Why is YHWH translated as LORD in most English Bibles?

[benelchi]

We read the word "name" and we superimpose abstract thinking over that. You did a word search and your conclusion was that in most cases the english abstract was correct. However Just because we can easily do that from our abstract worldview doesn't mean it was the same for an AH (Ancient Hebrew). You mentioned there are plenty of abstracts in the bible but just because we see a word like "love" and push an abstract concept over it again doesn't make it the way an ANE approached it.

I did NOT do a word search, I simply quoted from NIDOTTE (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis), one of the most respected theological dictionaries of the OT.

Love in hebrew is ahav (H157). The parent root is "hav"; this word is not in the bible but related words are havhav (H1890), noun for gift and yahav (H3051), a verb for provide. These words are all related and there meanings analogous; not the same but within the same framework. Love in english is a fully abstract thought or emotion; it is something we feel or how we feel towards another and we generally get to choose this feeling or reject it. In Hebraic thought it had a fuller meaning somehow connected to this idea of provision and gift. Love is approached much differently, a person did not choose their parents, siblings, community, children and even spouse. These are are gifts and provision from God and "love" is the product of this. "ahav" is derived from the product of these very concrete ideas and is not just an isolated abstract feeling that we choose.

If a AH said "I love this gift you gave me" it would be something like "I [ahav] this [havhav] you [yahav] me. Ignoring the english/hebrew superimposed with english grammar there still is an idea of how these words are connected. It is just not a coincidence they sound similar; these words and their meanings are related and it shows you the concrete mindset of an AH. Where in English each of those words have very isolated meanings that do not conjure up images of love, or gift or provision (whatever the case may be) when spoken.

I sorry, but this is highly imaginative and in disagreement with virtually all Hebrew scholarship. NIDOTTE has a 23 page article on אהב and never once even suggests the connections you have made here. They do, however, note the early examples in Ugaritic literature that almost always refer to romantic love with the conclusion that "the emphasis in the majority of instances where אהב describes heterosexual love is not on the sexual experience as such but rather on the experiencing and desiring love in an all-encompassing or more general sense." In Semitic literature, all of the earliest references are expressions of this kind of romantic love i.e. a very abstract concept!

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I am not here to argue.

Read what you wrote way back at the beginning in post 4. You offered both an opinion "I do wish" and an argument, "suppose".

Since you responded in this thread, I assume that your comment is related to one of the questions in the OP, although you don't specify. Regardless, I argued against both your opinion and argument.

You dismissed my argument post with a simple "History disagrees with you." You continue in defending the historical accuracy of your statement, not how it might be support for an argument you first presented in post 4, or how it refutes anything in my response. Straw Man.

I don't wish to badger you on the historical accuracy of some Satanic spell. I only want further explanation/defense on how this is relevant to support a position you made in this thread.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Read what you wrote way back at the beginning in post 4. You offered both an opinion "I do wish" and an argument, "suppose".

My "Suppose" is not for an argument, but for a possible story. The OP questions why YHWH is translated Lord. Since the word Lord (Adonai) in Hebrew is a far cry from YHWH in spelling, part of the question is why it is translated so differently. The most common approach I have seen is to say "the vowels are not known, so we do what we can with the current knowledge". To this, someone might object, "we must research and determine the vowels". My "suppose" is to explain why more people are not doing this research. The reason I gave is that there are those who state that they would be abused for evil if they were discovered.

The feeling of argument comes from phrases such as "Don't be so legalistic in your training.", "the only way to truth" and "dramatic speculative hyperbole". You do not know my training, how I teach these matters, or what level of ministry I have been involved in with such sorcerers.

History disagrees with you on two matters: 1. That the name we now write as YHWH did, in fact, have vowels in Hebrew, and was read that way prior to the exile. The purpose for studying it in the seminary is to translate it closer to the heavenly language. 2. That there could indeed be dire consequences if it were believed that Prof. X knew the vowels, as there are people today who would try to get Prof. X to tell them the secret before it was known to the general public, and these people are willing to kill or torture if it suits their needs. Now that I think about it, internet has now made publishing so easy, this is probably not the consideration it was back in 2004, the last time I had cause to raise the concern. This information is in the links I posted in response.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The OP questions why YHWH is translated Lord.

And there have been some good posts on the technicals about how LORD came to be used for YHWH. You seem to address a second question in the OP on the appropriateness of using some ancient "proper name" for God while also voicing the opinion that using Lord is "terribly confusing".

Since the word Lord (Adonai) in Hebrew is a far cry from YHWH in spelling, part of the question is why it is translated so differently. The most common approach I have seen is to say "the vowels are not known, so we do what we can with the current knowledge". To this, someone might object, "we must research and determine the vowels". My "suppose" is to explain why more people are not doing this research. The reason I gave is that there are those who state that they would be abused for evil if they were discovered.

If you believe that Moses did originally speak YHWH with some unknown/forgotten vowels, why would it be bad to say the name now? Further as has been posted, Jesus and the NT authors used Lord in place of YHWH. So I question your encouragement to use original language translations.

History disagrees with you on two matters: 1. That the name we now write as YHWH did, in fact, have vowels in Hebrew, and was read that way prior to the exile.

Never stated such.

The purpose for studying it in the seminary is to translate it closer to the heavenly language.

And now you offer up a hint that you disagree with my argument in post 17 based on seminary study. Care to elaborate why you think Hebrew is the heavenly language, such I argued against.

2. That there could indeed be dire consequences if it were believed that Prof. X knew the vowels, as there are people today who would try to get Prof. X to tell them the secret before it was known to the general public, and these people are willing to kill or torture if it suits their needs. Now that I think about it, internet has now made publishing so easy, this is probably not the consideration it was back in 2004, the last time I had cause to raise the concern. This information is in the links I posted in response.

Dramatic speculative statement "there could indeed be dire consequences" to which you professed to not believe in post 4 but for some reason you continue to propagate a "historically proven story". People have speculated what vowels were likely used. Regardless, one could just try every possible vowel combination and eventually speak the "unspeakable".

I guess because Indiana Jones fought the Nazis from using the Ark of the Covenant we should be most afraid of the power contained in it and never do an archaeological dig to find it.

 

[Ken Behrens]

And there have been some good posts on the technicals about how LORD came to be used for YHWH. You seem to address a second question in the OP on the appropriateness of using some ancient "proper name" for God while also voicing the opinion that using Lord is "terribly confusing".

If you believe that Moses did originally speak YHWH with some unknown/forgotten vowels, why would it be bad to say the name now? Further as has been posted, Jesus and the NT authors used Lord in place of YHWH. So I question your encouragement to use original language translations.

Never stated such.

And now you offer up a hint that you disagree with my argument in post 17 based on seminary study. Care to elaborate why you think Hebrew is the heavenly language, such I argued against.

Dramatic speculative statement "there could indeed be dire consequences" to which you professed to not believe in post 4 but for some reason you continue to propagate a "historically proven story". People have speculated what vowels were likely used. Regardless, one could just try every possible vowel combination and eventually speak the "unspeakable".

I guess because Indiana Jones fought the Nazis from using the Ark of the Covenant we should be most afraid of the power contained in it and never do an archaeological dig to find it.

Lord is also the translation for Adonai. That is what is confusing about it.

It is not bad to say the name now. I wish we could.

Then I misunderstood what you meant. Sorry.

I do not think Hebrew is the heavenly language. I meant that seminary study has its uses.

The idea of trying the vowel combinations is a good one, for those who believe the correct name holds power. Once could do the required "spell" and just change the vowels until results were obtained, and then presumably the results would confirm the vowels. The only drawback is, that preparing the proper spell can take days, as these people also believe a certain amount of emotional preparation is required, and the time must be astrologically propitious.

If I were Indiana Jones' assistant in that one, I would not be concerned about the power in the Ark, but I would be concerned about the Nazis and their guns.

 

[DamianWarS]

Do you acknowledge that in the story in Exodus 33 Moses asked for a peak into the glory of God? Do you acknowledge that Moses had previously seen the glory of God? Do you agree that God honored Moses' request and showed him even greater glory than Moses had seen before? Do you agree that God did this in two ways, by passing in front of him and saying his name? It follows that God's passing in front of Moses and his speaking of his name was more glorious than Moses' previous encounters. If not, there is no point to the story.

If God showed Moses his full glory he would die. Since Moses did not die what God showed him was a his manifested glory. We tend to anthropomorphize God giving him human characteristics and by the look of Exodus 33 God can related to us in the same way. Does God have a front or back? Does he have a face or hand? No, because all of those things express limitations which would be contrary to the existence of God. These are human characteristics and they show us that what God showed Moses was not the incomprehensible vastly infinite creator of the heavens and the earth but was a contextual version of himself. He was speaking to an ancient concrete minded Hebrew so he showed Moses what Moses would receive in his limitations. This can just as well extend to what he spoke to Moses. Language itself cannot express the limitless of God and no word, spoken on earth or heaven, can contain his infinite measureless qualities.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If God showed Moses his full glory he would die. Since Moses did not die what God showed him was a his manifested glory. We tend to anthropomorphize God giving him human characteristics and by the look of Exodus 33 God can related to us in the same way. Does God have a front or back? Does he have a face or hand? No, because all of those things express limitations which would be contrary to the existence of God. These are human characteristics and they show us that what God showed Moses was not the incomprehensible vastly infinite creator of the heavens and the earth but was a contextual version of himself. He was speaking to an ancient concrete minded Hebrew so he showed Moses what Moses would receive in his limitations. This can just as well extend to what he spoke to Moses. Language itself cannot express the limitless of God and no word, spoken on earth or heaven, can contain his infinite measureless qualities.

Since you quoted and responded to the my post but did not answer any of the questions you quoted, I guess you agree with what my answer is.

Do you acknowledge that in the story in Exodus 33 Moses asked for a peak into the glory of God? YES

Do you acknowledge that Moses had previously seen the glory of God? YES

Do you agree that God honored Moses' request and showed him even greater glory than Moses had seen before? YES

Do you agree that God did this in two ways, by passing in front of him and saying his name? YES

It follows that God's passing in front of Moses and his speaking of his name was more glorious than Moses' previous encounters; if not, there is no point to the story. I think you also agree with this statement.


So your response to my statements is to argue what God looks like. Despite the many scriptures that speak of God using words of human form, you are convinced that God must be infinite. I would not put God in a box and say he has to be infinite in size in order for his presence/sight/power to be everywhere. I don't wish to argue what God's hand/face or back side looks like if you think the words of scripture are to not be taken literally.

The point of the story is that Moses got a peak at God in his glory, that no other in history has been described as seeing. God did pass by with ALL his glory/goodness. Read verse 19, it says with ALL my goodness. Exodus 33:19. As far as what is the difference between seeing God's front/face vs back, the takeaway is that, while God was there with his full glory, Moses was permitted to see only a side of God with reduced glory, otherwise Moses would die. I expect that Moses could feel God's presence in his full glory while his eyes were "covered", but then a little later Moses got to see God from the "back".

Now the other part of God's glory was for God to proclaim his name in Moses' presence. Now despite scripture recording the same name in Exodus 33:19 as in Exodus 3:15, I think different names were actually spoken. In one case the name was to be spoken by the commons for calling on God. In the other case, the name was spoken by God to reveal his glory to Moses. If God's full glory was present there for Moses, I think God would have used his heavenly name when speaking his name to Moses. It doesn't matter if this was in a heavenly language that might sound strange to Moses or that he might not know what it "meant". Just hearing it would have been a special honor.

Now this is some speculation, but I am convinced the God does have a heavenly name, different than what we could use on earth.