In the GGWO service on Sunday June 1, 2008,
Pastor Tom Schaller mentioned something in his sermon
that I had never heard of before.

Pastor Tom Schaller said:

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
GGWO Live Event for June 1, 2008

If you go to the link above you will see the following text:

If you already know how to view GGWO’s June 1, 2008 service
in a window which allows the elapsed time of the video message to be a adjusted,
adjust the elapsed time to a little less that 34 minutes and 56 seconds.
At 34 minutes and 56 seconds you will see and hear Pastor Tom Schaller say the words quoted at the beginning of this thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then turn the elapsed time to a little less that 34 minutes and 0 seconds.
At 34 minutes and 0 seconds you will hear and see Pastor Tom Schaller say:

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
If you are not able to obtain a window in which the elapsed time can be adjusted ,
you can try my method below;

The method below works for me, but there must be a better method.

Click on the left video icon
If all goes well you will be taken to a live GGWO service via Real Player
and you will see and hear Pastor Carl Stevens speaking.
Click once on the real player screen using your left mouse control
And then
Click once on the real player screen using your right mouse control
A menu will appear with the option: “Play in Real Player”
Click on “Play in Real Player”
A new Real Player window should now open, which allows you to set the elapsed time.
[It may take several seconds until this new window fully appears]
Two video windows are now operating at the same time.
Close the window that does not allow the elapsed time to be adjusted.
[It is possible that this window may delete itself, put if it doesn’t close it manually]


Adjust the elapsed time of the remaining window to just less than 34 minutes and 56 seconds.
At an elapsed time of 34 minutes and 56 seconds Pastor Tom Schaller says:

Adjust the elapsed time of the remaining window to just under 32 minutes and 0 seconds.
At 32 minutes and 0 seconds you will see and hear the second text that is quoted above,

Of course the entire video can be viewed to understand the actual context
in which Pastor Tom Schaller was teaching his sermon.

Daved

What is wrong with this? The inerrancy of scripture is in the first line of their doctrinal statement.

Gee, John8, you haven't met Daved yet, have you?

Shall I ask the question for you, Daved?

WHICH Bible are they saying is totally dependable? (Did I get it right?)

Hi John 8:7 and Administrator,

John 8:7
You wrote:

____________________________________________________________________

Administrator,
You wrote:

Administrator,

The question "WHICH Bible are they saying is totally dependable?"
is certainly a legitimate question to ask Pastor Tom Schaller,
from my point of view!
____________________________________________________________________

John 8:7 and Administrator,

Pastor Tom Schaller used the words: "our Bible" not "our Scriptures"

It annoys me very much,
when a GGWO Pastor such as Pastor Tom Schaller
stands in the pulpit with a King James Bible in his hand and says:

One thing that is known for sure about Pastor Tom Schaller's beliefs, is that:

He most definitely doesn't believe that The King James Bible he reads from in the pulpit,
is totally dependable.

Yet that is precisely what he stated in Sunday's Sermon.

Pastor Tom Schaller
[and probably every other Pastor at GGWO]
believes that the King James Bible is not correct when it teaches that God's name is "JEHOVAH".

A Bible that doesn't teach the correct name for God

IS NOT A TOTALLY "DEPENDABLE BIBLE"

Daved

P.S. Back in the 1990's Pastor Paul Stevens once said on the Grace Hour
that the name "Jehovah" is not even found in "The BIBLE" [whatever that is].

In my blissful ignorance, I called the Grace Hour and said to pastor Paul Stevens:

Pastor Paul answered very simply and of course correctly:

(EDITED by Administrator for formatting only.)

Administrator's question is being posted for a second time.

Pastor Tom Schaller had stated:

In his Jun 7 2008, 05:12 PM post, Administrator says:

Administrator,

In my opinion your question is valid.

Pastor Tom Schaller has said that

while holding an open King James Bible. in his hand,

So WHICH "our" Bible is he saying is totally dependable?

We know that Pastor Tom Schaller teaches that God's name is "Yahweh",
and we know that "Yahweh" is not found in his King James Bible,
that he is holding in his hand.

And to be redundant we know that Pastor Tom Shaller has just stated:

So which "our Bible" is Pastor Tom Schaller referring to?

Daved

P.S.

We also know that the name "Yahweh" is found in no extant Hebrew Manuscript on the planet earth.

I know the source that Pastor Carl Stevens has said he went to,
as a foundation for the name "Yahweh".

Pastor Carl Stevens went to a source outside of the written Scriptures,
for his source for the name "Yahweh"

But Pastor Tom Schaller is indicating that he/they have an "our Bible" that is totally dependable.

WHERE IS IT?

And does this "our" Bible that is totally dependable say that God's name is "Yahweh"?

Would it make any sense [during this period of transition]
for GGWO to acknowledge up front
that although they have been dogmatically teaching that God's name is "Yahweh" for over 7 years,
nobody knows for sure what the actual pronunciation of God's name is/was?

You are nitpicking at semantics.

According to what I have heard GG teach, the original writings were inerrant, not the translations. When he talks about our Bible, Schaller is referring to the original version, not KJV.

You're not smart enough to play games here John300.

HI John 8:7

You wrote:

John 8:7

The most casual observer realizes that your comment is true.

What is not obvious to the most casual observer,
is where the "original version" of "the Bible" is,
which GGWO is using for their teaching that God's name is "Yahweh".

If the original version does not exist,
how does GGWO know for a fact that God's name is "Yahweh"

There appears to be a whole lot of speculation going on.

Why doesn't GGWO admit up front that nobody,
not even the Hebrew scholars,
knows for sure what God's name is/was!.

Pastor Carl Stevens admitted , on the Grace Hour"
that he was trusting in the 190 A.D. Greek writings of Clement of Alexandria,
not in the original version of the Hebrew Bible,
that does not exist,
for his evidence for the name "Yahweh".

Even if the original Hebrew Bible existed, it wouldn't help,
the original consonantal Hebrew text was not vocalized.

The Jewish people deny that they know what God's name is,
but they are very sure it was not "Jehovah" !

And of course KJBO Christians believe that the Jewish people are in error,
when they claim that God's name is not "Jehovah".

They believe dogmatically that God's name is, in fact, Jehovah".

I guess that we will only find out for sure at the Bema Seat Evaluation.

Daved

Daved, I heard an old time preacher on the radio many years ago who dogmatically believed that the KJV was the true inspired version of the Bible. Other that that, I have never heard of any person of group that believes it. Are the KJBO Christians you often refer to part of a large movement in the Church? Is there really a problem here that we should be concerned about?

GG is ambiguous about many things including the way the leaders hold up a King James Bible and call it the Word of God. But if there is anything I have learned over these many years, it is that while they claim to be as precise as possible, GG leaders are often very sloppy in the preaching, teaching and theology. But in spite of this GG is correct in their belief regarding inspiration of the scriptures in their original writings only.

Hi Guest2

You wrote:

Guest2

I don't think that I have actually seen an estimate of how many KJBO Christians exist.
I assume that their numbers are small.

If God's name is not Jehovah, the KJBO positiom would immediately be proven false.
KJBO Christians very strongly defend the accuracy of the name is Jehovah.

KJBO Christians may be the only Christians who believe that God's name is Jehovah.
Strange as it may seem,
the Watchtower Society does not believe that God's name is actually Jehovah!!!!!!!

In my opinion, the strongest case against the accuracy of the name Jehovah is the Jewish people themselves, who claim that the Hebrew spelling (Y)Jehovah was never meant to be read as (Y)Jehovah.

Nevertheless the Hebrew spelling (Y)Jehovah occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic text
that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible.

William Tyndale believed that Jehovah [a.k.a Iehouah in early English]
was the actual name of God,

Of course he could have been wrong,
and of course the Jewish people may indeed be correct.

Bibleprotector Board Article:The attack on God's name "JEHOVAH"

The above link takes you to an article titled: The attack on God's name "JEHOVAH"
which is found on an Austrailian KJBO Discussion Board.

This particular KJBO Church teaches from an edition of the King James Bible
referred to as the "Pure Cambridge Edition" [i.e. PCE].
The PCE has only existed since about 1900 A.D.
but the claim is made that this edition of the King James Bible of 1611 has no errors of any type.

Of course, KJBO Christians may be in error concerning what they teach.
Probable 99 44/100 % of Christians believe that KJBO Christians are mistaken.
____________________________________________________________________

The KJBO position enters into the JEHOVAH / YAHWEH controversy for many reasons, but the most important reason "may" [weasel word] be that it it appears [weasel word) easier to derive a theophoric name beginning with "Y(J)eho from (Y)Jehovah than from "(Y)Yahweh".

It appears [weasel word] that it is easier to prefix Nathan with (Y)Jehovah and produce Yehonathan, than it is to prefix Nathan with Yahweh and produce Yehonathan.

If some Hebrew Scholar is not found that can compound Nathan and Yahweh and produce Yehonathan, important proof appears [weasel word) to be lacking to support the legitimacy of the name "Yahweh".

Several scholarly sources claim it can be done, and these sources even show how they believe it can be done, in three easy steps, but the Hebrew Scholars who post on the b-hebrew discussion board do not seem to agree.
____________________________________________________________________

Guest2,

You also wrote:

Guest2

I suspect that only KJBO Christians disagree with you.
____________________________________________________________________

The GGWO Doctrinal Statement states:

I suspect that John 8:7 believes that it is wrong to question GGWO on the issue of the validity of the name "Yahweh".

However, shouldn't GGWO be more than willing to voluntarilly demonstrate
that the name "Yahweh" is actually preserved in some extant copy of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Saint Paul praised the Berians when they searched the Scriptures daily
to determinre if what Saint Paul was teaching them was actually Scriptural.


Daved


(EDITED by Administrator for formatting only.)

"However, shouldn't GGWO be more than willing to voluntarilly demonstrate
that the name "Yahweh" is actually preserved in some extant copy of the Hebrew Scriptures."

Daved, that is part of the problem with GG in general. There are a lot of things they should voluntarily demonstrate, but they do not. They are steeped in their elitist culture and feel no need to answer to anyone for anything.

"Hodeuon,

Can anyone actually know that GGWO's dogmatic claim that God's name is "Yahweh" is true by faith?

NO EXTANT HEBREW SCRIPTURE PRESERVES THE HEBREW SPELLING "YAHWEH"

What type of faith is necessary to believe that God's name is "Yahweh"?

Daved"


Daved, GGWO didn't make the dogmatic claim as to what God's name is in a vacuum. What they currently teach on this is what the vast majority of scholars teach.

Your repetitive claim that no Hebrew scripture preserves the spelling 'Yahweh' is very misleading. As I've posted many times, the Masoretes wrote elsewhere that when they added the vowel points, they added the vowel points to Adonai, 'Lord', so that that people would say that instead of reading the Tetragrammaton out loud. It is a kethib-qere meaning it is written (kethib) one way but spoken (qere) another. There were no vowel points before the Masoretes so you can't accuse them of corrupting the text.

'Yahweh' might not be a perfect vocalization of the Tetragrammaton. But it is certain that 'Jehovah' is not original. If you make this a two-option question and can eliminate one option, the other stands. However, if you'd like to put forward a third option?

I was speaking with a Greek Orthodox priest today, and he said that a complete copy of Clement of Alexandria's _Stromata_ has been discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai. We'll have to wait until publication to see if having a second copy of that available helps any.

Hodeuon

Keep in mind that GGWO has no scholars. All of their orthodox theology was borrowed from others and their distinctive doctrines are mostly heretical and based on poor scholarship. So when Hodeuon says "What they currently teach on this is what the vast majority of scholars teach.", it is because that is where they got it. There is no one in GG who has the ability to study the manuscripts and come to their own conclusions. The best they can do is adopt the conclusions of others and make them their own. That is not a bad thing.

IMO, you will not catch GGWO in error on any orthodox doctrines. You may catch them over emphasising some doctrines to make them look better than others. Repackaging the gospel of salvation by grace alone and calling it the "finished work" is one example. They say that very few others understand it or teach it the way they do.

Hi Hodeuon,

You wrote:

Hodeuon,

The oldest known copy of Clement's Stromata has been the 11 th century Greek Codex Laurentianus
which preserves "Iaou"
[which does not favor "Yahweh]
and not "Iaoue
[which does favor "Yahweh"].

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica image concerning "Iaoue" & "Iaouai" and "Iaou".

The link above takes you to an article in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica,
in which the three Greek variants
found in various editions of Clement's Stromata Book V., Chapter 6 are identified.

[i.e. "Iaoue" & "Iaouai" and "Iaou"]

It is at least posible that in 1890 all Greek scholars thought that Clement had written "Iaou"
[which does not favor "Yahweh"]
in his Stromata.

But since 1905, two critical editions of Clement's Stromata have been written
which claim that Clement actually wrote "Iaoue" which does favor "Yahweh".

It will be interesting to find out what variant will be found
in this newly disovered copy of Clement of Alexandria's Stromata Book V., Chapter 6:34


Daved

Hodeoun

You wrote:

.

Hodeoun,

I think I asked you once before,
but I am going to ask you a second time.

Are you willing give GGWO a well deserved "PRAISE REPORT" :D
on this DiscussGGWO Discussion Board,
for being a rare Christian Ministry
that was willing to explain the truth about the name "Jehovah"
and about the name "Yahweh"


Hodeoun,

You seem to believe that GGWO's teaching since the 1990's has been accurate,
so why don't you be the first editor on "Discuss GGWO"
to give GGWO a much deserved "PRAISE REPORT",
for having the GUTZ to make known the truth about both the name "Jehovah"
and about the name "Yahweh",
when it was not popular to do same.

You might even influence me to do likewise,
but not immediately.

Daved

"Are you willing give GGWO a well deserved "PRAISE REPORT" biggrin.gif
on this DiscussGGWO Discussion Board,
for being a rare Christian Ministry
that was willing to explain the truth about the name "Jehovah"
and about the name "Yahweh""

It doesn't make them a rare Christian ministry. When Carl changed his position on this in the 90s, he was coming into agreement with the majority of Christian scholars.

Hodeuon

CHS probably learned that "Jehovah" was not an accurate translation of God's name and used it to make himself look scholarly and more precise that other churches. It was one of his pet methods used in keeping us thinking we were better than everyone else. It also served to give him credibility when preaching his false teachings. Any good salesman emphasises the things that make his product better than others.

On Jun 15 2008, 04:26 PM Guest a.k.a. Hodeuon wrote:

Hodeuon,
My repetitive claim that no Hebrew scripture preserves the spelling 'Yahweh' is true,
It was not meant to be misleading!

I often write that Hebrew word #3068 [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ]
occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible.
That statement is also true.
It, also, was not meant to be misleading!

Certainly if one does a little searching in the on-line Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906,
one will very quickly discover that the Jewish editors assert
that the Masoretes added the vowel points from the Hebrew word "Adonai"
to the consonants of the Tetragrammaton
so that that the Hebrew reader would read "Adonai"
instead of reading the Tetragrammaton out loud.

However, one will also find out that the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906.
acknowledge up front that the Masoretes did not point the Tetragrammaton,
with the precise same vowel points as are found in "Adonai".

They acknowledge up front that the first vowel point in Hebrew word #3068 [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ]
is not the same as the first vowel point in "Adonai".

Gesenius and Christian Ginsburg and others,
also acknowledge up front
that the vowel points of (Y)Jehovah and the vowel points of Adonai are not precisely the same

This can be observed in the two images found at the link below:
Image of Hebrew Word #3068 and image of "Adonai"

In my own personal research on this issue,
I have found no consensus amoung scholarly sources,
as to why the Masoretes did not point "(Y)Jehovah" with the precise same vowel points,
as are found in "Adonai"

This well-know fact that the vowel points of Hebrew word # 3068 [ (Y)Jehovah ]
and the vowel points of "Adonai" are not precisely the same,
provides KJBO Christians just enough wiggle room,
to boldly assume that "(Y)Jehovah" actually must have it's own vowel points,
and not the vowel points from "Adonai".

Davidson's Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon also supports the KJBO claim that (Y)Jehovah has it's own vowel points.

KJBO Christians are also more than willing to show scholarly evidence
found in James Strong's Concordance,
that shows that James Strong claimed that "Yehonathan" can be derived
by compounding "Nathan" with "(Y)Jehovah"

In my opinion,
until some Hebrew scholar steps forward and demonstrates to a jury of his peers,
how "Yahweh" can be prefixed to "Nathan",
resulting in the creation of the theophoric name "Yehonathan" ,
the evidence that God's name is "Yahweh" [or maybe "Yah???"]
rests on shaky ground.

Gesenius's is the Hebrew scholar who proposed the hebrew punctuation "Yahweh".
His proposed Hebrew punctuation can be viewed at the link below:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/2642...onarylowres.JPG

Gesenius] treated "Yahweh" as a 3ms imperfect Hifil verb form


FWIW

Daved

Could you please move this conversation to

Daved's thread

Gast,

If you believe that a conversation on this thread
between myself and Hodeuon
should be moved to another thread,
it seems to me as if you should try to get Administrator involved in this issue.

As far as I know,
I do not have authority to move text from this thread to another thread,
even if I wrote the text myself.

I certainly do not believe that I have authority
to move Hodeuon's comments to another thread.

Daved

First, Daved started this thread. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't post on it.

Second, maybe you got away with treating people like second class citizens in GGWO, but it won't fly here.

Why does he need to move the conversation? Because you're so intolerant that you just can't stand someone discussing something that you're not interested in? Or does he need you permission to speak?

Boy, you can take take some people out of the cult...

He said, "could you please." Asking someone to keep on topic is not a mind control cult tendency. Over-reacting could be post traumatic stress from being in a cult. It's okay. I can sing my song again...."Yes, we love you..."

This, actually IS daved's thread.

Uh, again, it IS on topic because it IS daved's thread. Let loose of it and save your nastiness for the cult leaders.

It's his thread and he is on topic.

If someone is treating someone like crap, whether they say "please" or not is hardly the point.

What is the point is a bunch of people compalining about how badly they have been treated and then treating someone in the exact same way.

Guest, in case you haven't noticed, I couldn't give a flying F whether you like me or not. So you know what you can do with your little passive-aggressive song.

Hey look, Arguendo, get this...you're right. I made a mistake. I thought I was on another thread. Dave, I'm sorry. I'll sing the song to myself.

"They acknowledge up front that the first vowel point in Hebrew word #3068 [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ] is not the same as the first vowel point in "Adonai"."

There's a really good illustration of what's going on on the Wikipedia page 'Yahweh'. Scroll down until you see the sidebar on the left with Hebrew letters in it. The vowell points are in red.

The vowel in question is a shewa, written like an English colon. It used to be a pronounced vowel but the syllable has become unaccented, and the vowel has turned into the equivalent of a silent E. Some letters to not allow a vowel to turn all the way into a shewa but instead they form a composite shewa. Guttural letters prefer a composite shewa called a hateph-pathach, which is a short A / silent E combo. It looks like a dash followed by a colon.

The word Adonai, 'Lord', starts with an aleph. In the third Hebrew word in the Wikipedia sidebar, it's the letter on the right that looks sort of like a fancy X. (We don't pronounce that in American English, but it's a glottal step, the non-sound an Englishman makes when pronouncing the word 'bottle'.) The following vowel (written underneath) is a hateph-pathach. Now, when the vowels from 'Adonai' were put with the Tetragrammaton, the hateph-pathach turns into a regular shewa, because the yodh (Y) in YHWH prefers the regular shewa to the hateph-pathach. Y is a pretty soft letter to pronounce, and it doesn't need the half-vowel to help it out that rougher letters like alephs or H's need.

Even though you've now got a compatible version of the shewa in there, you still can't pronounce "Iehowah" in Hebrew - because that first letter yodh / Y signifies an imperfect tense and there's never a long O after the second consonant. (The long O is the red dot written between the two middle consonants in the first Hebrew word on in the Wikipedia sidebar.)

"Gesenius] treated "Yahweh" as a 3ms imperfect Hifil verb form."

Yeah, that makes sense to me. The root is HYH or HWH. The initial Y gives imperfect tense as opposed to perfect tense. Hiphil is causative, which fits the context in Exodus 3. There's no extra Y before the final H, so it's not a Qal form.

Hodeuon

Hi Hodeuon,

You wrote:

Hodeuon

Do you notice that the illustration shows ;
"YHWH intended to be pronounced as Elohim"

"YHWH intended to be pronounced as Elohim"
occurs 305 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text
that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible.

Notice that the yod has a hatef segol under it.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO HEBREW GRAMMAR RULE
THAT PREVENTS THE MASORETES FROM PLACING A COMPOSITE SHEWA UNDER A YOD
Notice that Elohim has a hatef segol under the Aleph.

When YHWH followed "Adonai" in the Hebrew Text,
the Masoretes did not place a simple shewa under the yod,
[like they did in Hebrew word #3068]
they placed a composte shewa [ i.e. hatef segol ] under the yod.

This is another reason
that some KJBO Christians believe that Hebrew word #3068 has the actual vowel points of God's name.

There seems to be no reason why the Masoretes could not have placed a composite shewa [ i.e. hatef patah ]
under the yod in Hebrew word #3068,
IF THEY HAD WANTED TO.

To be redundant;
Since the Masoretes chose not to place a hatef patah under the yod in Hebrew Word #3068,
WHEN THEY COULD HAVE,
some KJBO Christians believes that that is a very strong indication
that the vowel points found in Hebrew word #3068,
are the actual vowel points of God's name.

The link below takes you to my dissection of Yehovah and Adonai.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/2642...ssection600.JPG

The link below takes you to my dissection of Yehovih and Elohiym.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/2642...ssection600.JPG

The two dissections do raise the question:
Why didn't the Masoretes place a composite shewa under the yod in Hebrew word #3068?
There seems to be no Hebrew grammar rule, that prevented them from doing same.

Scholarly sources do not seem to have reached any concensus,
as to why a hatef patah is not found under the yod in Hebrew word #3068.
__________________________________________________________________
Hodeuon,

You also wrote:

Hodeuon,

"Yehonathan,
plus about 15 or so other theophoric names
[starting with Yeho]
are all found in the Hebrew Bible.


Daved

Daved,

You are correct. I should have phrased that, yodh does not appear to take a hateph-pathach, rather than yodh does not appear to take a composite shewa. I'm sorry. The hateph-segol (three dots in a V pattern next to a colon, if anyone else is trying to follow this) does make some sense under a yodh, because it's the E-class composite shewa, and yodh tends to like E-class vowels. It could also be a way the Masoretes used to tip off the reader very quickly that this time he was supposed to pronounce 'Elohim' when he saw the Tetragrammaton. The hateph-segol is very distinctive, and would instantly indicate that the substituted name would not be 'Adonai' this time.

What do you think of my argument that there's no chance that 'Jehovah' is correct?

Hodeuon

Hi Hodeuon,

You wrote:

Hodeuon,

You probably have over 95% of hebrew scholars agreeing with you.

You probably have 99 44/100 % of Jewish people agreeing with you.

You probably have 100 % of GGWO agreeing with you.

HOWEVER, IT IS STILL AT LEAST POSSIBLE,
THAT GOD'S NAME IS "YEHOVAH",
FROM WHICH JEHOVAH HAS BEEN TRANSLATED.

Hodeoun,

I think that there is a chance that "Jehovah" is correct.

Daved

P.S.

The evidence looks different when you start with the premise,
that there is a chance that "Jehovah" is correct,
rather than starting with the premise that,
there's no chance that "Jehovah" is correct?

.

"The evidence looks different when you start with the premise,
that there is a chance that "Jehovah" is correct,
rather than starting with the premise that,
there's no chance that "Jehovah" is correct?"

Well, not to misquote Indiana Jones, but there's no J in Hebrew, either. But I think you mean, let's start with the theory that 'Iehowah' is correct.

Ok, I can look at it from that angle. The first thing I want to do is parse the word 'Jehovah'. Initial Yodh (Y) suggest imperfect tense. The shewa (represented by the e in English, if anyone who doesn't know Hebrew is trying to follow along) suggests to me tht this is not a Qal stem; a hireq (short I) would be expected for that. HWH is the stem, "to be", right? Where I get stuck is what the holem (long O) is doing between the first and second letters of the stem in an imperfect tense. And then a word with a true he (H) as its third stem letter taking an A-class vowel just before that H is odd. Why is it not a segol (short E)? I think maybe that could be explained, but the holem between the first H and W is killing me.

Hodeuon

Geeze! Sorry! I thought this was a different thread. I was confused. Please forgive me for stirring up a bunch of unbelievable overreaction.

And for the record, oh wait, let me quote fancy Nancy "let the record show"...I am not in GGWO.

Hodeoun, you are my hero!

Daved,
I wasn't asking you to actually move the posts. I thought, THOUGHT this was a different thread so I asked if you could move/post on the other thread which I THOUGHT was closer to the topic you were/are discussing.

end of story

Chill. I was wrong. Give me a little breathing room. I'm relatively new to Discuss and got the threads mixed up.

THERE! Is everybody happy now? Or should I make my own thread of apology for not doing things correctly?

Please Daved and Hodeoun continue with your fascinating topic.

Gast writes:

Gast,

The issue is closed as far as I'm concerned.

Daved

Hodeuon,

I assume you are aware that at best,
I have a kindergarten / first grade knowledge of the Hebrew language.

Several years ago I did try to learn a little bit about Hebrew verb forms,
relative to the 2-sylable proposed Hebrew punctuation "YaH:Weh".

Except for the initial "Yod",
nothng of what I may have learned,
seemed to help to explain Yehovah".

However Hebrew word # 1943 [ i.e. hovah ] does exist.
[heh-holem-vav-qamets-heh]
"another form for 1942; ruin; --mischief.

This word helped me back in 2002,
when I was stumbling over the critique
by Sacred name ministries,
that Hebrew word #3068 was an impossible spelling,
because the vav had two vowels attached to it.

Later, after purchasing a fascimile of the Lenengrad Codex,
I learned that in handwritten texts,
one was more likely to see the holem,
more or less centered above the space between the heh and the vav.

I also discovered that in the machine printed Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
the holem seemed to be more or less centered above the space
between the heh and the vav.

And I discovered that this issue didn't seem to concern the Hebrew scholars
who posted on b-hebrew,
even if the holem was placed directly above the vav/waw.

They knew that the holem was a defective holem following the heh,
and not part of a holem-vav
no mater where the holem was placed in the Hebrew text.

Anyway, Hebrew word # 1943 does seem to demonstrate
that there is a legitimate Hebrew word in the Hebrew Bible,
based on the verb HWH,
that has a holem after the heh
as well as a qamets underneath the wav/vav.
_________________________________________________________________
You are correct, I was not implying that there was a "J" in the Hebrew language,
I was trying to say that I believed that:
yod-shewa-heh-holem-vav=qamets-heh might actually be God's name.

Obviously I may be wrong,
but I still approach the "Yahweh" / "Jehovah" controversy with this premise.

I was strongly indoctrinated in this view
while posting on a KJBO website in 2001-2004,
although the person teaching me his beliefs about Hebrew word # 3068,
was not actually a KJBO Christian.

I still very much appreciate what this particular person,
[i.e. Scott Jones]
taught me,
even it ultimately turns out to be erroneous.


Daved.

P.S.

It wasn't until I studied Hebrew word #5771,
that I finally understood that the holem above the vav in Hebrew word #3068,
was actually a defective holem following the heh.

I think that I learned a lot from doing my own word study
of the two forms of Hebrew word #5771:

ayin-qamets-vav-holem-final nun [avon]
[consonantal vav with a defective holem above (actually after] it.

and

ayin-qamets-vav-(holem-vav)-final nun [avown]
consonantal vav, followed by a holem-vav

Hopefully my above analysis is correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that I got off on a tangent,
and didn't respond to most of the issues you raised in your last post.

Instead I tried to explain difficulties I had back in 2001-2002
with finding the holem directly above the vav in Hebrew word #3068,
while at the same time
there was a qamets directly below the vav in Hebrew word #3068.

I will now look at your last post a little more closely.




Daved

Hodeuon,

I am definitely looking at the "YaH:WeH" / "YeHoVaH" controversy differenty at this particular moment,
than I was only several hours ago,

I am aware that the Lamed He VERB CHARTS
that I find in my Hebrew Grammar Book
almost seem to be designed perfectly
for the Hebrew Punctuation that Gesenius proposed in the early 19th century.

Yod-patah-heh-shewa-waw-segol-heh seems to fit perfectly in the 3ms imperfect Hif il column,
if one makes the necessary changes for a HWH verb..

At the same time, I recognize that these same Lamed He VERB CHARTS
also seem to be perfectly designed
for the Hebrew Punctuation found twice at Exodus 3:14. in the Hebrew Bible,
if one makes the necessary changes for a HYH verb

Aleph-segol-heh-shewa-yod-segol-heh seems to fit perfectly in the 1cs imperfect Qal column,
if the Verb Chart is designed for HYH verbs.

My sceptical mind asks,
which came first the chicken or the egg.

Did Gesenius have access to standard Lamed He VERB CHARTS
[for the verb HWH]
in the 19th century,
so that he already knew what the proper 3ms imperfect Hif il form should look like,
when he proposed the punctuation Yod-patah-heh-shewa-waw-segol-heh = "YaH:WeH"

OF COURSE THE VERB CHART THAT GESENIUS HAD ACCESS TO WOULD OF NECESSITY
NOT HAVE HAD ANY VERB FORM IN THE 3MS IMPERFECT HIF IL COLUMN,
BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT IT WAS AT THAT TIME.

To be sort of redundant,
Did Gesenius have access to standard Lamed He VERB CHARTS
[for the verb HYH]
in the 18th century,
that already had Aleph-segol-heh-shewa-yod-segol-heh in the 1cs imperfect Qal column,
but had a blank in the 3ms imperfect Hif il form column,
because no extant Hebrew Text preserved any form of YHWH that would make any sense in that column.

That of course would seem to include "Yehovah"!!!!!!!!

I WONDER IF IT IS GESENIUS THAT DESIGNED THE VERB CHARTS USED BY HEBREW SCHOLARS IN 2008?

Hodeuon,

I think that I will post a question on Garth Grenache's YHWH Discussion Board, concerning this issue.


Daved

Hodeuon

I posted a question on Garth Grenache's YHWHgroup Discussion Board last night.
You can see my post and Garth's response at the link below;

Garth Genache's reply to questions about VERB CHARTS and "YaH:WeH"

Garth's first sentences were:

YaH:WeH is considered by some Hebrew sources to be written in the CVC:CVC form.

Garth refers to "YaH:WeH" as being the typical Masoretic form: YaCCe(h)" .

Daved

"Anyway, Hebrew word # 1943 does seem to demonstrate
that there is a legitimate Hebrew word in the Hebrew Bible,
based on the verb HWH,
that has a holem after the heh
as well as a qamets underneath the wav/vav."

No problem there. I'm not saying that holem cannot follow he because it certainly can. If the root is he-consonant-consonant, the qal present participle will be HoCeC (He holem Consonant tsere Consonant). #1943 is a good example, too. But neither of these is an imperfect verb. I cannot find any occurrence of holem following the first consonant of the root when a verb is in the imperfect tense.

Hodeuon

Hi Hodeuon

You wrote:

I have no answer to the issue you are raising,
since I do not know whether or not Hebrew word #3068 is a legitimate Hebrew Word
that can be analyzed on a Hebrew VERB CHART.

So I bypass the issue you have raised,
and continue to raise,
while continuing to do research on the issue.
_______________________________________________________________________

To fill the void,
I note that Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation "YaH:WeH",
does have a vowel after [actually under] the first heh,
but it is silent.

Dissection of YaH:WeH

At the link above I have dissected Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation: "YaH:WeH".

"YaH:WeH" has a CVC:CVC patern of consonants and vowels
The ":" in CVC:CVC represents a silent shewa, which is being used as a syllable break.

"Yehovah" has a CVCVCVC pattern of consonants and vowels
The "V" in red font represents a defective holem.

Daved