Back to Yhvh

[FredVB]

Dialogue I sought was cut short in previous thread as it was inappropriately placed and I said I would leave off on the discussion of God's name, and following that a final response to me was saying:

"There are multiple attempts in Greek texts to transliterate the pronunciation of the name (from IABE to IAOYH among others). The issue has been debated ad nauseum ... and it's never been settled."

This comment needed a response still. I have just seen two reproductions of God's name as the ancient Greeks could write it in their writing, and it was with the Greek letters. I happen to be fluent in another language, and I know there are consonants in speech that are not used but with difficulty by those using another language. My own last name would give no English speaker difficulty but comes out with difficulty and is not spoken quite right by those only speaking the other language I know. I say this to portray that, as the ancient Greeks did not have the consonants used in their language for Y, J, V, or W, any of which are thought to be part of God's name, the Greeks writing the name would use Greek sounds that they would think came closest to it. Vowel sounds of languages are universal. It can be noticed that vowels in the Greek writing, first 'alpha' and then 'eta' or 'epsilon', would give the vowel pronunciation for the name. As the four consonants of God's name are known anyway in Hebrew, the pronunciation should not be a mystery and thought of as something incapable of being settled. As I said, God said his name was to be remembered for all generations, and as God could not be mistaken to tell us that, we would necessarily have access to that pronunciation. Our rendering of it in our language as Yahweh makes total sense on the basis of knowing about the Hebrew consonants and the Greek rendition in their writing.

 

[Tonks]

sounds like questionable "sacred name theology" to me.

 

[FredVB]

sounds like questionable "sacred name theology" to me.

Hello Tonks. I for that matter do not know where you are coming from. What to you sounds like "sacred name theology"? The original post? What in it made a claim that "sacred name theology" does? Myself, OP? Or what I responded to? Just about the same question. What am I saying that would make it so? I do not know much about "sacred name theology", but I would guess, as it would seem objectionable, that its claim is that you can only be saved with this name of God, which I was discussing. But I never said that ANYWHERE. You can search carefully. I have discussed topics from the perspective of just how they are shown in the Bible. This one about God's name, which I have spoken on before, is just as much a point from the Bible as any, which I show is evident. http://www.christianforums.com/t7453767/

As to how we are to be saved, this I have spoken on too, as have many others evidently in just about all the Forums. When we hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Word who was with God and was God, who became human and lived the perfect life and showed his love for humanity, while we were yet sinners, and submitted to undergo his agony and death, paying the penalty for sin, for us, and showing himself afterward risen from death, so that, according to the promise of God, if we in our sin recognise we cannot save ourselves and we put our faith in him as our savior and Lord, God saves us from the penalty and life of sin and gives us eternal life. This is straight teaching right out of the Bible and there is nothing wrong in what I have been saying.

To keep to the theme for this thread, what specifically in what I said can be shown wrong? I will stand by that it is right and scriptural.

 

[Epiphoskei]

As I said, God said his name was to be remembered for all generations, and as God could not be mistaken to tell us that, we would necessarily have access to that pronunciation.

That's an idiom for remembering a person forever, not remembering the exact pronunciation of a name. This falls under the category of metonymy, if I understand my figures of speech right.

 

[FredVB]

That's an idiom for remembering a person forever, not remembering the exact pronunciation of a name. This falls under the category of metonymy, if I understand my figures of speech right.

I agree (I didn't check the meaning of the word that you chose for it though), certainly if we are speaking in another language with different pronuciatated sounds from the language the name was revealed in. We can be said to be remembering the name, I think, if it is with a little bit of difference in sound. But I am saying here that the original pronunciation is not truly lost, and according to what God told us, it is available to us. We remember the names of the other persons in the Bible in only slightly different forms. If you are married or have a "significant other" you know it would not be enough to just remember the person, and never remembering the name. There is not a good scriptural basis to say that God only means otherwise when he places an emphasis on his name, even though I too know that is sometimes claimed.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

How does this name profit us unto salvation or sanctification?

 

[FredVB]

How does this name profit us unto salvation or sanctification?

lighthouse_hope, I made no claim that this name or remembering it profits our salvation. I sought to show I speak the true way according to the Bible how we are to be saved. The actual Bible requirement is that God's name is given to us to remember it, and it was for all generations, and how do we remember it if we would never say it? Surely I say for those of us who love God we should obey by being reverent when we do. I do not say that would save us, there are many commands God gives us that we should obey, even though by that we would not be saved. Otherwise, why get baptized? Why avoid adultery? Why love you neighbor as yourself? If God tells us something for us to do, even if we are saved just according to faith, we are saved to not be bound to a life of sin, we should just do what he said. And sanctification comes with obedience to God.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I agree (I didn't check the meaning of the word that you chose for it though), certainly if we are speaking in another language with different pronuciatated sounds from the language the name was revealed in. We can be said to be remembering the name, I think, if it is with a little bit of difference in sound. But I am saying here that the original pronunciation is not truly lost, and according to what God told us, it is available to us. We remember the names of the other persons in the Bible in only slightly different forms. If you are married or have a "significant other" you know it would not be enough to just remember the person, and never remembering the name. There is not a good scriptural basis to say that God only means otherwise when he places an emphasis on his name, even though I too know that is sometimes claimed.

The problem is that in this context the sound pattern isn't at all what is intended by "name."

Almost certainly it was at first pronounced Yahweh or Yahveh, but that's not really God's point.

 

[FredVB]

The problem is that in this context the sound pattern isn't at all what is intended by "name."

Almost certainly it was at first pronounced Yahweh or Yahveh, but that's not really God's point.

You lost me here. I do agree it was pronounced "Yahweh", or maybe by some "Yahveh", at least as close as we with our way of speaking can get to it. But why is the sound for a name of no importance, of all things in God's case, when it is for names of other persons?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Well, never. Names really aren't about sounds, they're about meaning. This has been hard to grasp for members of western civilization for some time now, but in the ancient world, a name is not so much a sound pattern as it is a word or phrase with significance. Because we take our names from other languages and no longer know what they mean, we think of them as the arbitrary sound combinations that they are to us, but in ancient near eastern context, the fact that Yahweh is pronounced Yahweh isn't nearly as significant as that it (very roughly) means "He who is."

 

[FredVB]

Of course there is meaning with his name and it is important. I did not think I need to make it obvious this way, but my name is Fred. I do not want to be called Bob. There are others who have that name and it alright for them. But it is not alright for me. This is what applies to God, too, and he made a point to say it.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Fred and Bob don't mean the same thing. I'd have no qualm whatsoever being given a name for use with people speaking another language, provided it had the same meaning. I can't see God being that touchy about the pattern of noises coming from people's mouths in scripture.

 

[FredVB]

I am sorry I was away, and could not come to Christian Forums for this long.

Fred and Bob don't mean the same thing. I'd have no qualm whatsoever being given a name for use with people speaking another language, provided it had the same meaning. I can't see God being that touchy about the pattern of noises coming from people's mouths in scripture.

Also this: "Names really aren't about sounds, they're about meaning."

I have heard this kind of response in regard to use of God's name before. Many may use it, but I asked here and there is no answer, what scripture is used to justify this answer? And would you let others decide for themselves to choose whatever they would to call you when you made the point to introduce yourself with your name to them? It is not about being touchy, any more than any of the commandments from God, regardless if they seem reasonable to you. And God did introduce himself by his name, and it was used close to 7000 times in scripture, by God himself repetitiously and by the people of God.

As I said before, there is not a good scriptural basis to say that God only means otherwise when he places an emphasis on his name, even though I too know that is sometimes claimed.

In Exodus 3, God clearly answered Moses what name he was to be known by, to distinguish himself from the products of wrong ideas.

15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Yahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

As mentioned before, I want to say that following Jewish tradition of the time that Jewish leaders pushed followers to not pronounce the name of God is not a good idea without Biblical basis. In old testament times, it is clear from many passages that people of God freely used the name of Yahweh, in speaking of him and to him, and not speaking his name in vain, which would be the case if not really speaking of him or to him. The commandments should really have us speaking Yahweh's name, but not without an attitude of reverence to him.

My points as said are here http://www.christianforums.com/t7453767/

 

[zeke37]

almost all Y's in Hebrew were translated into J's in English tranlstions of the Bible,

hence Yeshua becomes Joshua, and Yerusalem becomes Jerusalem(spelling errors not withstanding)

they did the same with the Lord's name when translated Jehovah

the other consanents are right

It is Y H V H

 

[Lisa*Lisa]

I've always thought god's name was Yahshewa, but I think I have the spelling wrong.

 

[Secundulus]

I've always thought god's name was Yahshewa, but I think I have the spelling wrong.

That was Jesus' name. Joshua in Hebrew.

 

[zeke37]

I've always thought god's name was Yahshewa, but I think I have the spelling wrong.

Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua (spelled however ya wanna spell It, your way is fine with me)
translated Joshua in the English OT, and Jesus in the NT

God's name...some say Yah-weh.....some say Yah-veh

taken from the tetragrammatron, the 4 consanents Y H V H...

how "w" ever wiggled its way in, is beyond me

 

[Epiphoskei]

I have heard this kind of response in regard to use of God's name before. Many may use it, but I asked here and there is no answer, what scripture is used to justify this answer?

What scripture is used to reject it? This is just the way names work, especially in the ancient world. Why shouldn't I read the Bible within its cultural context?

And would you let others decide for themselves to choose whatever they would to call you when you made the point to introduce yourself with your name to them? It is not about being touchy, any more than any of the commandments from God, regardless if they seem reasonable to you. And God did introduce himself by his name, and it was used close to 7000 times in scripture, by God himself repetitiously and by the people of God.

As I said before, there is not a good scriptural basis to say that God only means otherwise when he places an emphasis on his name, even though I too know that is sometimes claimed.

In Exodus 3, God clearly answered Moses what name he was to be known by, to distinguish himself from the products of wrong ideas.

15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Yahweh God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

As mentioned before, I want to say that following Jewish tradition of the time that Jewish leaders pushed followers to not pronounce the name of God is not a good idea without Biblical basis. In old testament times, it is clear from many passages that people of God freely used the name of Yahweh, in speaking of him and to him, and not speaking his name in vain, which would be the case if not really speaking of him or to him. The commandments should really have us speaking Yahweh's name, but not without an attitude of reverence to him.

It's incorrect to state that people using some sound combination other than yhvh are not using God's name the way He gave it to them. You're begging the question, presuming that names are sound combinations to make an argument that names are sound combinations.

 

[FredVB]

What scripture is used to reject it? This is just the way names work, especially in the ancient world. Why shouldn't I read the Bible within its cultural context?


It's incorrect to state that people using some sound combination other than yhvh are not using God's name the way He gave it to them. You're begging the question, presuming that names are sound combinations to make an argument that names are sound combinations.

Sometimes I am misunderstood when saying something in a post, and maybe we both are misunderstanding one another here. I need to understand what you mean by "What scripture is used to reject it?" What is it exactly that you mean I am rejecting? And when I say something about not using God's name, according to what he told us, I mean in the sense that the words "God" or "Lord" or "Eternal Lord" or some other words, which are perfectly fine for designating our one true God, are always used in place of God's name, and said to mean the same thing, when God's name is distinct, and so never using his name, which he said we are to keep in remembrance, which involves using it at some time. I do not mean that it has to be pronounced exactly the same way, I was thinking I said something to that effect before. But as the name of God, it should be recognizable as such in being pronounced, there not being just a substitution for it. But sound is important, otherwise a name is not even recognizable, and it applies to God's name, as it applies to other names when having different pronunciations, as other Bible names as in for example Hebrew and Greek. There is no cultural context pertaining to this that says the name given should be ignored in preference to something else.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Sometimes I am misunderstood when saying something in a post, and maybe we both are misunderstanding one another here. I need to understand what you mean by "What scripture is used to reject it?" What is it exactly that you mean I am rejecting?

The principle that names are not sound patterns.

And when I say something about not using God's name, according to what he told us, I mean in the sense that the words "God" or "Lord" or "Eternal Lord" or some other words, which are perfectly fine for designating our one true God, are always used in place of God's name, and said to mean the same thing, when God's name is distinct, and so never using his name, which he said we are to keep in remembrance, which involves using it at some time. I do not mean that it has to be pronounced exactly the same way, I was thinking I said something to that effect before. But as the name of God, it should be recognizable as such in being pronounced, there not being just a substitution for it. But sound is important, otherwise a name is not even recognizable, and it applies to God's name, as it applies to other names when having different pronunciations, as other Bible names as in for example Hebrew and Greek. There is no cultural context pertaining to this that says the name given should be ignored in preference to something else.

The idiom of using Lord for Yahweh comes from the Greek Septuagint, which uses Kurios, Greek for Lord, to translate the Tetragrammaton. Now when Christ and the NT in general quote from the OT, they maintain this practice. Wouldn't God have corrected this if He cared?