Joel 2:32

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Guestman said:
The issue you raised was that the name Jehovah did not appear in the later part of Joel 2:32, quoting from the King James Bible as saying "whom the Lord shall call" and underlining it.
NOT... what I was talking about at ALL!!!

I was talking about the ACTUAL MESSAGE being given in that Scripture and its proper TIMEFRAME being different... than what many here are giving it within.

But I do recognize you have a problem with other language translations that rendered YHVH's Name as LORD, etc. Even 'Jehovah' is not correct. It is YaHaVeH, even as with an Acrostic hidden in the Hebrew within the Book of Esther.
 

Guestman

Active Member
Nov 11, 2009
618
72
28
70
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
veteran said:
NOT... what I was talking about at ALL!!!

I was talking about the ACTUAL MESSAGE being given in that Scripture and its proper TIMEFRAME being different... than what many here are giving it within.

But I do recognize you have a problem with other language translations that rendered YHVH's Name as LORD, etc. Even 'Jehovah' is not correct. It is YaHaVeH, even as with an Acrostic hidden in the Hebrew within the Book of Esther.
The name Jehovah is Latin, as is the name Jesus. In fact, all the names in most English Bibles are Latin. For example, we speak of Jeremiah, but it is not truly accurate, for in Hebrew, there were no vowels. Hence, it is some measure of conjecture as to how all the names in the Hebrew Scriptures were pronounced.


Even the rendering YaHaVeH is not necessarily accurate, for Hebrew scholars have vowel pointed YHWH five different ways, with the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) having been rendered by five different spellings, based on the vowelpoints, of Yehowah, Yahweh, Yehwih, Yehwah, and Yehowih.


Since there is no consistency among scholars as to how God’s name is to be pronounced, the name Jehovah, though not necessarily accurate, has, for centuries been established as his name. It is used in many Bibles, and has been since William Tyndale used it in his English Bible in 1530. He made the comment: “Iehovah is God’s name . . . Moreover, as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah.”

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ’ǎdōnā(y) for the proper name itself. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels ē (in place of ǎ for other reasons) and ā to remind the reader to pronounce ’ǎdōnā(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. Most translations use all capital letters to make the title ‘LORD.’ Exceptions are the ASV [American Standard Version] and New World Translation which use ‘Jehovah,’ Amplified [Bible] which uses ‘Lord,’ and JB [The Jerusalem Bible] which uses ‘Yahweh.’ . . . In those places where ’ǎdōnā(y) yhwh occurs the latter word is pointed with the vowels from ’ēlōhim, and the English renderings such as ‘Lord GOD’ arose (e.g. Amos 7:1).”


How do you pronounce the name of the prophet from “Anathoth” ?(Jer 1:1) Most reply with Jeremiah. This is quite different from his Hebrew name of “Yirmeiah´.” Yet, nothing is said of this incorrect pronunciation, since the name Jeremiah is well established in English and serves fine as his name. The vital point is not what pronunciation you use for the Divine Name, whether “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” or some other as long as the pronunciation is common in your language. What is wrong is to fail to use that name.


Those who reject the English “Jehovah” and insist on using the Hebrew pronunciation would do well to ask themselves why they say “Jesus Christ,” when that was not the way his name was pronounced in Hebrew. That is the English way (through Latin), derived from the Greek language. In Hebrew, Jesus would be closer to “Yehóshua” and Christ would be “Mashíahh.” So, as we say “Jesus Christ” in the English language, we also say “Jehovah,” both being correct when speaking English.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, 1910 edition, page 329, notes the correctness of using “Jehovah” in English when it states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament.” Interestingly, it adds: “It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520. . . . But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant, are perfectly familiar with the word. . . . Besides, Drusius discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the ‘Pugio fidei’ of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270. Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin.”


You were quoting from the King James Bible with regard to Joel 2:32, and it reads at Psalms 83:18 as: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Thus the name Jehovah has been commonly used as God's name in the English language for over 400 years. In fact, there is a relatively new King James Bible called The Divine Name King James Bible (released in 2011 on the internet) that renders God's name as Jehovah 6, 972 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, all.

I've been talking with Guy, and I'd like you all to get in on some of this.


Shalom, Guy.

guysmith said:
Shabbat shalom, Guy.

What I know can probably fit in a thimble, but I do know that many of the prophecies in the Tanakh (the OT) refer to a rescue that Yeshua` will perform for His people at His second coming. I am also convinced that the word "salvation" in the Scriptures does NOT refer to personal justification but refers rather to the NR. That's not to say that I don't believe in personal justification, but that it is called "justification by God" or being "born again." A case in point is Yeshua`s parable of the Pharisee and the publican:

Luke 18:9-14

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
KJV

And of course you know about John 3:1-21 where Yeshua`, talking to Nikodeemos (Nicodemus), told him he must be "born again."

Another term that is about personal justification by God is "reconciliation." The Greek term is even more telling:

2 Corinthians 5:17-21

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled (Greek: katallaxantos) us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation (Greek: katallagees);
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling (Greek: katallassoon) the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation (Greek: katallagees).
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled (Greek: katallageete) to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
KJV

Katallaxantos, katallassoon, and katallageete are all forms of katallassoo (Strong's 2644), the verb meaning "to change mutually," and katallagees a form of katallagee (Strong's 2643), the noun form, means an "exchange." And verse 21 describes the exchange: "He (God the Father) hath made Him (Yeshua`) to be sin for us, who (Yeshua`) knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God (the Father) in Him (Yeshua`)."

Well, that's for starters, but if you'd like my list of OT prophecies that talk about the NR, I give those to you in another post.
Shabbat Shalom Retrobyter,

I would like to hear more. However, before you continue, I would like to interject with something I wrote back in the 90’s. The following is what I see as the NR. Are we talking about the same thing?

In Yehoshua,
Guy Smith

The Jerusalem siege

Jerusalem fell to the Romans, in 70 A.D., after a 143 day siege. Over 600,000 Jews were slain with many more thousands taken into captivity/slavery. This tragedy, one of the worst to happen to the nation of Israel, provides “the end time” saints with vital survival information.

A Roman tactic for fortress sieges were similar to a modern day military tactic used in the Gulf War. Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait under hostile circumstances in 1990-1991. The United States coordinated a multinational force for the liberation of Kuwait. The multi-nation force, prior to the conflict known as The Gulf War, spent months transporting troops and supplies to the region. When the military leaders decided that there were enough troops and supplies to fight Iraq, they attacked. The conflict was over in forty seven days.

Similarly, Roman legions, before a siege, would stage a reasonable distance away from the fortress. Rome’s military leaders would attack after accumulating enough troops and supplies. Roman roads and aqueducts that still stand today, attest to their commitment to conquering a region. These roads and aqueducts were built by the legions, not as benevolent gestures to those conquered nations, but as supply lines.

One could be sure the zealots in Jerusalem were well informed of Roman tactics. One could also be sure that the zealots were aware that Jerusalem was not an impregnable fortress. The armies of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered Jerusalem five hundred and fifty seven years earlier, leaving the city in ruin.

If you were alive in Jerusalem just before the 70 A.D. siege, would you have stayed or would you have fled early when Rome began to accumulate troops and supplies? If you are like most people that I’ve asked this question, you probably would have fled. So why did the Jews stay?

600,000 Jews died with the belief that the 70 A.D. Roman siege on Jerusalem was fulfilling Old Testament prophetic passages. They also believed, according to the predictions, that MESSIAH would protect Jerusalem against the assault.

Zech 14:1-3
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
(KJV)

They were correct about MESSIAH coming to protect the inhabitants of “Mount Zion” from a fortress siege. MESSIAH, unfortunately for the 600,000, did not come then. Their misfortune, however, did not negate this prediction of a future siege on Jerusalem. So what is the implication?

DELIVERANCE ON MOUNT ZION

‘The Prophetic Scriptures’ graphically describe “Mount Zion” in Jerusalem as a haven for a pocket of saints which will survive to the advent of MESSIAH.

Joel 2:32
32 And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls.
(NIV)

The Jews have known this for thousands of years. This is why 600,000 Jews stayed in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and this is why they flock to Jerusalem today.

GOD TO PROTECT MOUNT ZION

GOD will protect the inhabitants of “Mount Zion” during “The Great Tribulation” (with a column of smoke and a pillar of fire),,,

Isa 4:5-6
5 And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.
6 And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.
(KJV)

...just as HE protected Israel against Egypt while in the wilderness.

The 144,000

According to The New Testament, the only individuals recognized to be on “Mount Zion” at the time of MESSIAH’s advent are “The 144,000.”

Rev 14:1
1 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.
(NIV)

THE REDEEMED

Rev 14:3
3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.
(NIV)

THE FIFTH TRUMPET PLAGUE

“The 144,000” will be the only male saints alive (redeemed from the earth) at ‘The Second Coming.’ This statement can be verified by fifth trumpet plague.


Rev 9:1-4
1 The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.
2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.
3 And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth.
4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
(NIV)

......which are “The 144,000.”

Rev 7:3,4
3 .......Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
(KJV)

If isolated pockets of saints were located throughout the rest of the world, then those isolated saints would be affected at the sounding of the fifth “Trumpet.” Since no saint shall suffer “GOD’s Wrath,” then it can be deduced that all saints (except “The 144,000” that will be protected by the “Seal of GOD”) will be martyred during “The Great Tribulation.” Conclusion: The only saints that will be alive at the advent of MESSIAH will be on “Mount Zion” in Jerusalem.

CHILDREN OF ISRAEL

“The 144,000” will consist of 12,000 men from each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Rev 7:4-8
4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi 12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.
(NIV)

“The 144,000” represent the 12 tribes of Israel. However, this group of survivors is not exclusively male. During the Old Testament times, census’ only counted the males over the age of accountability. The female counter parts are known as:

THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION

According to Isaiah, there will be seven women on Mount Zion to every one man.

Isaiah 4
1 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!"
2 In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. 3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. 4 The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. 5 Then the LORD will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy. 6 It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain.


I know that I am painting a picture using a broad stroke brush, however, do you think this is somewhat of a description of the NR?
Somewhat, but be very careful with your generalizations. When the prophetic camera has zoomed in to a particular location, such as Har Tsiown (Mount Zion), be careful with what you can know about NON-Har-Tsiown, i.e., the rest of the earth. Broad, sweeping generalizations about the rest of the human population around the world are VERY difficult to make accurately. After all, the world is a VERY BIG PLACE! Let's look at a little formal logic, the mathematics of words:

Here's a premise statement: p --> q. "If it is raining, then I am carrying an umbrella."
The converse of that statement is q --> p. "If I am carrying an umbrella, then it is raining."
The inverse of the statement is ~p --> ~q. "If it is NOT raining, then I am NOT carrying an umbrella."
And the contrapositive of the statement is ~q --> ~p. "If I am NOT carrying an umbrella, then it is NOT raining."

Of the three subsequent statements, only the contrapositive is true if the premise statement is true. The others, the inverse and the converse, are inconclusive based on the original premise. It's not that they are definitely false, but they are CERTAINLY not definitely true! They MAY be true if there is additional information in the syllogism, but they cannot be derived from the single premise statement.

A definition is in the form: p <--> q, meaning both p --> q and q --> p are both true. "It is raining IF AND ONLY IF I am carrying an umbrella." The two go hand in hand. Another way to say it is "It is raining MEANS I am carrying an umbrella," making the two statements symbolically identical - a definition.

To use a little logic, one must be absolutely sure that the statement itself or the contrapositive of the statement is being used in one's arguments, not the converse or the inverse. If one tries to say the converse or the inverse is also true, then he must make the statement a DEFINITION - an "equals" - instead of just a premise (an IF ... THEN statement). The only way to do that in formal logic is to find evidence in the syllogism that both p --> q and q --> p are true.

So, if the information we have is "Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads," we can derive a premise statement of "One who is of the 144,000 standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion is one who has the seal of the Lamb's name and of His Father's name written on his forehead." Thus, we can also say that "one who does NOT have the seal of the Lamb's name and of His Father's name written on his forehead is one who is NOT of the 144,000 standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion" is also true.

HOWEVER, it is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE that "One who has the seal of the Lamb's name and of His Father's name written on his forehead is one who is of the 144,000 standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion!" NOR CAN ONE SAY THAT IT IS NECESSARILY TRUE that "One who is NOT of the 144,000 standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion is one who does NOT have the seal of the Lamb's name and of His Father's name written on his forehead!"

In other words, we can only know from this that AT LEAST these 144,000 have been sealed, but we cannot know from this statement if this is ALL who have been sealed! It's logically a fallacy to suggest otherwise. Indeed, context shows us that this is NOT ALL who have been sealed by that time:


Revelation 7:9-10
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
KJV

Furthermore, because the statement in Revelation 14:1 has SO MANY phrases within its sentence, other such premises can be formed from this single verse. For instance, one could also make the premise statement, "One who is the Lamb is one who is standing on Mount Zion" or "One who has the seal of the Lamb's name written on his forehead is one who has the seal of the Lamb's Father's name written on his forehead," although these may not contribute to the logical syllogism one is trying to create.

From a practical point of view, the problem is "in what did they put their faith?" Those 600,000 who were killed in 70 A.D. for staying in Jerusalem were putting their faith in the walls of the city and in the prophecy of Joel 2:32 that they were "sure" God would keep and fulfill. They were NOT putting their faith in YHWH their God HIMSELF or in His Representative, the Messiah! Furthermore, the Messiah had already instructed His disciples to ESCAPE the city when they saw it being surrounded and flee to the (other) mountains (of Isra'el). The 600,000 were making the fatal conclusion that their time MUST be the time of the prophecy's fulfillment. It wasn't. They were attempting to paint God into a box from which He wouldn't be able to escape. It didn't work; they miscalculated, and they suffered for their attempt.

The National Rescue WILL occur, but it will occur on GOD'S timetable and be done in GOD'S way, not subject to the whims of any man or group of men! One should NEVER expect God to cowtow to human expectations. That's why we need to "anticipate the best, but prepare for the worst."


Proverbs 3:5-7
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways (your roads; your plans) acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths (your actual footsteps).
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
KJV
 

afaithfulone4u

New Member
Dec 7, 2012
1,028
32
0
California
guysmith said:
Joel 2:32
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the Lord has said,
even among the survivors
whom the Lord calls. (NIV)

So, what do you think God (through the prophet Joel) is trying to say in the above verse?
The key to this is what or who might I ask, is the name of the LORD? Isn't God's namesake Christ aka THE WORD

Joel 2:32
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
KJV
John 1:1-2
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
KJV
Rev 3:8
8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
KJV

Do we do that? Do we deny the Word rejecting Christ the namesake of God, the authority of His Word as our Lord to obey?
Take a look at this verse below. Who do we consider this to be coming to Abram? We consider it to be the LORD right? But isn't it THE WORD... of the LORD who is coming to Abram in a vision, saying? And who is said to be THE WORD?
Gen 15:1
15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
KJV

1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
KJV

Most of the world only knows the Almighty as GOD for they can not follow His Word to make God the LORD (authority) of their life.... but HE IS STILL GOD OF THE EARTH and to Jews and Gentiles alike rather they know Him personally (By His Word) or not.

Rom 3:30
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also
KJV

It is only by the SPIRIT that we can call Jesus Lord, for it is only by the Spirit that we can follow the Word as our authority making him our Lord that we call upon, stand upon and are built up on for a firm foundation that we call THE ROCK! The Stone/Word/Law that the builders rejected.
God is exactly as His Word and Jesus reveals the Father to us as we feed upon the Bread of life... the living Word.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Guestman.

Guestman said:
The name Jehovah is Latin, as is the name Jesus. In fact, all the names in most English Bibles are Latin. For example, we speak of Jeremiah, but it is not truly accurate, for in Hebrew, there were no vowels. Hence, it is some measure of conjecture as to how all the names in the Hebrew Scriptures were pronounced.

Even the rendering YaHaVeH is not necessarily accurate, for Hebrew scholars have vowel pointed YHWH five different ways, with the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) having been rendered by five different spellings, based on the vowelpoints, of Yehowah, Yahweh, Yehwih, Yehwah, and Yehowih.

Since there is no consistency among scholars as to how God’s name is to be pronounced, the name Jehovah, though not necessarily accurate, has, for centuries been established as his name. It is used in many Bibles, and has been since William Tyndale used it in his English Bible in 1530. He made the comment: “Iehovah is God’s name . . . Moreover, as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah.”

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ’ǎdōnā(y) for the proper name itself. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels ē (in place of ǎ for other reasons) and ā to remind the reader to pronounce ’ǎdōnā(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. Most translations use all capital letters to make the title ‘LORD.’ Exceptions are the ASV [American Standard Version] and New World Translation which use ‘Jehovah,’ Amplified [Bible] which uses ‘Lord,’ and JB [The Jerusalem Bible] which uses ‘Yahweh.’ . . . In those places where ’ǎdōnā(y) yhwh occurs the latter word is pointed with the vowels from ’ēlōhim, and the English renderings such as ‘Lord GOD’ arose (e.g. Amos 7:1).”

How do you pronounce the name of the prophet from “Anathoth” ?(Jer 1:1) Most reply with Jeremiah. This is quite different from his Hebrew name of “Yirmeiah´.” Yet, nothing is said of this incorrect pronunciation, since the name Jeremiah is well established in English and serves fine as his name. The vital point is not what pronunciation you use for the Divine Name, whether “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” or some other as long as the pronunciation is common in your language. What is wrong is to fail to use that name.

Those who reject the English “Jehovah” and insist on using the Hebrew pronunciation would do well to ask themselves why they say “Jesus Christ,” when that was not the way his name was pronounced in Hebrew. That is the English way (through Latin), derived from the Greek language. In Hebrew, Jesus would be closer to “Yehóshua” and Christ would be “Mashíahh.” So, as we say “Jesus Christ” in the English language, we also say “Jehovah,” both being correct when speaking English.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, 1910 edition, page 329, notes the correctness of using “Jehovah” in English when it states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament.” Interestingly, it adds: “It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520. . . . But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant, are perfectly familiar with the word. . . . Besides, Drusius discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the ‘Pugio fidei’ of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270. Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin.”

You were quoting from the King James Bible with regard to Joel 2:32, and it reads at Psalms 83:18 as: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Thus the name Jehovah has been commonly used as God's name in the English language for over 400 years. In fact, there is a relatively new King James Bible called The Divine Name King James Bible (released in 2011 on the internet) that renders God's name as Jehovah 6, 972 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Isn't it interesting how often one speaks without understanding what they're talking about?

YHWH's Name is spelled in Hebrew as Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei. The vowel pointing for how the Name is actually pronounced was never given to these letters when vowel pointing was introduced in the time of the Maccabees. The vowel pointing that was given to the Name was the vowel pointing for "Adonay" to remind those who read the Name to say "Adonay" instead of trying to pronounce the Name. This was done to prevent people who were casually reading the Scriptures saying God's Name in vain and violating the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD (YHWH) thy God in vain."

By attempting to use the vowel pointing for "Adonay" in the Name, early interpreters into English came up with the name "Jehovah" at a time when the "J" in English was pronounced as a "Y," like the "J" in German words. But, the Name has always consisted of just the four consonants.

The vav letter, which looks like a vertical line with a small hook at the top going left, is an interesting letter as it is used sometimes used with a vowel pointing below the letter, in which case it can sound as either a "v" or a "w", or it can have a dot above the letter in which case it becomes the "ow" sound as in the word "rainbow." If it has a dot in its center (and slightly to the left), it becomes the "uw" sound and sounds like the "oo" in "moon." Thus, it is one of the few letters that can be interpreted as a consonant or as a vowel sound (at least, to a foreigner's ear).

None of the 22 letters in the Hebrew alefbet are vowels; they are ALL consonants! Vowel pointing, a late addition to the language, was added for beginners and foreigners, but Isra'eliy newspapers do not have the vowel pointing, and such pointing is unnecessary to those who speak Hebrew.

Hebrew is a written language that follows a few simple rules: Each consonant can be the start of another syllable because each consonant can have a vowel pointing below the letter. The Hebrew letters in the alefbet are "alef," "bet," "gimmel," "dalet," "hei," "vav," "zayin," "chet," "tet," "yod," "kaf," "lamed," "meim," "nun," "samekh," "`ayin," "pei," "tsadday," "qof," "reish," "shin," and "tav." The letters are written from right to left, both in the words and in the line. It is, after all, an Oriental language.

There are a few letters that can take a "dagesh" (a dot in the middle of the letter) that changes the sound of the letter:

"Bet" is always a "b" sound at the beginning of a word, but when it is in the middle or at the end of the word, if it has the dagesh, it will remain the "b" sound. Without the dagesh, it will be the "v" sound and is called a "vet."

"Kaf" is another such letter. At the beginning of the word, it always has the "k" sound. In the middle of a word, if it has the dagesh, it will remain the "k" sound. Without the dagesh, it will be the harsh, guttural "kh" sound as in German words, and it is called a "khaf." At the end of the word, the letter actually changes in shape and always has the "kh" sound.

The "pei" is also such a letter. At the beginning of words, it always has the "p" sound. In the middle of the word, if it has the dagesh, it will remain the "p" sound. Without the dagesh, it will be the "f" or "ph" sound. And, like the "kaf," it has a different shape at the end of a word and it always has the "f" sound.

The "shin" (pronounced "sheen") is a trident shaped letter that has a dot above the right side of the letter. It normally has the "sh" sound. If the dot is moved above the left side of the letter (the end of the letter), it takes the "s" sound instead and is called a "sin" (pronounced "seen").

The last letter in the alefbet is "tav," has the "t" sound, and it also can take a dagesh. With the dagesh, it is pronounced as a "th" sound as in the word "thin" (NEVER as "this"). Certain dialects of Hebrew do not make a distinction between the two and pronounce them all as the "t" sound. Other dialects will make it an "s" sound instead of the "th" sound, hence "shabbas" instead of "shabbat" or "sabbath," for instance.

There's more that can be said about the consonants, but I wanted to just give the basics and get to the vowel pointing:

Vowel pointing is a series of dots and lines usually under the letters. Some pointing is done within the letter and some is over the letter.

The patach is a horizontal line written under the letter that gives the "ah" sound following the consonant. Thus, "bet-patach" makes the "bah" syllable.
The qamets is a "T" written under the letter that gives the "aw" sound as in "paw." Thus, "bet-qamets" make the "baw" syllable.
The segol is a triangle of three dots below the letter that gives the "eh" sound as in "bed." Thus, "bet-segol" makes the "beh" syllable.
The tsere is two dots written like two periods in a row below a letter. It gives the "ay" sound as in "pray." Thus, "bet-tsere" makes the "bay" syllable.
The chireq is a single dot written below a letter that gives the "ee" sound as in "bee." Thus, "bet-chireq" gives the "bee" syllable.
Sometimes a "yod" is added after the chireq. To the English ear, this changes nothing. "bet-chireq-yod" would still sound like "bee."
The cholem is a single dot (or even a small circle) written above and to the left of the letter. It sounds like the "o" in "toe." Thus, "bet-cholem" makes the "bo" syllable.
The cholem can sometimes be written as a dot above the vav (as mentioned above). To the English ear, this also changes nothing. Thus, "bet-cholem-vav" also makes the "bo"syllable.
The qibbuts is three dots written like a back-slash below the letter. It sounds like "oo" in "moon."
The shureq, as mentioned above, is the dot in the middle and to the left of the vav, and it too sounds like the "oo" in "moon."

There's one more called the "sheva" that is written as a small colon : below the letter. This is like our schwa. (In fact, the word "schwa" comes from the "sheva.") If it's pronounced at all, it is like the "a" in "above," pronounced like a quick "uh" sound. It is also used to combine consonants into a consonant blend as in the name, "Shlomo" (Solomon).

All of that Hebrew lesson is to say this: WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE NAME IS TO BE PRONOUNCED!!! And, anyone who says they know for sure IS A LIAR! I can think of at least three legitimate Hebrew ways it may be pronounced "Yahweh" (or "Yahveh"), "Yahowh," or "Yahuwh," and if we add the foreign inventions "Jehovah" or "Yehovah" or "Yahovah" or "Yehoveh," MANY MORE! I have a preference because of the Hebrew pronunciation of the names of several prophets like "Yirmeyahu," "Eliyahu," and "Z'kharyahu," which include God's Name in their names, but who really KNOWS which is right?!

It's best just to drop this bickering over something you have NO KNOWLEDGE about! It's petty and unnecessary. When Yeshua` returns, HE (or one of His messengers or a resurrected person) will tell us how it is to be pronounced. Until then, your best guess is still a guess!


Romans 3:4
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
KJV
 

Guestman

Active Member
Nov 11, 2009
618
72
28
70
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Retrobyter,


Many translators recognize that the third letter in Hebrew is pronounced like a "W' instead of a "V". This fact is shown up in that some translators render the divine name into English as "Yahweh" instead of "Jahveh".(Jerusalem Bible, The New Jerusalem Bible, etc.)


And saying God's name of Jehovah (or Yahweh) is not "saying God's name in vain and violating the commandment, " Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD (YHWH) thy God in vain".(quoted from Ex 20:7) Even you used a quote that rendered God's name as YHWH instead of YHVH.


If it is a violation to even speak God's name, then why did ones such as David consistently use it freely throughout their life ? Why did all the prophets of the Bible freely use his name ? The prophet Amos used God's name over 80 times as well as the prophet Hosea who used it over 40 times as well as Micah who used it over 40 times as well as Jonah who used it almost 30 times. Were these wrong in using it ? To the contrary, our Creator had the Bible written down so that we would know him by his personal name.


We speak English, and if the name Jehovah should not be used, then what about some 20 different names in the Bible that have the 1st four letters of Jeho as part of their name, such as Jehoshaphat (meaning "Jehovah is Judge"), Jehoiakim (meaning possibly "Jehovah Raises Up"), Jehoaddah (meaning possibly "Jehovah Has Decked Himself "), Jehoaddin (meaning "Jehovah is Pleasure"), Jehoahaz (meaning "Jehovah has Taken Hold"), Jehohanan (meaning "Jehovah Has Shown Favor"), to name just a few. Would you change these to satisfy your belief that the use of God's name is a violation of the Exodus 20:7 ?


God's name in the original Hebrew, יהוה, has been vowel-pointed in five different ways, as Yahweh at Exodus 6:3, as Yehwah at Genesis 2:4, as Yeho·wah´ at Genesis 3:14, where the divine name is vowel-pointed with the additional vowel “o", as Yehwih´ at Genesis 15:2, and as Yeho·wih´ at Judges 16:28.


The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah′, Yehwih′, and Yeho·wah′. C.D. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text, Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah′. (Gen 3:14, ftn)

Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation (they use the "W" instead of "V"). They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah′ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6)


Also, the forms Yehoh′, Yoh, Yah, and Ya′hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be′ and I·a·ou·e′, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”


Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation.

If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yesha‛·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′a‛ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Guestman said:
The name Jehovah is Latin, as is the name Jesus. In fact, all the names in most English Bibles are Latin. For example, we speak of Jeremiah, but it is not truly accurate, for in Hebrew, there were no vowels. Hence, it is some measure of conjecture as to how all the names in the Hebrew Scriptures were pronounced.

Even the rendering YaHaVeH is not necessarily accurate, for Hebrew scholars have vowel pointed YHWH five different ways, with the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) having been rendered by five different spellings, based on the vowelpoints, of Yehowah, Yahweh, Yehwih, Yehwah, and Yehowih.

Since there is no consistency among scholars as to how God’s name is to be pronounced, the name Jehovah, though not necessarily accurate, has, for centuries been established as his name. It is used in many Bibles, and has been since William Tyndale used it in his English Bible in 1530. He made the comment: “Iehovah is God’s name . . . Moreover, as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah.”

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ’ǎdōnā(y) for the proper name itself. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels ē (in place of ǎ for other reasons) and ā to remind the reader to pronounce ’ǎdōnā(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. Most translations use all capital letters to make the title ‘LORD.’ Exceptions are the ASV [American Standard Version] and New World Translation which use ‘Jehovah,’ Amplified [Bible] which uses ‘Lord,’ and JB [The Jerusalem Bible] which uses ‘Yahweh.’ . . . In those places where ’ǎdōnā(y) yhwh occurs the latter word is pointed with the vowels from ’ēlōhim, and the English renderings such as ‘Lord GOD’ arose (e.g. Amos 7:1).”

How do you pronounce the name of the prophet from “Anathoth” ?(Jer 1:1) Most reply with Jeremiah. This is quite different from his Hebrew name of “Yirmeiah´.” Yet, nothing is said of this incorrect pronunciation, since the name Jeremiah is well established in English and serves fine as his name. The vital point is not what pronunciation you use for the Divine Name, whether “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” or some other as long as the pronunciation is common in your language. What is wrong is to fail to use that name.

Those who reject the English “Jehovah” and insist on using the Hebrew pronunciation would do well to ask themselves why they say “Jesus Christ,” when that was not the way his name was pronounced in Hebrew. That is the English way (through Latin), derived from the Greek language. In Hebrew, Jesus would be closer to “Yehóshua” and Christ would be “Mashíahh.” So, as we say “Jesus Christ” in the English language, we also say “Jehovah,” both being correct when speaking English.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, 1910 edition, page 329, notes the correctness of using “Jehovah” in English when it states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament.” Interestingly, it adds: “It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520. . . . But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant, are perfectly familiar with the word. . . . Besides, Drusius discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the ‘Pugio fidei’ of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270. Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin.”

You were quoting from the King James Bible with regard to Joel 2:32, and it reads at Psalms 83:18 as: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Thus the name Jehovah has been commonly used as God's name in the English language for over 400 years. In fact, there is a relatively new King James Bible called The Divine Name King James Bible (released in 2011 on the internet) that renders God's name as Jehovah 6, 972 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Still not the point, even YHVH is given as an Acrostic in the Book of Esther, and that seals His Holy Name.

The Joel 2 Scripture in question is for the very end of this world. Peter only quoted it on Pentecost to show how the cloven tongue was only an example of what was spoken of in Joel 2. That means the cloven tongue manifested on Pentecost has a special purpose for the end of this world, for the tribulation timing, for that's what accompanies those signs at the end of Joel 2 and in Joel 3.

And that... was my point.
 

ENOCH2010

New Member
Aug 15, 2012
201
3
0
Just a thought Roy but I think the Ark of the Covenant may have God's true name written on it. I hope they find it in my life time!!!
 

daq

HSN#1851
Feb 9, 2013
821
63
0
Olam Haba
ENOCH2010 said:
Just a thought Roy but I think the Ark of the Covenant may have God's true name written on it. I hope they find it in my life time!!!
Everyone here has been told where it was but most of you ignored it because of your paradigms. Some of those who did see the link blasphemed themselves and the holy blood of Yeshua which is seated at the right of the mercy seat. :mellow:
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, Guestman.

My words will be added in blue:

Guestman said:
Retrobyter,

Many translators recognize that the third letter in Hebrew is pronounced like a "W' instead of a "V". This fact is shown up in that some translators render the divine name into English as "Yahweh" instead of "Jahveh".(Jerusalem Bible, The New Jerusalem Bible, etc.)

Yes, I know this, but you see, to the Isra'eliy who speaks Hebrew, it doesn't matter. He knows that the letter is a vav. It's rather like the LL in Spanish; it doesn't matter if one pronounces "llama" as "yama" or "jama." Both are acceptable.

And saying God's name of Jehovah (or Yahweh) is not "saying God's name in vain and violating the commandment, " Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD (YHWH) thy God in vain".(quoted from Ex 20:7) Even you used a quote that rendered God's name as YHWH instead of YHVH.

I know this, too. It was merely a PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE that was added to PREVENT one from inadvertently breaking the commandment. (They were VERY picky about avoiding the breaking of the commandments!)

If it is a violation to even speak God's name, then why did ones such as David consistently use it freely throughout their life ? Why did all the prophets of the Bible freely use his name ? The prophet Amos used God's name over 80 times as well as the prophet Hosea who used it over 40 times as well as Micah who used it over 40 times as well as Jonah who used it almost 30 times. Were these wrong in using it ? To the contrary, our Creator had the Bible written down so that we would know him by his personal name.

You'll get no argument from me here. I AGREE with you! I wish that the correct pronunciation of the Name was preserved! It is unavoidable, however; history can't be changed! It was NOT preserved!

We speak English, and if the name Jehovah should not be used, then what about some 20 different names in the Bible that have the 1st four letters of Jeho as part of their name, such as Jehoshaphat (meaning "Jehovah is Judge"), Jehoiakim (meaning possibly "Jehovah Raises Up"), Jehoaddah (meaning possibly "Jehovah Has Decked Himself "), Jehoaddin (meaning "Jehovah is Pleasure"), Jehoahaz (meaning "Jehovah has Taken Hold"), Jehohanan (meaning "Jehovah Has Shown Favor"), to name just a few. Would you change these to satisfy your belief that the use of God's name is a violation of the Exodus 20:7 ?

Again, no argument here!

God's name in the original Hebrew, יהוה, has been vowel-pointed in five different ways, as Yahweh at Exodus 6:3, as Yehwah at Genesis 2:4, as Yeho·wah´ at Genesis 3:14, where the divine name is vowel-pointed with the additional vowel “o", as Yehwih´ at Genesis 15:2, and as Yeho·wih´ at Judges 16:28.

The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah′, Yehwih′, and Yeho·wah′. C.D. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text, Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah′. (Gen 3:14, ftn)

Yes, but again, vowel pointing was added AFTER THE FACT! How do we know that this vowel pointing is appropriate? Furthermore, is this vowel pointing or are they cantonizing marks? Similar markings were added for the purpose of canting (singing) the reading of God's Word.

Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation (they use the "W" instead of "V"). They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah′ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6)

As I said, either way is fine. I like to use the "W" myself because it can lend itself to the transliteration scheme I use for the vowel-interpretations of the letter, "ow" or "uw."

Also, the forms Yehoh′, Yoh, Yah, and Ya′hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be′ and I·a·ou·e′, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”

Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation.

EXACTLY MY POINT! Oh, sure there is a reason for abandoning "Jehovah!" We KNOW that "Jehovah," as it is pronounced in English, IS NOT RIGHT! I would favor "Yahweh" over "Jehovah" because it's a transliteration that is closer to how the Name would actually sound IN HEBREW!

If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yesha‛·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′a‛ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

YES! THANK YOU! I FAVOR those changes! That's why my favorite translation is the Complete Jewish Bible! It's not perfect, either (no translation is), but Stern (the translator) DOES attempt to give us the Hebrew pronunciation in his transliteration of the names. Furthermore, it was his consistency in doing so that led me to understand that the names found in Z'kharyahu's (Zechariah) prophecy, chapter 12, were the SAME as the names found in Luke 3!
____

Shalom, ENOCH2010.

ENOCH2010 said:
Just a thought Roy but I think the Ark of the Covenant may have God's true name written on it. I hope they find it in my life time!!!
It may indeed have God's true name written on it, but it will look like "yod-hei-vav-hei," just as it is written in the hills of Judaea!
 

ENOCH2010

New Member
Aug 15, 2012
201
3
0
daq said:
Everyone here has been told where it was but most of you ignored it because of your paradigms. Some of those who did see the link blasphemed themselves and the holy blood of Yeshua which is seated at the right of the mercy seat. :mellow:
What on Earth are you talking about daq
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
ENOCH2010 said:
Just a thought Roy but I think the Ark of the Covenant may have God's true name written on it. I hope they find it in my life time!!!
They won't; the real one is in... Heaven (Rev.11:19). The false Jews in Jerusalem very well may produce a fake one though, just so they can re-institute the old covenant worship again against Christ Jesus.