Two Questions

[Jonathan Lankford]

To some extent, I agree that the exact aspiration of the H and curving of the lips for the W cannot be known, but we can probably get pretty close. We know of the pronunciation transliterated in Greek as early as 100BC and as late as 200AD, just 130 years after the Temple was destroyed and the priests ceased their work. The Messiah taught the name of the disciples, so it seems to follow that the NT assembly was using. This might be one of the many motivations behind their mass genocide from both the sects of the Jews and the Romans. By 90AD, the sects of the Jews were infiltrating the assembly, and by 250AD, the Roman College was infiltrating the NT assembly. Apostle John and Messiah praises those who did not deny His name... Then later we get the Roman Catholic Church.

~~~For consideration~~~
​

Shortened name forms:
Yah: Hallelujah --> Hallu Yah
Yaho: Benjamin Netanyaho (Jewish news media says it "Netanyao")
Yaho: Iao (Greek Old Testament), Iaou (Clement of Alexandria)

Full name:
Yahoah/Yahwah: Ieoua (Philo of Byblos), Ioa (Severi of Antioch), Yah Wah ("History of the Native American Indians" by James Adair, 1775), Y'Wah (Karen tribe, Burma), ...

​

Yah --> Yaho/Yao --> Yahoah/Yahwah[FONT=&quot][/FONT]​

Your statement, though, has nothing to do with verbalization. They could have written the name in Martian, for all we know or care. That doesn't indicate what pronunciation was spoken when they came to that word. It is still the common practice to write the Tetragrammaton in a brand-new Torah scroll. And it is still the common practice to pronounce a euphemism of some sort when reading out loud a passage containing the Name.

Unless you can go back in time to the first century with a recording device, and bring it back for our edification... no one can know for sure whether the Tetragrammaton was ever pronounced the way it looks on parchment.

 

[Jonathan Lankford]

From your link:

The rendering quoted above removes the statement from its overall context which concerns Messiah losing none of those whom the Father had given to him except for the son of perdition:

John 17:3-12 KJV
11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Metzger's apparatus to the UBS Greek New Testament states that the best witness of the manuscripts is for the neuter singular relative pronoun "which" referring back to the name. Later copies were altered to reflect a plural masculine pronoun to refer to "those" disciples because of the "difficulty of the passage" attributing YHWH to the Son. In other words, people changed it because it didn't fit their theology that YHWH was the name of the Son as well. Of course, I may be theologically biased as well. ;-) So take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Jonathan Lankford]

With the example of the RCC, can you deny the practice? They learned from Babylon, the same as the rabbis.

Do you think anyone here has the power to cause damage to his name? Do you think he is powerless or not even real? Idols need protection, Yahuah can protect his own name. He proved that by having the smallest, least powerful nation carry that name. The one thing he will not do is force his name and salvation on us.

Yes, I agree. I think He can take care of Himself.

Acts 12
21 On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them.
22 The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a man!"
23 And immediately an angel of [Yahwah] struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.
24 But the word of [Yahwah] continued to grow and to be multiplied.

Why did I replace "the Lord" with Yahwah here? Because the way this is written is in Hebrew wording but written in Greek. And in Hebrew wording, you can search for these two phrases in the Old Testament and they always 100% of the time contain "YHWH" not "Lord":
"angel of the LORD"
"word of the LORD"
There is no debate and no argument here. The name of God in the Hebrew mind of the writers was replaced with Lord when it was penned on manuscript.

 

[daq]

My family has the same opinion. Unfortunately, scripture does not agree with them. Being the husband trying to lead my family in righteousness, it is difficult. They can read scripture verses about the importance of the Yahwah's name, but then hear or read on lesson from a teacher/pastor and think otherwise.

I do agree that it is nearly impossible to know the exact pronunciation, so Revelation 19 has a great truth there. But does that mean we should not use it at all? Don't we know the first and last syllables at least? It is the name that Messiah taught to His disciples (John 17:6) and everyone will know that name when Yahwah returns. I am just not content with waiting that long, and I don't think Messiah was either.

Just a thought. What do you make of Acts 10:43? What name is Acts 10:43 referring to?

Metzger's apparatus to the UBS Greek New Testament states that the best witness of the manuscripts is for the neuter singular relative pronoun "which" referring back to the name. Later copies were altered to reflect a plural masculine pronoun to refer to "those" disciples because of the "difficulty of the passage" attributing YHWH to the Son. In other words, people changed it because it didn't fit their theology that YHWH was the name of the Son as well. Of course, I may be theologically biased as well. ;-) So take it with a grain of salt.

Hi Jonathan, welcome to the forum.
If I would avoid pointing a finger at you or anyone else, (which I am wont to avoid) then what can I do but speak from my own experience? Therefore I offer without condemnation that when I first began to seek out the truth concerning this matter one of the first places I found in my walk was Isaiah 63 which clearly tells us who the Father is by name:

Isaiah 63:16 KJV
16. Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, [Tetragrammaton] art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

The next place I arrived was John 17 and the passage which both you and I have already quoted from. After that I came upon the not so commonly transmitted rendering of Matthew 27:16-17 which reads, (transliteration here) from some manuscripts:

Matthew 27:16-17 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
16. Eichon de tote desmion episemon legomenon Iesoun Barabban.
17. Sunegmenon oun auton eipen autois ho Pilatos, "Tina thelete apoluso humin, Iesoun ton Barabban e Iesoun ton legomenon Christon?

Greek Text Analysis: Matthew 27:17 Greek Text Analysis

Matthew 27:16-17 TUA Rendering
16. But they had a notable prisoner having been called Yeshua Bar-Abbas.
17. They being assembled then says to them Pilate: "Whom would you that I release to you? Yeshua the Bar-Abbas or Yeshua the having been called Christos?

Then in my journeys I stumbled across Acts 13:6 and a false prophet sorcerer of the name of Bar-Jesus without really contemplating the depth of the meaning and symbolism found in that passage and context. Then even further in my travels I came to Psalm 22:20-25 and Hebrews 2:11-12 where Yeshua is not ashamed to call the sanctified ones his brethren. It was about the same time that I realized just who was saving who in the Revelation 19:12-16 passage which I believe was penned by Yochanan Eliyahu haQore' in the Patmos prison of Herod just before he was beheaded. So when I had come to this understanding I went back and took a better look at the name Bar-Iesou from Acts 13:6, (a word sorcerer?) and I decided for myself that there is no way in my opinion we can be called "son of Yeshua", ("Bar-Iesou") because the Master Yeshua stands in the midst of the great congregation and proclaims the Name of our Father before those whom he is not ashamed to call his brethren. But to each his own I suppose: I have my own house, with its adamah, erets, fields, outerbounds-profane, and habitable world to maintain.