more than a pronunciaiton, but a character or renown. The pagans of that era knew full well the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey, but what they didn't know was His character.

2) During the time of Mosheh the exact pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was known for several reasons. a) There were Kohanim still performing Temple service where the Name of Elohim was in interaction with Israel because the Shekhinah of Elohim was more openly apparent. b) there were Nevi'im (prophets) who made nevuah and nederim in the Name of Elohim, c) there were not a long list of theories about the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey at that time.

As I mentioned before the actual reasons that Jews don't try to pronounce Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is because in this day and time all there are are theories. Not the type of 100% knowledge of the mater like there was in Mosheh's day. In terms of whether the rest of Israel is exempt from Shemoth 20:6 Benei Yisrael who possess the Torah and Te'udah or Masorah as mentioned in Yeshayahu 8:20 are not exempt. Most Jews and Benei Yisrael who live by the Torah and Te'udah and by the Minhagei Torah mentioned in Acts 21:18-19 hold fast to what I mentioned for the reasons I mentioned.

quote:
ChrisDixon wrote:
Does not Adonai mean Lord, does not Baal also, when we call Him lord are not we calling Him Baal but in a different language the meanings are still the same.

The words Adon and Ba'al are Hebrew terms used throughout the Hebrew Tanakh. They are words, Aleph-Daleth-Nun (also the roots Daleth-Yod-Nun and Daleth-Waw-Nun) and Beith-Ayin-Lamed, that existing in almost all of the ancient semetic languages long before the English word "lord" ever came on the scene. The words Adon and Ba'al predate the pagansim that started up using them as names. If ba'al as a word is incorrect then King David was incorrect for named one of his sons Be'elyada (1 Chron. 14:7) also if that was the case the person in 1 Chron. 12:5 to be named Ba'alyah (YHWH is my master/possesser/etc.). King David also had a son named Adoniyahu (YHWH is my master/ruler/judge) 1st Kings 1:8 and 2nd Chron. 1:8.

Besides the same pagans called one of their deities Yahweh, proof of this can be seen in the Canaanite artifacts which are on display in the Israeli musuem. Aleph-Daleth-Nun carries several meanings depending on the context. Aleph-Daleth-Nun (also the roots Daleth-Yod-Nun and Daleth-Waw-Nun) can mean a master in terms of rulership, foundation, piller, sustaining, etc. and denotes rulership or governing. The title Adonai (Alelph-Daleth-Nun-Yod) shows up in Torah in several places such as Bereshith 15:2, Bereshith 18:3, Bereshith, 42:33, Bereshith 11:27, and Bereshith 20:3 to name a few. Ba'al (Beith-Ayin-Lamed) meaning mastering or taking possesion shows up in the Tanakh in several places. Hebrew predates the use of "lord" to translate the words Aleph-Daleth-Nun and Beith-Ayin-Lamed, so there is no connection in the way you mention. (Analytical Hebrew and Chaldean Lexicon and

Both Adon and Ba'al denote "mastership or ownership" over something or someone, but in different ways as I showed above. They don't mean the exact same thing since the Tanakh uses them in two different ways. Ba'al is often used in Hebrew and Aramaic to denote the relationship between a husband to his wife or master to a servant in the sense of someone who takes possesion of something. A husband is a ba'al to his wife, in ancient society terms. The choice of "certain" translators to use the word "lord" to try and translate the terms does not speak to what they denote in Hebrew. If I were to translate Adon and Ba'al into Aramaic or Arabic there would be no conflict in what they mean, because it is quite clear in Semitic languages the difference between the two. Besides Adon and Ba'al are not names in Hebrew, and are never applied to Elohim as if they are how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is pronounced.

If your claim is that the words Aleph-Daleth-Nun and Beith-Ayin-Lamed were not originally a part of the Hebrew language (please clarify this for me, becaue I have heard some people make this claim and I would not want to come to a false conclusion of your point) you would be hard pressed to accept the Hebrew Tanakh as valid since they exist in the text. That means that the Hebrew language would be devoad of the ability to say "The Master of All" i.e. "Adon ha-Kol" or even Tehillim 110:1 (Psalms) would not be a complete statement since Aleph-Daleth-Nun shows up in the Hebrew text.

(Analytical Hebrew and Chaldean Lexicon and Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew)

quote:
ChrisDixon wrote:
You mentioned Jehovah in one of your posts the problem is that it is a totaly different word to Yahweh with a totaly different meaning.

I agree that we need to know the true pronounciation of our Fathers name but I don't think that by stopping saying it is the answer either does that not just break the commandment of bringing His name to nothing. Yahweh will soon make His name's pronounciation known to us especially if He deems it important enough.


I think you point here is a few thousand years misplaced. No one in this generation has chosen to stop saying The Name of Elohim. The circumstances I mentioned earlier, which started after the Kohein Shimon Ha-Tzadiq died caused the knowledge of the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey to not be known for certain. Once again as I mentioned before Jewish text have preserved all the possible pronunciations of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey along with the pros and cons of each one. NUMEROUS Jewish commentaries discuss this kind of information. I agree with you that issues like the pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey will be made known by Elohim in His time by way of the Mashi'ahh. I mentioned that in previous posts. My personal view is that He is made up of more than just the pronunciation of His Name as the word Shin-Mem denotes.

quote:
ChrisDixon wrote:
Our Father is Holy, His name also but when we use titles like god and lord He becomes no different to Allah(god), Buddah and Baal etc.

I don't agree with you on this. If that were the case He never would have used titles like Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, Elohim, El Shaddai, Eloah, and El Elyon to describe Himself in the Hebrew text. He also never would have allowed the prophet Daniel to call Him Elah, which is Aramaic. Also, the Peshitta/Peshitto Aramaic New Testaments record the words of Yeshua close to the Aramaic he spoke he had no problem calling Elohim by the Aramaic title Alaha'. (Not to be confused with the Arabic Allah [Alif-Lam-Lam-Ha], which the Arabic language derived from Aramaic).

Besides allah is the Arabic way of saying the Aramaic Elah, the word allah in this usage predates Islam by several hundred years. Also, as a side note, if memory serves Muslims don't consider Allah a Name. They say that there are 99 Names of Allah, which describe his character and some Muslisms use Yahuwah and Yahweh as the Name of Allah. They claim that Yahweh is a short form of Yahuwah. All of this is mentioned in several places in the Quran.

According to eyptomology the Canaanites before Israel arrived worshiped a pagan deity they called Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey. The Egyptians had a minor moon deity by the name of Yah. The Encyclopedia of the Gods by Michael Jordon (not to be confused with the basketball player) states the following.


    page 291, Yah - Moon god. Egytian. Yah may have been an import to Egypt brought by Semetic immagrants who based his profile on the Mesopotamian god Sin. He is mentioned largely from the 20th cent. BCE onward and is depicted in human form, be can also be represented by the falcon and the ibis.

    Of course because Hebrew and Kemetic (Egyptian) were derived from the same Semetic roots there are similarities in the languages. The same is true for Hebrew and Phonecian, Sumarian, Akkadian, etc.

    The Canaanites also worshped a deity by the name of El and Il, of which in the Hebrew Tanakh Elohim calls Himself El Elyon. Once again the issue here is that the exact pronunciation of Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey is disputed and the pagan connection can be found ot almost anything if one looks hard enough. Then again just because the pagans adopted something doesn't mean they originated it. In terms of Buddah, if memory serves Buddhist don't consider the word Buddah equal to "god." If I remember correctly they consider Buddhah a holy man of elightenment, and they don't really have the concept of god=Buddhah.

    Also, the word Father is a title, if titles were incorrect your use of "Our Father" would have to fall under the same scrutiny.

    quote:
    ChrisDixon wrote:
    It annoys me when I'm in church and people are quoting verses from the scriptures about our Fathers name about glorifying His name and lifting His name on high and they use titles like god and lord as substitutes for His name, it certainly does not make His name holy.

    If what your church does annoys you in this, then maybe you should discuss it with the leadership of your church. The other thing is maybe the church you go to is not the place for you if they are not teaching you things like history, Hebrew, and archeology. I am a Jew so the situation you described is not something that I can relate to, I have access to all the information I need to make informed decisions through Tefilah (prayer), Da'ath (Knowledge, and Ya'utz (counsel). I can walk into almost any Synagogoue where I live or when I go to Israel and find any one of the theories about the Character of Elohim and also The Name of Elohim. The information on every theory is out there, and Christian publishers publish a lot of it, so it is not a state secret unless someone is not learning the history and the languages.

    quote:
    ChrisDixon wrote:
    Thats why I want to glorify His precious and Holy name because nobody really knows it and it is about time they did and if Yahweh think the pronounciation is important He will make sure we will know that as well. Because it is about time that the name of our Father is made sepperate from all the lies and false doctorines of this world and the truth of His name made known.

    I agree with your first statement to some degree. I believe that Elohim will reveal the 100% knowledge of His Name in all due time. In terms of you wanting to glorify Elohim there is nothing wrong with that and I haven't tried to dissuade anyone on this forum from doing what they are doing. Yet, as I mentioned before I beleive that this invovles more than just a pronunciation. If His only point of existance or interaction with humanity is a pronunciation then that is not much to look forward to. Yet, as a Jew we believe with full faith that YHWH ehhad usho ehhad. If Christianity doesn't have a focus on such things, then that is something that Christianity needs to come to terms with. All Torah observant Jews believe that in the Olam Haba Mashi'ahh will assist the world in clearing ALL hidden matters of Elohim, including and not limited to His Name. We pray for this every day.

    Lehitra'oth,

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

    Shimson bar-Tzadoq

    [This message has been edited by Shimson bar-Tzadoq (edited 03-24-2005).]

    Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Posts: 827
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 03-24-2005 12:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shimson bar-Tzadoq     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:

Greetings Shimson,

I am responding to just a few items in one of your posts:


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

There are several instances of this command; i will give one example - Psalm 113:1-3
1 Praise ye YHWH. Praise, O ye servants of YHWH, praise the name of YHWH.
2 Blessed be the name of YHWH from this time forth and for evermore.
3 From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same YHWH's name is to be praised.
Notice, there are two commands given: first, simply to praise YHWH; secondly to praise/bless YHWH's Name. I don't think the Scriptures waste words; when it says to praise His Name, it means it, and it's impossible to praise His Name without saying it.


Greetings Chuck,

What you quoted from Tehillim 113:1-3 does not make the statement that I mentioned before. That there is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST ATTEMPT to pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion. The writers of the Tehillim had 100% knowledge of the exact pronunciation of Elohim's Name and what you quoted in Hebrew makes no mention of someone MUST PRONOUNCE Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey when there is not 100% knowledge of its pronunciation. Nothing you quoted makes such a statement, or anything close to it. Besides Shin-Mem in Hebrew means more than just a pronunciation of letters, as I have mentioned before. In Jewish thought, a name is not merely an arbitrary designation, a random combination of sounds. The name conveys the nature and essence of the thing named. It represents the history and reputation of the being named.

The point you are making would only apply, in relation to what I am talking about in an environment where 100% knowledge of how Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey was pronounced, and Jews chose not to say it in terms of Tefillah (prayer), Halleloth (Tehillim), Nederim (oaths), and Nevu'ah (prophecy). As I mentioned before the Miqra (Hebrew Scriptures) are all of these. Jews pray three times a day that Elohim will FULLY restore Himself to His the world, in terms of ALL aspects of His nature.

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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

[This message has been edited by Shimson bar-Tzadoq (edited 03-24-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

chuckbaldwin

Posts: 2753
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 03-24-2005 01:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chuckbaldwin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Greetings all,
I have been accused of misquoting Shimson. I will address one instance; others follow the same pattern. But let me say first, i'm NOT making an issue of the "accusation"; the main issue i'm addressing here is our lack of ability to communicate.
Copied & pasted from Shimson's post of 3/21/05 @ 7:18pm:
quote:
There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST ATTEMPT to pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion.

I then asked the question (copied & pasted from my post):
quote:
Based on what you wrote above, please show us the Scripture that says it's only OK to pronounce the Almighty's Name if you have "100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation"?

Leejosepho replied;
quote:
Come on, Chuck! Shimson has never said that.
Shimson also replied:
quote:
As Lee pointed out I never made any such statements.
The problem here is that they are both saying (or rather implying) that i quoted Shimson as saying something that i didn't say that he said. When i quoted him, it was exactly as i have copied and pasted above. All u have to do is go back and look at that post (it's very near the top).

The question i asked (which is repeated above), did NOT, contain a direct quote of what Shimson said, wasn't intended to, and so it shouldn't be implied that it did. Just like i wrote it was "BASED on what [he] wrote above". The clear and logical deduction from that he wrote, is that he believes that "100% knowledge of its EXACT pronunciation" is required before anyone should attempt to pronounce it. My question simply asked him to back up his belief with Scripture.

If i have mis-stated his belief due to faulty logic on my part, i apologize, and humbly ask him to point out where my logic went wrong (a SHORT explanation will be fine). It seemed very simple to me.

Another inference i could make from Shimson's statement, is that many of us shouldn't be trying to keep the Sabbath, since we don't have 100% knowledge of EXACTLY how it should be kept. YOU may know exactly how to keep it, but many of us don't.

Considering that there are misunderstandings like this, is it any wonder that we can't communicate?

May YHWH help us!

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

Posts: 827
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 03-24-2005 02:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shimson bar-Tzadoq     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
Greetings all,
I have been accused of misquoting Shimson. I will address one instance; others follow the same pattern.

Greetings,

Actually Chuck, I haven't accused you of misquoting me. I stated what I did and what I did not say.

quote:
[b]chuckbaldwin wrote:

The clear and logical deduction from that he wrote, is that he believes that "100% knowledge of its EXACT pronunciation" is required before anyone should attempt to pronounce it. My question simply asked him to back up his belief with Scripture.

If i have mis-stated his belief due to faulty logic on my part, i apologize, and humbly ask him to point out where my logic went wrong (a SHORT explanation will be fine). It seemed very simple to me.


Actually I would have to disagree with you on this Chuck. The clear logic of what I have been stating is that, "JEWS are commanded in the Hebrew Tajjim Torah text, to not lift up The Name of Elohim to falsehood because JEWS are not forgiven for such." If you follow this to its logical conclusion you should be able to agree that the corrupt Kohanim who started the downward spiral of ancient Israel's moral codes towards The Shem/Character of Elohim won't be forgiven for it. The few Jews who in the past lifted up the Name of falsehood and caused the uncertainty, which exists in the common era won't be forgiven for it also, according to Shemoth 20:6. They of course won't be forgiven for lowering the kavod (honor) in their lack of Torah observance Qedushah (Set-Apartness), which is the root cause of their actions.

I did not say this rule was for "anyone" as I mentioned NUMEROUS time before I always said that for a JEW. I also stated NUMEROUS times that I was not telling anyone on this forum what they should do. I have also stated NUMEROUS times that ANYONE who wants to know any of the theories from me, personally, has/does/and will always receive all the answers (good and bad) from me. So because I and every other Torah observant or semi-Torah observant Jew has this directive from Elohim, in both the Torah, and we recognize we live in a time of waiting for Mashi'ahh to restore the things that have been lost this is what we do. I never stated this was imcumbant on EVERYONE on the planet, nor anyone on this forum. I also stated that we Jew do, not even what Jews MUST do (with the exeption of the quotes from the Torah.)

Chuck wrote:
The clear and logical deduction from that he wrote, is that he believes that "100% knowledge of its EXACT pronunciation" is required before anyone should attempt to pronounce it.

This statement Chuck is incorrect, because I have NEVER said "100% knowledge of the exact pronunciation is required for anyone to attempt to pronounce it." That statement was never made by me, nor was it ever implyed by me. I never said that the rule of Shemoth 20:6 from the Hebrew Torah Tajjim applied to EVERYONE or ANYONE. I said it applies to Jews, and this is the base reason that JEWS won't act as if one pronunciation trumps another, when there is uncertainty in the matter. As I mentioned before the Hebrew Torah Tajjim are very clear on what Shemoth 20:6 means for Jews and Geirim. It is not something that is imcumbant on non-Jews THE WAY it is on a Jew or a Geir for reasons that the Jewish Halakhah describes on the matter.

As I mentioned before you can look in NUMEROUS Jewish text concerning Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey and many of them will list all the various theories and the pros and cons.

quote:
Chuckbaldwin wrote:
Another inference i could make from Shimson's statement, is that many of us shouldn't be trying to keep the Sabbath, since we don't have 100% knowledge of EXACTLY how it should be kept. YOU may know exactly how to keep it, but many of us don't.

This also I disagree with you because the Shabboth is a completely seperate issue. The issue of The Name of Elohim and Shabboth are not connected because Shemoth 20:6 is the BASIS for what I mentioned. There is no command which, states that Elohim will not forgive the Benei Yisrael who lifts up the Shabboth to falsehood. The requirements for a Benei Yisrael in regards to the Shabboth is to Shomer (guard, keep safe) and Zokher (Remember). Then there are also Mitzwoth for Benei Yisrael, some of which are clearly defined and were clearly understood and others which were developments over the thousands of years since the Torah was given on Har Sinai.

You say that you and other don't know HOW to keep the Shabboth, well this is once again something that was covered in the discussions where Rivkah and I, as Jews, were asked questions about how we know how to divide up a matter. In terms how people who are not Jews, Geirim, etc. live out the Torah you have the freedom to determine that for your community. Elohim gave us Benei Yisrael the freedom in some areas to figure out how to live out the areas by coming before our elders, searching through our traditions, and coming before Elohim in prayer. In other areas He was clear on what He wanted from Benei Yisrael. What makes you think that you don't have a similar freedom? Paul seemed to suggest in writings that you do, and you should be proud of what you and your community develop in this matter. You are not under any Jewish authority in this or any other matter, so I am not sure why you would think that a lack of knowledge of how to keep the Shabboth would prevent you from doing. There is no command for you in terms of you making it "Lashaw" by your actions towards it, "Lashaw" is what is used in conjunction with The Name of Elohim in terms of Benei Yisrael and Geirim. Shabboth is placed with the requirements of Shomer (guard), Zokher (remember), Miqra Qodesh (set-part assembly), Manukhah (rest), and Simkhah (joy). Not connected to Shemoth 20:6.

The Name of Elohim and Shabboth observance are COMPLETELY two different things in my books. The commands from the Torah concerning The Name of Elohim and The Shabboth are not the same.

quote:
Chuckbaldwin wrote:
Considering that there are misunderstandings like this, is it any wonder that we can't communicate?

As I mentioned before this all started when someone asked me and Rivkah a question, in regards to how we as Jews look at a matter, the issues SEEMS to be that the answer is what is disliked.

In terms of communication. I have made it clear what I read from, where I stand and also what I believe. Once again my statements have always been divided into what is known and what is not, who is responsible for a certain thing and who is not. I never used the words "we" in an inclusive way and I have always denoted what was the responsibility of the Jew and what was the responsibility of the non-Jew. I also stated what we = Jews choose to do or not do, I never made any kind of connection between what we = Jews do and what non-Jews must or must not do. I clearly stated that non-Jews have every right to determine what they are to do before Elohim.

As i mentioned before there are several reasons that maybe the disconnect on why we view things differently, and it is completely understandable that we don't. We are not reading the same text, we are not from the same culture, we also are interacting over the internet, and we also have the right to disagree on this.

As I mentioned to EliYah when he asked me about what I believe in this matter. I believe that Yeshua will return as Mashi'ahh ben-Dawith and restore all things that are currently not accurate. I am patient enough to wait on his return for this. May Elohim cause it to happen speedily.


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

Shimson bar-Tzadoq

[This message has been edited by Shimson bar-Tzadoq (edited 03-24-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

leejosepho

Posts: 2969
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 03-24-2005 06:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leejosepho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
Considering that there are misunderstandings like this, is it any wonder that we can't communicate?

---
Misunderstanding
1) Mis-taking the meaning of something; misconception; error;
2) Disagreement; difference; dissension; sometimes a softer name for quarrel.
---

Greetings, Chuck.

Maybe the fault here is mine, for I had assumed your “request” (your sentence that was not actually a question even though it did have a question mark at its end) was merely rhetorical:

“...please show us the Scripture that says it's only OK to pronounce the Almighty's Name if you have ‘100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation’?”

In other words, I assumed you already knew there is no such Scripture, and on that thought, I saw your preceding “Based on what you wrote above” as evidence that you were acting as if (or at least assuming) Shimson was “saying” (or that he might happen to believe) something he had not even implied ...

... but if I am wrong about any or all of that, please let me know.

Either way, however, a common communication problem among us here is not only an occasional “mis-taking the meaning of something” (someone’s simple mis-hearing of what was actually said), but that we also then sometimes proceed (just move right along) while at times even “repeating” (and sometimes also wanting others to wrongly “hear”) what we have allegedly (or even spinningly) “heard” before making certain we had actually “heard” what was originally said (or at least intended).

For example: You had not been accused of anything, yet for whatever reason, you evidently “heard” an unverified accusation ... and possibly wanted others to know you were not guilty ... and please know I make no accusation(s) while sharing those simple thoughts.

Prior to all of that, however, I can see how some of Shimson’s wordings could have helped to “set the stage” for whichever kind of “misunderstanding” has appeared here ...

quote:
Copied & pasted from Shimson's post of 3/21/05 @ 7:18pm:
There is no command in the Hebrew text that I MUST ATTEMPT to pronounce The Name of The Most High when there is not 100% knowledge of it EXACT pronunciation pre-dialect shifts and pre-dispersion.

In my own opinion, it could have been “communicatively better” to have said something like this (rather than having one thought confuse the other):

“There is no command in the Hebrew text that [anyone] MUST ATTEMPT to pronounce The Name of The Most High, [and for just as long as] there is not 100% knowledge of its EXACT pronunciation ..."

For in fact, and as I believe you had likely intended to point out (at least in part), Scripture does not indicate whether or not it is okay to (only) pronounce the Almighty's Name when (or until) someone has “100% knowledge of the EXACT pronunciation”.

quote:
The problem here is that [Shimson and Lee are each] saying (or rather implying) that i quoted Shimson as saying something that i didn't say that he said.

By now, I hope you know that is not the case. Rather, and as you and I have each since noted:

quote:
The question i asked (which is repeated above), did NOT, contain a direct quote of what Shimson said ...
... it was BASED on ... [my own] clear and logical deduction from that he wrote, is that he believes that "100% knowledge of its EXACT pronunciation" is required before anyone should attempt to pronounce it. My question simply asked him to back up his belief with Scripture.

It is not my intent to be hard on you, Chuck, but I would here "ask" if you now see the source of this current “misunderstanding” (by either definition) ... and I have actually just made only a statement.

quote:
If i have mis-stated his belief due to faulty logic on my part, i apologize, and humbly ask him to point out where my logic went wrong (a SHORT explanation will be fine). It seemed very simple to me.

Bottom line? The Masorah of Har Sinai and "religion" (sets of beliefs and practices) have virtually nothing in common ... and for the religious, Torah is nearly impossible to understand.

I hope I have been helpful here ...

Shalom.

[This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 03-24-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ChrisDixon

Posts: 399
Registered: Dec 2004

posted 03-24-2005 07:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ChrisDixon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Shalom Shimson,

I am well thankyou, are you, thanks for your reply.

As far as the mis-pronounciation of Yahweh's name being seen as lifting up His name to falsehood a bit harsh don't you think. Yahweh made a commandment for the pronounciation of His name and your sin would not be forgiven if you got it wrong. Thats the way it comes across to me and I'm sure that commandment really has nothing to do with the pronounciation of His name but on how you use it (but maybe I'm wrong).

The reason I mentioned about adonai and Baal is there is a commandment about the way Yahweh accepts worship, about incorporating pagan things into our worship of our Heavenly Father. Baal was I think specifically mentioned so wouldn't their title also fall into this catergory. The reason I mentioned about my church was unless we use His name with His title do people who we are talking about and are we glorifying His name.

The reason I mentioned Buddah is that his title is Lord as in Lord Buddah and when he assended to heaven through enlightenment he became a minor deity.

As far as I know Allah means simply god thats what all the muslim people I know call him the trouble is that most use this title for Yahweh as well and allot beleive that they are the same deity and this is the problem which I think will become more evident when the anti-messiah comes.

I just think that our Father should be kept seperate from all other "deities" in both Name and titles as well.

Thanks again Shimson for your reply it was enlightening.

May Yahweh bless you
Chris

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

leejosepho

Posts: 2969
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 03-24-2005 08:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for leejosepho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
As far as I know Allah means simply god thats what all the muslim people I know call him the trouble is that most use this title for Yahweh as well and allot beleive that they are the same deity and this is the problem which I think will become more evident when the anti-messiah comes.

I just think that our Father should be kept seperate from all other "deities" in both Name and titles as well.


Greetings, Chris.

Within Christianity, there are easterners who call The One who created us "Allah" just as surely and in precisely the same way many westerners call Him "God" and we others on both sides of the globe try to call Him by His actual name.

In the final analysis, the Christian "God" and the Muslim "Allah" and The One we serve is the same, but not all Christians, Muslims, Jews or others of us always perceive, represent and serve Him properly.

Shalom.

[This message has been edited by leejosepho (edited 03-24-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged


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

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

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

Ephesians 4:29 - "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is
good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."