Hebrew has no Vowels?

[bbyrd009]

In my opinion, the article is a load of rubbish. It sounds impressive, but is a mish-mash of truth, half-truth and pure invention. I note that the author doesn't identify him/herself, which always raises suspicions...

they do have an intro page, i believe if you click the icon @ the upper left...ya, where it is revealed that this is surely a collaborative effort, fwiw. The author i am in contact with via their links does not raise any red flags, i mean unless i got a false name, which i'm not getting that vibe at all.

His/their characterizations i don't have to go along with anyway imo, as i said i kind of ignore that stuff for the most part anyway, and it seems to me that the author clearly delineates which Voices he is speaking from, that i may be allowed to infer for myself. I particularly appreciated the lack of being manipulated, but it seems you feel otherwise?

If there are any half-truths this would be a different matter, obviously, so maybe these will be forthcoming

Yes - there are some "vowel letters" in Hebrew - but why should their addition make it any easier for a native Hebrew speaker to read? There's a very good reason why Hebrew script doesn't have vowels - in any Hebrew word, the vowels are not constant. By leaving the vowels out, the basic word is actually easier to recognise!

this is addressed in the article--and in history, as we know that writing used to be the province of a privileged few, Deborah--and what you have then is a root...and the rest of your assertion is functioning on the assumption that language speaking and scribing arise together, when it isn't like that, lots could speak, few could write, so imo the reality should be the guide there?

See how no vowels and no spaces is even like intentionally hiding writing from people maybe? There were even draconian laws about this going back to forever, and even again in our more recent antiquity. So see how this perception of "make it any easier for a native Hebrew speaker to read" is not really pertinent, if you will

And the Name of God is not "made up only of vowel symbols". It can't be, because all Hebrew words have to start with a consonant! (That's one reason why the 'silent' consonants, aleph and ayin, exist). And anyone who claims that the Name of God is not introduced in the Bible until I Samuel has obviously never read the Bible!

out of time for now sorry, i'm sure the comment is explainable, do you find YHWH before then? ty

 

[bbyrd009]

"The name יהוה(or YHWH) consists only of those vowel symbols and represents the "God of the Vowel People" (as Joel M. Hoffman lovingly puts it in his book In The Beginning)" ibid

seems to be in contest here i guess? so we'll see

 

[bbyrd009]

"
The name YHWH Sabaoth means YHWH of the Communities or Alliances, and this name obviously expresses peoples talking with other peoples and deriving their strength from sharing information in stead of physical strength or vast armies. This incredible name is introduced in the Bible, in 1 Samuel 17:45, where (you guessed it) young David hurls it at Goliath, who was then enjoying his last few moments alive. "That all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear" (17:47)..."

ha so ya the guy is out there ok so take what rings true to you and leave the rest i guess these i contemplate, i don't really pay them too much attn, imo that is not as interesting as the facts that we get wrong, although it should be prolly

"So no, the Masoretes did not add previously non-existing vowels to the Hebrew Bible, but left us notations about what the Hebrew words may have sounded like (namely "David" in stead of "Dod", and so on).
The name Masoretes in the Bible

The name Masorete(s) obviously doesn't occur in the Bible itself because the Masoretes, the folks who added pronunciation symbols (the Masorah) to the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible, began to be active in the second half of the first millennium after Christ. Their work and intentions, however, are of enormous importance to students of the Bible because:"

 

[bbyrd009]

a lot of this is...maybe more common knowledge than many might think, God of the Vowel - Google Search

and i think any strong objections can likely be put down to bad premises being violated anyway, in which case the premises should go, but of course they can stay, too. If some guy i never met knows more about Masoretes and vowels than i do i can tolerate listening to some mostly irrelevant theories about the past, especially when i start digging trying to discredit them and they get more and more relevant, which i have to assume is what has happened herenow?

Life More Abundantly just looks diff than Death More Abundantly ok, and the two really only share some vocabulary, unlike Epi's "My kurios and my theos" which lost me as there is no YHWH in there anywhere, maybe i missed the point?

but hopefully at least to a casual reader this may not be obvious, but to the regulars in here it should be that this deafening silence amounts to a site endorsement of Abarim lol

 

[Episkopos]

a lot of this is...maybe more common knowledge than many might think, God of the Vowel - Google Search

and i think any strong objections can likely be put down to bad premises being violated anyway, in which case the premises should go, but of course they can stay, too. If some guy i never met knows more about Masoretes and vowels than i do i can tolerate listening to some mostly irrelevant theories about the past, especially when i start digging trying to discredit them and they get more and more relevant, which i have to assume is what has happened herenow?

Anything older than the DSS is found only in fragments...little bits here and there. Like the Nash Papyrus.

The MSS is a whole codex compiled and preserved by the Masoretes around 1000 AD.

When you compare the MSS and the DSS there is very little difference...except where scribal errors may have been introduced. When we compare the LXX translation to the MSS, we again get a very accurate rendering of the text...the ancient Hebrew codex that was used for translation being lost. So then we can be confident that the MSS is authorative.

The challenge for the church is to convince the Jews of the truth from their own bible.

 

[bbyrd009]

Anything older than the DSS is found only in fragments...little bits here and there. Like the Nash Papyrus.

The MSS is a whole codex compiled and preserved by the Masoretes around 1000 AD.

When you compare the MSS and the DSS there is very little difference...except where scribal errors may have been introduced. When we compare the LXX translation to the MSS, we again get a very accurate rendering of the text...the ancient Hebrew codex that was used for translation being lost.

ty, seems in agreement with the authors for the most part. This last line, about the ancient Hebrew codex being "lost," i would maybe question this characterization now, even though i grew up with it too

 

[bbyrd009]

So then we can be confident that the MSS is authorative.

probably, imo our scribes are the much bigger issue?

 

[bbyrd009]

"
The name Masoretes is like the epithet Explorers; it describes a group of completely different people who shared one particular quality without being unified by that quality. The Masoretes were Hebrew scholars who worked over the span of a few centuries and in a geographic area ranging from Babylon to Palestine and from Europe to Yemen. These Masoretes were part of the larger Hebrew academia, which in turn operated within a culture that was obsessed with a past that was slipping away; a culture in which Muhammad urged people to return to the monotheism of Moses and produced the Quran, and Arabic scholars were working hard on systems similar to that of the Masoretes. It's probable that both the Masoretes and their Arabic colleagues got their idea from the efforts of Greek scholars who began adding diacritic symbols to their ancient texts in about the second century AD.

The formal Hebrew Bible of today is based on the Leningrad Codex, which is a Tiberian Masoretic Text of 1009 AD, which is a copy of a text that was produced by the Ben-Asher family, and they were Masoretes living and working in Tiberias in Galilee. From what remains of their work, scholars conclude that the Ben-Ashers must have been a lively bunch, because apart from their phenomenal body of work they also show a substantial degree of variation within their own ranks. Then, the Ben-Ashers were not the only ones working with that now so famous Masoretic system, because the Ben-Ashers were at much documented odds with another Tiberian family, namely the Ben-Naphtali family, and that's just one competitor we know about, working within the same system.

A whole other famous Masoretic system was the Babylonian system, or rather: were the Babylonian systems, which consisted of a simple and a complex one and at least six more identifiable styles. A third system (or again, rather a cluster of various systems) is called "Land of Israel" because it's referred to in some 11th century European text that discusses the diacritics of the phrase ארץ ישראל (erets yisrael), meaning land of Israel. It's not clear where this particular cluster of systems originated but "most people believe that the Land of Israel system is the earliest system" (says Joel M. Hoffman in In The Beginning).

A fourth system, again with internal variations, uses Tiberian symbols but writes the Land of Israel system. A fifth system was developed in Yemen, and a sixth system was developed by scholars of the East Syriac language area..." ibid

 

[bbyrd009]

"
The Masoretes are commonly ascribed a desire to preserve the sound of the original Hebrew, but it's not that simple. It's true that their various systems of diacritic symbols conveyed most vowel sounds and thus syllables, but that doesn't automatically mean that they aimed to preserve what the text sounded like in whatever previous time. In fact, no matter where or when the Masoretes worked, they all knew very well that the sound of a language changes over time as well as over geographic distances (the Babylonian Jews and the Palestinian Jews visited each other and spoke Hebrew with differing dialects).

Then, as very few commentators appear to realize, sound can not be written down. No amount of dots and jingles can convince a hapless reader of the sound of a particular symbol around which the dots and jingles occur. Syllables and emphases, yes, but sounds, nope..."

 

[liafailrock]

Not so much. The Masoretes developed the Niqqud (vowel pointing) around 1000 AD (not BC)

The strength of the Hebrew language is in the imagery of the letters...they tell a story within a word, (with pictographs) and with the truth they convey.

All I know is this dumb Gentile here needs those vowel pointers for me to read any Hebrew at all -- then my pronunciation is abut 95% correct. That's what they are there for. The Jews don't need them and when stuff is written without the nikkud signs I have a terrible time reading it. That's because I don't know enough words to "fill in" the vowel sounds. A native English speaker would probably realize that CHK is check by the context. But a non-native speaker might say chuck or chick without knowing the context. In short, they are there for folks like me.

 

[Vexatious]

The challenge for the church is to convince the Jews of the truth from their own bible.

The Jews own bible is the Talmud, and it teaches that Jesus is facing eternal judgment. The challenge for the church is to convince you that Christians are God's chosen people.

 

[bbyrd009]

then my pronunciation is abut 95% correct.

apparently even contemporary Jews would not be able to agree with this, i think it is widely acknowledged that sounds cannot be indicated by any kind of writing, and that today's Jews do not know how yesterday's Jews actually pronounced anything for sure

" In fact, no matter where or when the Masoretes worked, they all knew very well that the sound of a language changes over time as well as over geographic distances (the Babylonian Jews and the Palestinian Jews visited each other and spoke Hebrew with differing dialects).

Then, as very few commentators appear to realize, sound can not be written down. No amount of dots and jingles can convince a hapless reader of the sound of a particular symbol around which the dots and jingles occur..."

 

[bbyrd009]

"
No matter where or when they worked, the Masoretes did precisely what the authors of the Greek Septuagint had done centuries earlier and what the proto-Rabbis had began to do in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:8), namely providing an intermediate form between the original text and a spoken human language; a presentation of the original text that was closer to a spoken language than the original. They added vowel-sounds and devised a complex grammar that formed a bridge between the original and their interpretation.

It's tempting to think that the Hebrew Bible was written with in mind a spoken human language but with only a wretchedly primitive script at hand, but that is probably not true. When the Bible in its final form was written, alphabets with symbols reserved for vowels already existed, yet the authors of the Bible chose to not use them, or to simply amend their existing alphabet with more vowels, and that probably deliberately. A consonantal alphabet is a medium with specific qualities, and the use of it gives a specific result. A visual artist will use wood to express one idea but marble to express another, and a musician may write one particular piece for violin and another for saxophone, depending on the qualities of the piece.

A poet who expresses himself in a consonantal alphabet is like a mime performer or a minimalistic painter or sculptor, whose final work consists in part of the observer's interpretation..." ibid

 

[bbyrd009]

"
As stated above, without the efforts of the Masoretes (and the Septuaginters and proto-rabbis), we wouldn't have a Bible as we know it. But we should nevertheless always remember that the Bible was given to us without symbols reserved for vowels. Most of us like to think that the Holy Spirit gave us the Bible, and we should also be brave enough to believe that the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing. The Scriptures that comprise the New Testament are just a small sliver of all the correspondence that swept through the known world in the first century AD, but look at the variety of interpretation and even the bold disagreements it contains (Acts 15:39, Galatians 2:11, Philippians 1:18).

It's obviously folly to think that there can be only one true interpretation of the Scriptures, as if we are robots that can run only on software that leaves no margin of interpretation. The truth is that the Hebrew Scriptures are designed in such as way that there are multiple true interpretations possible, due only to the inefficiency of our language. In other words: our language is not capable to convey the whole truth fully and can only convey one perspective at a time. The Hebrew in which the Bible was written conveys all perspectives at once..."

@Episkopos, also below, and maybe a demo of someone saying "Aleph" correctly into a microphone that reproduces the Aleph in sand put on the horizontal front/top of the speaker would be pertinent here

 

[bbyrd009]

"
Here at Abarim Publications we're pretty sure that the Masoretes and the people who wrote the Septuagint, did not have a God-given authority to alter the Hebrew Scriptures in any way (Deuteronomy 4:2), and their works are therefore mere interpretations of it. These interpretations were probably time bound (remember that the Masoretes worked in a time when Judaism, Islam and Christianity were locked in bloody competition with each other, with other reality models and with commerce and degradation in general) and restricted by these scholars' intellectual understanding of both Scriptures and creation. Here at Abarim Publications we aim to discuss the texts the way the ancients wrote them and not the way the Masoretes or anybody else interpreted them. Type 'Masoretes' in the search box to the right, for an extensive list of instances at which the consonantal text allows for a much broader interpretation than the Masoretes decreed.

Jesus instructed us to not appoint leaders and to call no man father (Matthew 23:9-10) and to diligently preserve our own, personal relationship with the real Father (John 14:6), but within decades after His death, humanity appointed popes and clergy, who in turn made us believe that only an elite priesthood could truly understand the Word, and that in utter submission to the Pope (which means father)...

Here at Abarim Publications we're obviously not very positive about the Masoretic limitations of the Biblical texts, but we also need to put that into perspective. The Masoretes gave the Word of God a human form, which is surprisingly Messianic because Jesus, after all, is known as the Word of God (John 1:1) and also assumed human form. Had the Masoretes not done that, we would probably have lost the Bible, or at least a crucially important body of Hebrew literature. In effect they performed the act of Judas and were most likely very much aware of it, and viewed their own life's work in a blend of shameful anger and hopeful pride.

There is something about the Hebrew language that can not be translated into any other language, something that causes the Bible to be the most complex work of art ever produced. People who know the Hebrew of the Bible will attest that it is indeed nothing short of divine, and works the same way as creation does. Here at Abarim Publications we like to believe that the Septuagint writers and the Masoretes knew what they were doing: preserving what matters by molding it into our likeness, so that some day people could recognize what they have and restore its proper glory.

Etymology and meaning of the name Masoretes
" ibid

 

[bbyrd009]

The Zombification of Intellectual Property and the Tool That Could Finally Reform It

 

[101G]

Jesus instructed us to not appoint leaders and to call no man father (Matthew 23:9-10) and to diligently preserve our own, personal relationship with the real Father (John 14:6), but within decades after His death, humanity appointed popes and clergy, who in turn made us believe that only an elite priesthood could truly understand the Word, and that in utter submission to the Pope (which means father)...

100% correct. men appointed, were as, 1Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues".

Here at Abarim Publications we're pretty sure that the Masoretes and the people who wrote the Septuagint, did not have a God-given authority to alter the Hebrew Scriptures in any way (Deuteronomy 4:2)

again 100% correct.

 

[bbyrd009]

The name Adonai in the Bible

Adonai by itself is not really a proper name but rather a title or appellative. As we will see below, it quite literally means 'mister' or my lord, master or owner, and is not unlike the word baal, which means the same. Yet adon(ai) occurs frequently as element in compound names: Adoni-bezek, Adonijah, Adonikam, Adoniram and Adoni-zedek.

Adonai is also the source of the fabricated name Jehovah. When the Masoretes wanted to preserve the pronunciation of the words used in the Bible they ran into a problem when YHWH, the proper name of the Lord that was forbidden to be pronounced, occurred. To circumvent the problem, the Masoretes inserted the vowel symbols that go with adonai, indicating that whenever the reader saw YHWH, he had to say adonai.

When later readers saw the name YHWH combined with the symbols for adonai, they erroneously concluded that YHWH was to be pronounced as Jehovah.

Etymology of the name Adonai

Adonai meaning



The amazing name Adonai: meaning and etymology

 

[101G]

if you don't mind, one thing on Adonai.
Psalms 110:1 "A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

here, "Lord" is the Hebrew word,
H113 אָדוֹן 'adown (aw-done') n-m.
אָדֹן 'adon (aw-done') [shortened]
1. sovereign (i.e. controller, human or divine).
2. lord.
{also used as a prefix for names}
[from an unused root (meaning to rule)]
KJV: lord, master, owner.
Compare: H136
See also: H1777

David, who's king said, "my Lord". so looking at the definition, there was no human ruler over David because he was the king.

now this, same chapter.
Psalms 110:5 "The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
The "Lord" who suppose to be sitting is active, or moving. and Lord here is the same in verse 1, but.........
H136 אֲדֹנָי 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') n-m.
1. (meaning) Lord (used as a proper name of God only).
2. (person) Adonai, The Lord God of Israel (which is actually “Yahweh God of Israel” - see Exodus 5:1 and 120 other occurrences).
[am emphatic form of H113]
KJV: (my) Lord.
Root(s): H113

so the person in verse 1 and 5 is the "Same" and one Person.

how did the the "Lord", adown in verse 1 go to the "Lord", Adonai in verse 5?

Sitting, High Priest/Lord/adown, at rest, MEDIATOR. strike through, in the day of his wrath. NOT sitting, STANDING, King/Lord/Adonai, Active, JUDGE. same Person.

PICJAG

 

[bbyrd009]

i see I'll need a minute to absorb your point there, so manana k


"Of lords and pedestals
Our English word 'lord' comes from the antique word hlafweard, which is literally 'loaf' + 'ward(en)', meaning 'the supply guy', or rather: 'he who has the say-so over where the provisions go' (see MATTHEW 24:45). Our word 'master' comes from the Latin magister, which in turn comes from the familiar 'mega', and thus literally means 'great one'. Our word 'sir' is short for 'sire', which in turn is short for 'senior' and means 'elder'..." ibid