Back to Yhvh

[FredVB]

The principle that names are not sound patterns.

Well, yes, I differ, to recognize names we would go by sound patterns, even though there may be small differences in pronunciation, there is no scripture changing this or establishing your 'principle'.

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?

The changes made by the translation to Greek in the Septuagint is not from the authority of the Bible. Any translation may have flaws, and that can be demonstrated. You cannot truthfully say it as a doctrine that Christ never spoke the name of Yahweh, and I think you would know, even if it is generally absent, God's name in the Greek from which we have the new testament occurs in a phrase in a few passages in Revelation, you know, Halleluyah, from Greek spelling of Hebrew meaning Praise Yah, referring as the way often to do to Yahweh. God can correct things, and may sometimes do so, but frequently corrections are left for men to do, as often they are led by God's Spirit. Along with free choice, we are left often to take responsibilities, and consequences, ourselves. God will be judge, in righteousness, though, in the end.
God said his name was to be remembered for all generations, and as God could not be mistaken to tell us that, we would logically have access to his name, and then have responsibility for keeping it in remembrance.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Well, yes, I differ, to recognize names we would go by sound patterns, even though there may be small differences in pronunciation, there is no scripture changing this or establishing your 'principle'.

There is no scripture challenging or establishing either principle. It's a matter of allowing cultural context to form our hermeneutic. Names are not mere sound patterns to those who come from cultures wherein names are actual words, phrases, and sentences.

The changes made by the translation to Greek in the Septuagint is not from the authority of the Bible. Any translation may have flaws, and that can be demonstrated. You cannot truthfully say it as a doctrine that Christ never spoke the name of Yahweh, and I think you would know, even if it is generally absent, God's name in the Greek from which we have the new testament occurs in a phrase in a few passages in Revelation, you know, Halleluyah, from Greek spelling of Hebrew meaning Praise Yah, referring as the way often to do to Yahweh. God can correct things, and may sometimes do so, but frequently corrections are left for men to do, as often they are led by God's Spirit. Along with free choice, we are left often to take responsibilities, and consequences, ourselves. God will be judge, in righteousness, though, in the end.

The point is that in inspired scripture God thought Kurios a perfectly fine translation of His name, as the New Testament uses it that way often.

God said his name was to be remembered for all generations, and as God could not be mistaken to tell us that, we would logically have access to his name, and then have responsibility for keeping it in remembrance.

Again, it's a mistake to say that we wouldn't have God's name if we didn't have it's ancient Hebrew pronunciation.

 

[Colin]

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.

We have to accept that modern Scripture sholarship is not certain of the correct spelling of God's name as given to Moses. Most scholars seem to opt for Yahweh.
As for God saying that He wanted His name to be remembered for all generations , we have to get into the Semitic mind-set. "Name" as expressed here is not referring to our modern , Western concept of "name". In the Semitic way of thinking "name" means the whole being of the one who is being referred to. God is saying that He in all His totality needs to be remembered. To put emphasis on a word is to go down the road of the Watchtower Organisation with their obsession with the word "Jehovah".

 

[FredVB]

The point is that in inspired scripture God thought Kurios a perfectly fine translation of His name, as the New Testament uses it that way often.

Again, it's a mistake to say that we wouldn't have God's name if we didn't have it's ancient Hebrew pronunciation.

I don't think it good to presume what God thinks. The new testament does use quotes from Septuagint passages, as it was easily available in writing for the Greek, but this should not be used to override what we know from the old testament, and those knowing the Hebrew scripture did not let the translation override it. The Greek for Lord outside of Septuagint quotations cannot be said to be substitutions for Yahweh and generally are used specifically for Jesus Christ. God said it for us, we should not change other commandments, and we do have God's name, and even if the old pronunciation was not available (but it is), we are still told to keep his name in remembrance, and so we would use it at some time, as best as we can. To recognize a name we would go by a sound pattern by which it would at least be recognizable. What meaning would you substitute for the name God told us to keep in remembrance?

 

[FredVB]

We have to accept that modern Scripture sholarship is not certain of the correct spelling of God's name as given to Moses. Most scholars seem to opt for Yahweh.
As for God saying that He wanted His name to be remembered for all generations , we have to get into the Semitic mind-set. "Name" as expressed here is not referring to our modern , Western concept of "name". In the Semitic way of thinking "name" means the whole being of the one who is being referred to. God is saying that He in all His totality needs to be remembered. To put emphasis on a word is to go down the road of the Watchtower Organisation with their obsession with the word "Jehovah".

Thank you for responding. You dismissed my logic without dealing with it, pronunciation can logically be deduced, what argument actually negates that? There is good reason most opt for it as "Yahweh". As for "name" meaning something else, you are repeating the frequent excuse many have used, and there are other things said in the Bible that some will try to excuse as meaning something other than what those things actually say. Yes, his whole being is to be remembered, this does not exclude the name itself, which IS NOT a word on which emphasis is put, it is his name. Is there another name in the Bible with which this is done, to exclude a name itself? To link this argument with going the way of the Watchtower Organization is a way to slander and prejudice a logical consideration which this point may merit.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I don't think it good to presume what God thinks. The new testament does use quotes from Septuagint passages, as it was easily available in writing for the Greek, but this should not be used to override what we know from the old testament, and those knowing the Hebrew scripture did not let the translation override it. The Greek for Lord outside of Septuagint quotations cannot be said to be substitutions for Yahweh and generally are used specifically for Jesus Christ. God said it for us, we should not change other commandments, and we do have God's name, and even if the old pronunciation was not available (but it is), we are still told to keep his name in remembrance, and so we would use it at some time, as best as we can. To recognize a name we would go by a sound pattern by which it would at least be recognizable. What meaning would you substitute for the name God told us to keep in remembrance?

That's not a very compelling argument. If God, in inspired scripture, recorded His name as Kurios, as He did in the NT, it is permissible for us to use it or translations of it.

A name is, in middle eastern culture, not a sound pattern, that's really all there is to it. The response above given by Rawson basically gets it right. This is simply the way middle eastern culture works; we cannot overwrite it because our western culture puts emphasis on a sequence of stops and sibilants and liquids and vowels.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I recently read a good study that showed persuasively that Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT, so that in all the appearances of Jehovah, it was actually the Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity who was there. The Scripture says that no man has seen the Father at any time, so the concept that the God who revealed Himself in the OT to Abraham, Moses, and others was actually Jesus.

In a recent conversation with a Jehovah's Witness, he had no answer for it.

 

[FredVB]

I am repeatedly being misrepresented where there is implication that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I am speaking from the plain text of a passage of the Bible, supported almost 7000 times by the repeated use of God's name, Yahweh, in the Bible. I do not argue against the use "kurios", as it does not negate being told to remember God's name, nor the deity of Christ, as seen in earlier posts I have made. We cannot know the custom to not actually recognize a name as such from scripture.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Again, that argument presupposes that "name" means something it does not, a sound combination. You're accusing us of doing things we're not doing, i.e., forgetting God's name, simply because we do not care about that which is not what is meant by name.

 

[FredVB]

Again, that argument presupposes that "name" means something it does not, a sound combination. You're accusing us of doing things we're not doing, i.e., forgetting God's name, simply because we do not care about that which is not what is meant by name.

You are taking something personally. Where can you say I have personally accused you of anything? I would not say I know anything about you or other posters here, but presume at the start your Christianity. I have spoken from my understanding of a scriptural passage, which is argued against, and to some, in a persuasive way, but with no statement from the Bible itself, and if you feel accused, as I have not said anything about you personally not knowing what you do, it could be your own conscience. I do not believe those who are ignorant of a truth are at fault. Willfulness is another thing. And I am sharing something as I found it. I on the other hand have been demonstratably accused, only because I stand on a Bible statement as God said it and not because I said any of those things of which I was accused, such as going down the way of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Organization, and arguing against that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God, who manifested himself in the old testament, and that I do not or did not recognize that God is called Kurios meaning Lord.

My position toward those with Watchtower positions can be seen in past dialogue I have taken part in through the Forums, such as what goes from http://www.christianforums.com/t7449324-2/

And I have not been answered what I asked, What meaning would you substitute for the name God told us to keep in remembrance?

Please do not say again that I am saying anything false here regarding other things from the subject matter that I brought up for OP as one topic only. My position I based on Bible wording. However good you say your argument against it is, appealing to a culture which is not in any case revealed in that way in scripture, you are explaining a Bible passage away, which would for me be a red flag to be cautious if it was done with ANY Bible passage, and not using argument against it from Bible teaching itself. And no basis was shown that, even though much more meaning was to be taken than just the name when the name is referred to, the spoken name itself was to be neglected. It has not been shown to be done with any other name.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You are taking something personally. Where can you say I have personally accused you of anything? I would not say I know anything about you or other posters here, but presume at the start your Christianity.

I'm not taking anything personally at all; if I were, I'd have said "accusing me," not "us." The fact remains that by asserting that according to scripture God wants a sound pattern remembered, you necessarily state that those who do not keep a sound pattern are disobedient.

I on the other hand have been demonstratably accused, only because I stand on a Bible statement as God said it and not because I said any of those things of which I was accused, such as going down the way of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Organization, and arguing against that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God, who manifested himself in the old testament, and that I do not or did not recognize that God is called Kurios meaning Lord.

You are mistaken, you were not accused of doing anything of the sort. Your concern over the sound pattern of Yahweh was compared to another group that overly concerns itself with a sound pattern, if I read the thread right. That's all.

My argument also had nothing to do with whether Christ is Yahweh, only with whether He, being God, considered "The Lord" to be an appropriate rendering of His own name. Clearly, he did, or he wouldn't have used it.

And I have not been answered what I asked, What meaning would you substitute for the name God told us to keep in remembrance?

I wouldn't "substitute" anything. "Substitution" implies that my understanding of "name" is not the natural, original understanding. That original understanding within a Semitic context was given by Rawson.

My position I based on Bible wording. However good you say your argument against it is, appealing to a culture which is not in any case revealed in that way in scripture, you are explaining a Bible passage away, which would for me be a red flag to be cautious if it was done with ANY Bible passage, and not using argument against it from Bible teaching itself. And no basis was shown that, even though much more meaning was to be taken than just the name when the name is referred to, the spoken name itself was to be neglected. It has not been shown to be done with any other name.

If I handed you a Hebrew and Greek Bible, how would you go about using it to teach you how to read it? Linguistic and cultural context must be established beforehand to know what the Bible says.

All you are doing is reading your own culture into the Bible instead of a Semitic culture, and calling your own cultural interpretation "Bible wording."

 

[FredVB]

I'm not taking anything personally at all; if I were, I'd have said "accusing me," not "us." The fact remains that by asserting that according to scripture God wants a sound pattern remembered, you necessarily state that those who do not keep a sound pattern are disobedient.

In what I said, there were and maybe are some who were/are disobedient, but others are, by this reasoning, ignorant, and I am not putting myself in the position to with knowledge designate who is disobedient and who is ignorant. I have not even been saying it is over one precise sound pattern that obedience is established. It would only be you to decide this.

My argument also had nothing to do with whether Christ is Yahweh, only with whether He, being God, considered "The Lord" to be an appropriate rendering of His own name. Clearly, he did, or he wouldn't have used it.


I wouldn't "substitute" anything. "Substitution" implies that my understanding of "name" is not the natural, original understanding. That original understanding within a Semitic context was given by Rawson.

In view of this response I can say it would have been better to ask what are we to understand from that passage that we are to remember that we would not have known otherwise, but you also seem here to provide the answer, that we are to remember "The Lord" is to be rendered as his name.
That God considers "The Lord" appropriate with which to be designated does not mean it is to be considered as his name. If my conclusion is wrong, then what you are saying is something else that we would not have known otherwise is to be remembered, that would need to be explained.

If I handed you a Hebrew and Greek Bible, how would you go about using it to teach you how to read it? Linguistic and cultural context must be established beforehand to know what the Bible says.

All you are doing is reading your own culture into the Bible instead of a Semitic culture, and calling your own cultural interpretation "Bible wording."

Other groups, too, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, say we need something else to understand the Bible. I, as likely many others, am not so knowledgable with the original languages and certainly not cultures of the Bible so as to be independent of deriving Bible understanding from what I read in my own primary language, so I will not know much of "Semitic culture" to help with my understanding of the Bible, other than what the Bible gives me of it. That is all I can do with confidence, but with knowledge that it is the name of Yahweh or a variation in pronunciation of it if it suits you that is what originally appeared where "the LORD", "GOD" when after "Lord", or some other variation, occurs in translations to our language from Hebrew scriptures. We can call the supreme being God, the Lord, and a number fo other very appropriate titles, but he did reveal a name, and scripture is at least clear that according to God we are to remember something, which in your case would still be something to be designated, since, if I understand you, the real spoken name, which was revealed, can be disregarded.

 

[Epiphoskei]

In view of this response I can say it would have been better to ask what are we to understand from that passage that we are to remember that we would not have known otherwise, but you also seem here to provide the answer, that we are to remember "The Lord" is to be rendered as his name.
That God considers "The Lord" appropriate with which to be designated does not mean it is to be considered as his name. If my conclusion is wrong, then what you are saying is something else that we would not have known otherwise is to be remembered, that would need to be explained.

Not just an appropriate designation. The Septuagint uses it as God's very name, and inspired scripture does not disapprove of this.

Other groups, too, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, say we need something else to understand the Bible. I, as likely many others, am not so knowledgable with the original languages and certainly not cultures of the Bible so as to be independent of deriving Bible understanding from what I read in my own primary language, so I will not know much of "Semitic culture" to help with my understanding of the Bible, other than what the Bible gives me of it. That is all I can do with confidence, but with knowledge that it is the name of Yahweh or a variation in pronunciation of it if it suits you that is what originally appeared where "the LORD", "GOD" when after "Lord", or some other variation, occurs in translations to our language from Hebrew scriptures. We can call the supreme being God, the Lord, and a number fo other very appropriate titles, but he did reveal a name, and scripture is at least clear that according to God we are to remember something, which in your case would still be something to be designated, since, if I understand you, the real spoken name, which was revealed, can be disregarded.

The real spoken name is not being disregarded if the pronunciation is being disregarded. A name is not a sound made with the mouth.

 

[zeke37]

in the very same scripture that we get the tetragrammatron from,
YHVH is spelled out in Hebrew, and LORD is spelled out in English...

just so ya know

 

[FredVB]

Not just an appropriate designation. The Septuagint uses it as God's very name, and inspired scripture does not disapprove of this.

To say that Yahweh is the Lord is appropriate, but I am not so naive to think that "Lord" is then his name.

The real spoken name is not being disregarded if the pronunciation is being disregarded. A name is not a sound made with the mouth.

This is like a mantra now, that it seems there will be no progress when we do not have anything more for evidence that we can convince one another about what a name is. But for clarification, you are saying you are really not disregarding that he is Yahweh (or whatever pronunciation you think of)?

And I thought of making the point that God introduced himself with the name "Yahweh" to Moses when Moses did not know it and was asking for the name to be able to say it to his kinsmen, in the same sentence that he said his name was to be remembered for all generations.

And zeke37, you said, "in the very same scripture that we get the tetragrammatron from,
YHVH is spelled out in Hebrew, and LORD is spelled out in English..."
I do not know what you were really truing to say there.

 

[Yarddog]

Am I wrong for calling him Father for all of these years?

 

[FredVB]

Am I wrong for calling him Father for all of these years?

In my points I am not taking an unorthodox position, the Bible gives the answers to questions like this. God the Father is indeed to be called the Father, or our Father. Jesus Christ is the Word who was with God and is God, who became flesh and dwelt among us, and his glory was beheld. The Spirit of God is called the Holy Spirit or a few other things, is demonstrably personal and is God. These things and that Yahweh is God are all true.

 

[Yarddog]

These things and that Yahweh is God are all true.

Yes, I know that all of those things are true but why the fuss. As Christians, we call call him Father. He answers to that name just fine.

 

[FredVB]

Yes, I know that all of those things are true but why the fuss. As Christians, we call call him Father. He answers to that name just fine.

Yes, God is gracious, and does answer prayer, even though it is not for our being deserving, and he give us his promise for that if we pray in Jesus' name when we are in Christ. We should indeed think of God the Father as our heavenly Father. But is it a fuss to discuss statements and commands from God? As I said, God introduced himself with the name "Yahweh" to Moses when Moses did not know it and was asking for the name to be able to say it to his kinsmen, in the same sentence that he said his name was to be remembered for all generations. It would at least be well for us to remember that Yahweh is God. Our God is set apart from all false ideas of what is God.


Epiphoskei said. "Not just an appropriate designation. The Septuagint uses it as God's very name, and inspired scripture does not disapprove of this."

The Septuagint translation and the Hebrew manuscripts had a number of significant variations, such that, in any case of these, only one but not both could be true. Yet though new testament writings written in Greek quoted from the Septuagint for old testament quotations, no correction or otherwise disapproval is given for any of the cases of inconsistency. It was something that Bible critics would be able to sort out later but was not relevant to discussion matter in the new testament writings, and the quotations were used in effectually making points. But the point is never made against that Yahweh is God, or that we are to remember that. What God said there is unchanged, and is valid for us today.

 

[Yarddog]

What God said there is unchanged, and is valid for us today.

Well, you call him what you want, I'll call him Father and won't worry what others calls him.