M
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
I just call Him "Sir" when in doubt. If He is a She, I'll be corrected post haste I should think...Sometimes I call God Nancy...
just to see if (S)He's paying any attention.
Okay, okay... I'm leaving the Xian forum now...
v/r
Q
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Mee!
Disregarding for the moment the bias of your source, I know immediately that it is inaccurate due to the fact of the use of the letter "J." The Moabites, the letter of Lachish, etc., could not use that form of the name as it did not exist...kinda like riding in on a blazing white stallion unicorn...sounds great and looks fantastic, until one realizes unicorns don't exist. The sound associated with the letter "J" is fairly unique to English, and modern English at that. In German, for instance, the "J" is pronounced as a "Y." So the "scholarship" you refer to here is simply not accurate, rather seems to be attempting to circumvent the historic and linguistic reality in an effort to support a bias. Rather like leading the "facts" to the conclusion, rather than following the facts to where they actually lead. Perhaps that stallion was really a mare, perhaps the blazing white was really a dusty dappled roan, and the mythological unicorn was certainly fable to appeal to our superstitious nature as we mytholize our heroes. Granted, the path JW's take "appears" to attempt to circumvent the mythological / superstitious aspect...but the simple truth is that the JW doctrine only replaces the "standard" mythos with a "new and improved" mythos...but it is still mythos.
Hmmm, I need a degree to point out with poignance what you just pointed out? guess I better get back to university...(lol)Kindest Regards, Mee!
Disregarding for the moment the bias of your source, I know immediately that it is inaccurate due to the fact of the use of the letter "J." The Moabites, the letter of Lachish, etc., could not use that form of the name as it did not exist...kinda like riding in on a blazing white stallion unicorn...sounds great and looks fantastic, until one realizes unicorns don't exist. The sound associated with the letter "J" is fairly unique to English, and modern English at that. In German, for instance, the "J" is pronounced as a "Y." So the "scholarship" you refer to here is simply not accurate, rather seems to be attempting to circumvent the historic and linguistic reality in an effort to support a bias. Rather like leading the "facts" to the conclusion, rather than following the facts to where they actually lead. Perhaps that stallion was really a mare, perhaps the blazing white was really a dusty dappled roan, and the mythological unicorn was certainly fable to appeal to our superstitious nature as we mytholize our heroes. Granted, the path JW's take "appears" to attempt to circumvent the mythological / superstitious aspect...but the simple truth is that the JW doctrine only replaces the "standard" mythos with a "new and improved" mythos...but it is still mythos.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, wil!
Besides, I think mee provides a good counterpoint to the overall mix on the Christianity board. Stick to your guns mee! I'm glad you have lasted longer here than those who visit wil's door.
That's just it...as BB and others have pointed to numerous times, G-d has multiple names given that "He" fills multiple roles. However, not being privvy to His "given" name in the native tongue, I cannot state with anything close to sincerity as to what exactly His given Name actually is. But I have seen enough to believe that I have a general impression what direction...and it most certainly without any doubt does not begin with a "J."
That's my point, not only was there no letter "J," there was no *sound* "J," particularly in the Middle Eastern Semitic languages.
There is a distinction between the two things...the Name has nothing to do with failed prophecies, these are two inherently different arguments. Being correct on one aspect would hold no bearing on the other aspect, the two are unrelated...other than casting doubt in a person's mind. Even a blind pig can find a truffle now and then.
In mee's defense, I have seen a few typos and grammatical glitches to believe that a lot of what mee is posting is actually mee's personal observations...not simply and totally C&P of corporate dogma. "Witnessing" ends up being a bit of a subjective term...are we not *all* here witnessing to one another? Are we not all uplifting and encouraging one another in the Spirit and in the Word? Are we not all bringing to light the truth to one another? Why is it then fair for us to witness to mee, and not allow mee to witness to us in return?
Besides, I think mee provides a good counterpoint to the overall mix on the Christianity board. Stick to your guns mee! I'm glad you have lasted longer here than those who visit wil's door.
Francis king
Well-Known Member
yes, I have a personal relationship with the OT jehovah too- i hate him, and try my best to annoy him when I can... jehovah, for me, from the OT, is not worthy of my worship- he is a mean spirited god, a child murderer, who persecutes ppl for being imperfect, even though he made them that way in the first place... he has no love in him, but expects u to do as ur told regardless... he stinks...
and yet- the jehovah I find in judaism is more well rounded- sure, he's still a bit of a meanie, sometimes, but he is also kind, and interesting, and he has more facets there, more joyful turns and more noble angles... he's a more lovable Jehovah there, I think... a more real God, and a more worthy God...
for me, there is only one god, yet that God has many names, many faces, not just one face, not just one name, but all, at once... the Lord of the meeting rivers, the Lord of the dance, God is enough of a name, any more than that is just supposition...
arjuna on the battlefield of kurukshetra says: show urself, Krsna, and so Krsna does, and Arjuna cries like a girl and says, I cant handle all that, pls come bk to ur two armed form...
so Krsna does... the moral to the tale is... what u think is God is not even the half of it... and, if God is omnipresent, and omnipotent, then God is everything and nothing and everywhere and nowhere all at the same time...
...and that'll blow ur mind...
and yet- the jehovah I find in judaism is more well rounded- sure, he's still a bit of a meanie, sometimes, but he is also kind, and interesting, and he has more facets there, more joyful turns and more noble angles... he's a more lovable Jehovah there, I think... a more real God, and a more worthy God...
for me, there is only one god, yet that God has many names, many faces, not just one face, not just one name, but all, at once... the Lord of the meeting rivers, the Lord of the dance, God is enough of a name, any more than that is just supposition...
arjuna on the battlefield of kurukshetra says: show urself, Krsna, and so Krsna does, and Arjuna cries like a girl and says, I cant handle all that, pls come bk to ur two armed form...
so Krsna does... the moral to the tale is... what u think is God is not even the half of it... and, if God is omnipresent, and omnipotent, then God is everything and nothing and everywhere and nowhere all at the same time...
...and that'll blow ur mind...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Hmmm, I need a degree to point out with poignance what you just pointed out? guess I better get back to university...(lol)
I guess it depends on your comfort level...if you are comfortable with the level of truth behind the mythos, you should be just fine.
Good thing God doesn't hate you...infact, He loves you...kinda like pounding on dad's chest in frustration and anger...he can take it, yet his arms are still around you...holding you steady.
v/r
Q
There is that quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous atheist who says something along the lines of "I would believe in God, if only He danced!".
Well according to some accounts He does
... ... Neemai
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Just curious to know what you have done and such that makes you qualified to be the judge of gods...
Francis king
Well-Known Member
if the Gods can judge me, then I too can judge them... fairs fair, after all, surely, 17th?
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
lol, Don't look at me!!! I was just looking for the reasoning behind the opinion!
Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
M
mee
Guest
Jehovah
or Yahweh?
the name Jehovah appears in the King James Version and other Bible translations,psalm 83;18 some prefer to use the name Yahweh instead of Jehovah. Which name is correct?
The most ancient Bible manuscripts were written in the Hebrew language. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the divine name occurs almost 7,000 times and is spelled with four consonants—YHWH or JHVH. These four-consonant words are commonly called the Tetragrammaton, or Tetragram, derived from two Greek words meaning "four letters." Now the question of accurate pronunciation arises because early Hebrew writing consisted of consonants with no vowels to guide the reader. So whether the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton becomes Yahweh or Jehovah depends on which vowels the reader supplies to the four consonants. Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.
However, consistency favors Jehovah. In what way? The pronunciation Jehovah has been accepted in English for centuries. Those who object to using this pronunciation should also object to the use of the accepted pronunciation Jeremiah and even Jesus. Jeremiah would need to be changed to Yir·meyah´ or Yir·meya´hu, the original Hebrew pronunciations, and Jesus would become Ye·shu´a‛ (Hebrew) or I·e·sous´ (Greek). Hence, many Bible students, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, feel that consistency favors the use of the already well-known English-language "Jehovah" and its equivalent in other languages.The most ancient Bible manuscripts were written in the Hebrew language. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the divine name occurs almost 7,000 times and is spelled with four consonants—YHWH or JHVH. These four-consonant words are commonly called the Tetragrammaton, or Tetragram, derived from two Greek words meaning "four letters." Now the question of accurate pronunciation arises because early Hebrew writing consisted of consonants with no vowels to guide the reader. So whether the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton becomes Yahweh or Jehovah depends on which vowels the reader supplies to the four consonants. Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, mee!
Have I not already stated as much in this thread, some things almost explicitly and nearly verbatim?
No sincere Biblical scholar of my acquaintance makes any such suggestion that the Name of the Most High begins with a "j". None. No exceptions. Any genuine linguistic scholar knows the historic circumstances surrounding the development of the english alphabet, including the late date for inclusion of the letter "j". Any linguistic scholar worthy of the title knows that a name, any name, cannot begin with the sound we associate with the letter "j" prior the the mid-1500's, *AD*. The claim to "centuries" of use of the letter "j" is a little stretched wool trying to cover eyes, particularly in light of the *fact* that the *more* proper pronunciation is thousands of years old.
I respect you Mee. I respect your right to disagree with me. I also find it more than just a little disingenuous to take my argument against you, and attempt to turn it back on me with such a subtle suggestion as to claim that linguistic scholarship knows about the "j" issue but chooses (prefers?) to overlook it. Once again, what I see is one taking the "facts" and manipulating them to suit an agenda. That is not scholarship. Even more important, that is not truth.
Be that as it may...you have my permission, such as it is, to continue using the corrupted english name "Jehovah." There is a certain immunity with ignorance. We are not held accountable for those things we do not understand.
Have I not already stated as much in this thread, some things almost explicitly and nearly verbatim?
The trouble with this comment is that it does not follow the logic. I have already stated that if one is insistent on proper pronunciation of one name, then to be consistent one must properly pronounce *all* names. I am not the one insisting that a name starting with a "j" is "the one and only" Name of the Most High, nor of anybody else in the Bible. So, if one now insists on using a corrupted Name for the Most High, using that same insistance to use modern english corruptions of other names and insisting they are also the "correct" names, suggesting that "many Bible students" agree with this use of corruption, and then using underlying subtlety to suggest this promotes a purified or cleansed doctrine; then the logical conclusion in my mind is that some form of deception is afoot. Speaking scholar to scholar, truth seeker to truth seeker. Therefore the only "scholars" surrendering to modern usage are either lazy or ill-informed, or *very* new to the field and unfamiliar with the specifics and historic details.
No sincere Biblical scholar of my acquaintance makes any such suggestion that the Name of the Most High begins with a "j". None. No exceptions. Any genuine linguistic scholar knows the historic circumstances surrounding the development of the english alphabet, including the late date for inclusion of the letter "j". Any linguistic scholar worthy of the title knows that a name, any name, cannot begin with the sound we associate with the letter "j" prior the the mid-1500's, *AD*. The claim to "centuries" of use of the letter "j" is a little stretched wool trying to cover eyes, particularly in light of the *fact* that the *more* proper pronunciation is thousands of years old.
I respect you Mee. I respect your right to disagree with me. I also find it more than just a little disingenuous to take my argument against you, and attempt to turn it back on me with such a subtle suggestion as to claim that linguistic scholarship knows about the "j" issue but chooses (prefers?) to overlook it. Once again, what I see is one taking the "facts" and manipulating them to suit an agenda. That is not scholarship. Even more important, that is not truth.
Be that as it may...you have my permission, such as it is, to continue using the corrupted english name "Jehovah." There is a certain immunity with ignorance. We are not held accountable for those things we do not understand.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
BTW, "Yahweh" isn't quite right either, but it is getting closer.