Jump to content
The World News Media

“Yahweh” or “Jehovah”?


Micah Ong

Recommended Posts

  • Member
4 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Since you think YHWH is a pagan name disseminated by ignorant Jews to equate him to the pagan god Baal. You have not only blasphemed in the name of the "Lord" but have LOST all sensible argument toward your mental state.

YAHWEH is NOT a HEBREW NAME. It is ARAMAIC, which is closely related to HEBREW.

Aramaic replaced ancient Paleo Hebrew and nearly all the existing manuscripts, including the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in the Babylonian Aramaic alphabet.

These four letters YHWH are Babylonian Aramaic. They are NOT SACRED and they are NOT HOLY. They come from the very root of Babel, confusion, and babble and are profane! According to the Jews who teach about these four letter, the god of this name is a bisexual. He is said to be androgynous (being both male and female). He is said to be androgynous (being both male and female). This god is a devil god. He is NOT the TRUE God of the ISRAELITES.

Two Catholic monks invented the guess names of JEHOVAH (1270AD) and YAHWEH (about 1725AD). They should not be in any Bible since they did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

The antichrist Concision (Law keepers, Noahides) who worships the Tetragrammatons’ YHWH, hail the Aramaic alphabet letters of Mystery Babylon to be sacred and holy and the guess names Jehovah and Yahweh derived from them to be the sacred name(s) of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 6.5k
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yet you continue to enter a JW forum and declare Jehovah is not God's name "repeatedly"....... Adios.... go find some other waters to play in and hurl insults.  

I'm sure a serious question would first need to be asked, and not some long-drawn opinion in order to have a meaningful bible discussion, and not just an argument generated by animosity. No Christian

@Arauna has often pointed out that something she calls "hate OCD" will affect the ability of a person to tell the truth about another person's point of view when it disagrees (at least in part) with t

Posted Images

  • Member
4 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. “Yah” (#H3050) means “god”. “Hovah” (#H1942) translates to “eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness.”

That's just evidence that it would probably never have been pronounced that way by people who speak Hebrew. The Watch Tower publications have also sometimes stated a preference for "Yahweh" as the more correct pronunciation, and "Jehovah" only as a more consistent and familiar pronunciation:

*** w02 4/1 p. 5 Search for God With Your Heart and Mind ***
Some scholars prefer the rendering “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” [neutral]

*** w80 2/1 p. 6 Does God Have a Name? ***
“Yahweh” (sometimes “Jahveh”) is simply an attempt to express God’s name in a form nearer to the original Hebrew.

*** w63 11/1 p. 650 par. 5 The Book of “Everlasting Good News” is Beneficial ***
. . . the name Jehovah, or Yahweh, as some critical clergymen prefer to pronounce it today.

*** g99 2/8 p. 8 Identifying the Only True God ***
Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.

*** g73 3/22 p. 27 “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”? ***
And further, the form “Jehovah” has a currency and familiarity that “Yahweh” does not have. “Yahweh” is obviously a transliteration, whereas “Jehovah” is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated.

*** su chap. 1 p. 8 par. 8 What Will Become of Planet Earth? ***
Much of the Bible was written originally in Hebrew, and in the Hebrew Bible text God’s personal name appears nearly 7,000 [6,823] times as a sacred tetragrammaton (יהוה). Some translators render it as Yahweh, but in English the most commonly used form of the name is Jehovah.

*** na p. 9 God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation ***
Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names.

*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
as the more correct way,
we have retained the form
"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
JHVH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Starting with the basics, we have a quote like the following from the source: "The Divine Name Yahweh" already mentioned above. For ease of reading I'll transliterate instead of merely trying to reproduce Hebrew and Greek characters.

THE proper name for God as the covenant God of Israel is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH). The original pronunciation is uncertain. By inference from its contracted forms in compound names -- יו (YW) or יהו (YHW) at the beginning, or יה (YH) or יהו (YHW) at the end1 -- it appears to have been pronounced Yahweh, and this is confirmed by independent testimony to its transliteration as 'Iabe2 or 'Iaoue.3 The tetragrammaton occurs some 5321 times in the OT and a separate short form of the divine name  יה (YH), 25 times.4

We count 6,823 instances of YHWH rather than 5,321. But in general we agree with the ideas mentioned. The Foreword in the1950 NWT says that Yahweh is preferred as more accurate, although Jehovah is kept for recognizability and consistency.

The footnotes included in this quote might be good for future reference:

1For the philological reasons for connecting these forms with יהוה, see J. Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, p. 611; B. Stade, Hebrew Grammar, par. 113; S. R. Driver, Studia Biblica, 1, pp. 4-6.

2Pronounced so by the Samaritans according to Theodoret of Cyros. See Quaestio 15 in Exod 7: kalousi de auto Samareitei IABE, 'Ioudaioi de AIA

3So Clement of Alexandria. See Strom. 5, 6, 34: to tetragrammon onoma to musticon ho periekeinto hois monois to aduton basimon en legetai de 'Iaoue.

4The forms יהו and יהה (probably erroneous) are found in the Elephantine Papyri.

I should mention that it's likely that in a discussion of this type, that either form, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," will be used interchangeably. I prefer Jehovah as a common usage pronunciation, but as stated in another recent thread even the Watch Tower publications have said that Yah-weh' is likely more accurate:

*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
as the more correct way,
we have retained the form
"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since
the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
JHVH.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

   I like to look at it  [since all we have is evidence} that of the telephone game or Chinese whispers. You tell a story and it goes all around until it come back to you all different. However I like to look at the SIMILARITIES rather than the differences. This can be applied to many different topics {like the 500 global flood stories all around the world} but concerning this topic think: Since many of the theophoric names with YHWH contain "Yeho" or Jeho as the beginning of the name and many names with the endings have "Yah" or Jah. and since we don't know the original pronunciation but we do have the results its like the telephone game. So according to that evidence it would be "Yehowah"

   Also some Jewish scholars have said that Yahweh is proper. Now think they don't want to pronounce the CORRECT pronunciation because of their tradition yet they prefer Yahweh? Perhaps because they know it is not even close to the original three syllable name so they say "Go ahead use that form." since it is not correct {although they do not know for sure either way}.

   Of course it depends on what language you use. God's name is three syllables in English but some languages it is only two.{Check out the huge list of Jehovah in 120 languages on the Appendix A5 NWT}.  The important thing is that we USE that name rather than try and hide it as Satan would want to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 years later...
  • Member
On 5/27/2017 at 2:26 PM, JW Insider said:

*** na p. 9 God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation ***
Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names.

CURRENCY and FAMILIARITY = MAN MADE TRADITION 

CUSTOM = man made tradition.  

And then JW org / GB / Watchtower, pretend to be 'no part of this world' SO WHY FOLLOW TRADITIONS OF MEN.

On 5/27/2017 at 2:26 PM, JW Insider said:

*** New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, Foreword, p.25 ***

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"
as the more correct way,
we have retained the form
"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity
with it since
the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with
other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton
JHVH.

we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity = MAN MADE TRADITION, or worse.

Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.

Now I was taught by JWs that YHWH was the four letters of the tetragrammaton.

So one of them has to be a lie. 

And all the time they admit that 

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah-weh'"  as the more correct way,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

It appears a forgotten post has comeback to life from 2017. The same problem exists today as it did in 2017. Either you believe in the name of God by its language interpretation, or you don't.

If the YHWH is in the form of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek or any other formed language, the YHWH or YHVH still remains.

Diana Lobel
Department of Religion, Boston University

Abstract
Saadya Gaon translates Ehyeh asher Ehyeh into Arabic as “the eternal (beginningless) that will not cease to be.” Abraham Maimonides makes a conceptual identification between Saadya’s interpretation of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh as eternity and the assertion of his father that Ehyeh asher Ehyeh signifies Necessary Existence. Moses Maimonides draws an allusive relationship between Ehyeh asher Ehyeh and the Tetragrammaton, perhaps hinting at a connection between the Tetragrammaton and the root hayah he is hesitant to openly spell out. As his son suggests, Maimonides hints that Ehyeh asher Ehyeh offers an explication of the Tetragrammaton.

Introduction: the Tetragrammaton and Ehyeh asher Ehyeh Among the mysterious names of God in the Bible, we find the ineffable fourletter name, the Tetragrammaton, Y-H-V-H, described in rabbinic literature as the explicit or articulated name (shem ha-meforash), or the distinctive, particular name (shem ha-meyuḥad). We find many statements in rabbinic literature regarding prohibitions on pronouncing, writing, and erasing the Tetragrammaton.1 In daily Jewish prayer, all blessings address God by this mysterious name, although in place of pronouncing it, Jews from very ancient times substituted the name “My Lord” (Adonai).

2 A second mysterious name of God is Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. This name is paradoxical precisely because it can suggest two opposing connotations, one fixed and the other fluid. The name might suggest that “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be” in the fixed sense of an eternal, unchanging essence, or it might suggest that “I will be changing and open according to historical circumstances.” A third possibility is that the verse suggests that the infinite, mysterious God cannot be confined to any particular name.

The name will never be erased. The only difference a Christian need to apply it more seriously, is when "lord" or "god" is used for Jesus in some form of Trinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Convoluted and muddy thinking again: You say that if we can assume the tablet was 568 this suggests that the king was in his palace to issue the order for Borsippa. But 20 years earlier, a runner would have to run for weeks or a month to get that order from Judah for 588, a date historically suggested for Nebuchadnezzar's army to be sieging Jerusalem.  So your basic point is that, yes it might make sense for 568, the astronomical date for his 37th year, but if we want his 37th year to be twenty years earlier, in his 17th year in 588, when he might be there with his army at Jerusalem. And even though this is more difficult because a runner would have to take up to a month for the message (and a month to get back), then that means that his 37th year could also be his 17th year, and we can therefore use the 588 date for that same event.  If anyone here believes that to be a valid argument, they simply have no business discussing the topic.
    • Hallucinations?  Not that it matters, but it's closer to 11 miles. The claim you made that Borsippa was much further than Babylon from Jerusalem turned out to be a false claim. But I never cared, and never struggled with it, and never made any point about it. If you are trying to make a point that the king was far away from Jerusalem in 588, so what?  Rather than confusing you, it could merely be thought of as a further agreement with the Bible's account. Notice that there is a difference between the Bible accounts related to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and/or 19th year attack on Jerusalem, and the Bible accounts related to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th and/or 8th year attack on Jerusalem. See if you can spot the difference: Here are some references to the 7th/8th year: (2 Kings 24:8-12) . . .Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, . . . During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege. King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to the city while his servants were laying siege to it. King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign.  (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.  In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . . And here are the references to the 18th, then the 19th year  (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem,. . . (2 Kings 25:1, 2) . . .In the ninth year of Zed·e·kiʹah’s reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem. He camped against it and built a siege wall all around it,  and the city was under siege until the 11th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah.  (2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house,. . . Nebuchadnezzar is said to be explicitly interacting with Jerusalem in his 7th/8th year, which astronomy evidence places around 597. Then about 10 years later, which would be about 587, Nebuchadnezzar comes to Jerusalem again, for a long nearly two-year siege. Does he stay for the entire siege? Is he the one who takes the exiles this time, as Jeremiah says he had done in this 7th year? In fact, about 10 years later, per the Bible's record, this time the city may have been under siege for between 1 and 2 years. Does the king have to sit around with them outside the city for all those months? Or does it become the responsibility of his army and his chief, Nebuzaradan, to come to Jerusalem to take the city when it is finally weakened to the point of surrender? Per astronomical records the entire siege could have included 589, 588, and 587. Does that mean that Nebuchadnezzar could not order the death of someone in Borsippa, just because a siege of Jerusalem was going on at the time? Did you think the army of an empire like Babylon could not wage wars on several fronts at the same time?  But all of this argument of yours is nonsense -- it's MOOT -- because it is YOU who are trying to create the confusion. The astronomical records indicate that the 37th year of Babylon is 568, not 588. So this is long AFTER Jehovah has allowed Nebuchadnezzar to "take care" of Jerusalem. You don't even need to know the BC/BCE years involved. Very explicitly the tablet says this is the 37th year. And the 37th year is long after the 18th and 19th years.
    • That was convoluted and strange. I assume it was that way on purpose. I have not tried to refute anything from VAT 4956. My "acceptance" of the evidence from VAT 4956 is not the same thing as "refuting" it. Unless you are doing that thing again where you say you can use words to mean whatever you want. Now you are doing that thing again where you hope to imply that the stance of 100% of the current "authorities" and "experts" the Watchtower has quoted just happen to agree with COJ. So, in order to make it easier to dismiss the conclusions of all those experts, you need to point out that those experts agree with COJ, therefore you can dismiss their conclusions.  This is not just stupid. It's dishonest because you have done it before. It's also hypocritical because you have never once ever been able to point out even one sentence from his GTR book that was wrong. When you finally did attempt to prove he was wrong about something, you picked his reference to Nabopolassar's years mentioned in the "Chronicles," you ended up inadvertently showing that COJ was perfectly accurate. That must have been embarrassing. As you know, COJ has nothing to do with this discussion. From now on, instead of referring to COJ directly, I think we should just refer call him, "the person that George88 has shown to be accurate." In fact, until you can show even one inaccurate sentence, that's how I will refer to "COJ, the person that George88 has shown to be accurate."
    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.