What required for going to Heaven?

[shturt678]

No, it IS the way to be saved.

Thank you for your response again!

We have to stand our ground here as maybe our Lord is listening? Rom.10:9, 10,s confession voicies faith aleady wrought through one's "instant of faith," viz., Mk.1:15b.

Old Jack

 

[StanJ]

Thank you for your response again!

We have to stand our ground here as maybe our Lord is listening? Rom.10:9, 10,s confession voicies faith aleady wrought through one's "instant of faith," viz., Mk.1:15b.

Old Jack

Sorry Jack, I'm not sure who "our" is, but I fail to see why you need to paraphrase what is clearly understood unless you don't accept what it says?

Here are five translations for your perusal:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010%3A9-11&version=NIV;NRSV;NET;PHILLIPS;MOUNCE

 

[RANDOR]

Sorry Jack, I'm not sure who "our" is,

Come on Stan.....you are always hittin someone below the belt........try punchin on the shoulders or somethin......

 

[StanJ]

Come on Stan.....you are always hittin someone below the belt........try punchin on the shoulders or somethin......

Sorry Randor...did I hurt you?

 

[lforrest]

So one must fully and correctly understand the process of salvation? Perhaps if we were saving ourselves that would be true.

Do you belong to the Lord who wants confession first and belief second or the Lord who wants belief first and confession second? This is my Lord: Psalm 55:16

 

[StanJ]

So one must fully and correctly understand the process of salvation? Perhaps if we were saving ourselves that would be true.

Do you belong to the Lord who wants confession first and belief second or the Lord who wants belief first and confession second? This is my Lord: Psalm 55:16

That is the point forrest...they go together...you can't have one without the other.

 

[Guestman]

Not HAS to, DOES. Again not to be saved but to maintain their salvic faith. NOT the same thing.

Comparing Hebrew to Spanish is a straw man fallacy. Jesus is from the Greek not Hebrew.
The Hebrew letter for V in the Hebrew alphabet is transliterated as VAV but was never pronounced 'vee'. It was pronounced 'waw'.
The Hebrew letters Yod Hey Vav Hey are properly transliterated as YHWH but never pronounced. The proper way to SAY God's name from the OT was Adonai or to voice it was Hashem(the name).
Bottom line, Jehovah is NOT a proper rendering wherever you may find it. That is simply shown by all the modern English translations that don't ever use it. Only JWs or KJVOs insist on using the incorrect rendering, despite ALL the evidence to the contrary.

You show a disdain for God's name of Jehovah. When asked by a Pharisee: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law ?" (Matt 22:36), Jesus responded, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ "(Matt 22:37)


And the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, quoting from Joel 2:32 (which says: "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said, the survivors whom Jehovah calls.”): "For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Rom 10:13) Hence, to be saved, a person must ' call on the name of Jehovah ', not just the "Lord".


Paul now describes what follows: "However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him ? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard ? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach ?"(Rom 10:14) Are you going to the people, telling who the true God is ? No. Rather, you are like the Jewish religious leaders who continuously found fault with Jesus. What did he say regarding the Jewish religious leaders ?


At Matthew 23, Jesus said just days before his death: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. Look! Your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say (quoting Ps 118:26), ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Matt 23:37-39)


Due to the Jewish religious leaders being obstinate, Jesus said: "If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.”(Luke 19:42-44)


On April 3, 70 C.E., Roman General Titus broke through into Jerusalem and by August 30 of that same year, the city was completely destroyed. 1.1 million Jews lost their lives due to being unwilling to listen to Jehovah through his Son, Jesus. They rejected Jehovah and his personal name.

Talk about equivocation! Let's see here... "instruct" versus "command" and "tell" versus "say." Yeah, that's a distinction without a difference. Once again:

Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

This would require Moses to pronounce God's name. Notice, he's not told to hold up a placard and be silent. WOW!



I never said that it was. I'll refer you to a previous post. http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19501-what-required-for-going-to-heaven/page-10#entry232232


The Jews were never told to do it and the result was the name "Jehovah." So yep, I'm right on topic. Again...

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19501-what-required-for-going-to-heaven/page-10#entry232232

God's personal name of Jehovah does not accurately mean "I AM", as rendered by the King James Bible. The name Jehovah, from the transliterated Hebrew of YHWH (JHVH in Latin), means literally "I will Prove to Be What I Will Prove to Be (Heb.היהא רשא היהא that is rendered as ’Eh·yeh´ ’Asher´ ’Eh·yeh´, Gr., E·go´ ei·mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e´go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.”)


It is from the causative state of the imperfect (meaning action that is not completed, as opposed to perfect or action that is completed) verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”, as at Genesis 2:4 (in which God's name is vowel pointed here as Yehwah´). A kindred verb is used at Genesis 2:24, saying: "That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become (Heb. ha·yah´) one flesh" as well in 106 other places in the Hebrew Scriptures.


Hence, when the angel came before Moses in 1513 B.C.E, near Mt Sinai, the account reads: "So God (the angel that represented him before Moses, Ex 3:2) said to Moses: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become has sent me to you.’”(Ex 3:14, New World Translation)


The angel thus explained the meaning of יהוה to Moses, that is transliterated as YHWH and rendered as Jehovah (Latinized) into English. At Exodus 3:15, the angel now says: "This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation."


The personal name of Jehovah does not mean God's self-existence (inaccurately rendered as "I AM" in the KJV) but to what he has in mind to become toward others. The divine name identifies Jehovah as the Purposer. At isaiah 42, God says: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, nor my praise to graven images."(Isa 42:8)

 

[shturt678]

Sorry Jack, I'm not sure who "our" is, but I fail to see why you need to paraphrase what is clearly understood unless you don't accept what it says?

Here are five translations for your perusal:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010%3A9-11&version=NIV;NRSV;NET;PHILLIPS;MOUNCE

Thank you for your response again!

Going to let you try some Hawaiian 'punch,' no spiking the punch RANDOR. What we need to do is make a paradigm shift from the Text interprets the Text to the Context interprets the context...how's that sound, or taste?

My ICor.1:27 view of the Context of Rom.10:9, 10: As the divine Word placed the commandments (law) into the mouth and into the heart, so the Word did and does tis with the gospel. You're getting it. How into the mouth? As thy faith. The two always go together; for true, sincere confession is meant, the idea of hypocritical confession is not discussed. This confession voices faith; for true faith is never silent like he numerous secret Christian agents we have in Hawaii. Paul here keeps the order: 1) confession 2) believing because this order is used in the language drawn from Deuteronomy in Rom.10:6-8; in v.10 he changes to the natural order: believing - confessing grammatically, contextually, and aspectually. How do you like those Hawaiian coconuts?

The objects are added in a summary manner: "if thou shalt confess with thty mouth Jesus as Lord." For example Jn.3:16 is also posited in a summary manner.

These summaries one cannot but help agape, eg, "Jesus is Lord" is, of course, the summary contents of the gospel just as is "that God raised Him up from the dead."

btw I even have Rom.10:17 before Rom.10:9, 10 unless you know a way to bypass the "hearing" part, ie, I've known others that have bypassed receiving messages directly from God and their awaiting to get released.

You also need a way to plug in "repentance" somehow into Rom.10:9, 10 as nobody gets to heaven unrepentant.

Old hearing Jack just winging it.

 

[RANDOR]

Since we undertsand by the third rank of which was last seen...in paragraphs 4 and I must mention 5. If one looked into the quimes that existed way before this took place......we can see not only was it taken to only one limit.....not all....just one....it stands to recognize therfore...it became all.
Justifying.... for instance..... which we looked at in the beginning...to see not only them...but also others to come.

Underlining paragraph 5 heavely leads us to the last phase....stolen by...no other than the unseen.

Problems within the lines of text...could be exposed....by whom....good question....by whom indeed.

Standing on this thought only regulates to which side one leans to....giving way for that essence to be revealed.

Now.....stepping out of deep .....deep....deep......slosh which incircles our hearts......I'm headin back to havin fun.
Later boys

 

[StanJ]

You show a disdain for God's name of Jehovah. When asked by a Pharisee: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law ?" (Matt 22:36), Jesus responded, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ "(Matt 22:37)

And the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans, quoting from Joel 2:32 (which says: "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said, the survivors whom Jehovah calls.”): "For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Rom 10:13) Hence, to be saved, a person must ' call on the name of Jehovah ', not just the "Lord".

Paul now describes what follows: "However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him ? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard ? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach ?"(Rom 10:14) Are you going to the people, telling who the true God is ? No. Rather, you are like the Jewish religious leaders who continuously found fault with Jesus. What did he say regarding the Jewish religious leaders ?

At Matthew 23, Jesus said just days before his death: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. Look! Your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say (quoting Ps 118:26), ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Matt 23:37-39)

Due to the Jewish religious leaders being obstinate, Jesus said: "If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.”(Luke 19:42-44)

On April 3, 70 C.E., Roman General Titus broke through into Jerusalem and by August 30 of that same year, the city was completely destroyed. 1.1 million Jews lost their lives due to being unwilling to listen to Jehovah through his Son, Jesus. They rejected Jehovah and his personal name.

I have disdain for those that try to assert their personal dogmas into the Word of God. Jehovah is NOT in the Greek or Hebrew of the OT and is NOT in the Greek of the NT. Pretty simple. The only Bible that use it are the KJV and NWT. Are you KJVO or JW?

Thank you for your response again!

Going to let you try some Hawaiian 'punch,' no spiking the punch RANDOR. What we need to do is make a paradigm shift from the Text interprets the Text to the Context interprets the context...how's that sound, or taste?

My ICor.1:27 view of the Context of Rom.10:9, 10: As the divine Word placed the commandments (law) into the mouth and into the heart, so the Word did and does tis with the gospel. You're getting it. How into the mouth? As thy faith. The two always go together; for true, sincere confession is meant, the idea of hypocritical confession is not discussed. This confession voices faith; for true faith is never silent like he numerous secret Christian agents we have in Hawaii. Paul here keeps the order: 1) confession 2) believing because this order is used in the language drawn from Deuteronomy in Rom.10:6-8; in v.10 he changes to the natural order: believing - confessing grammatically, contextually, and aspectually. How do you like those Hawaiian coconuts?

The objects are added in a summary manner: "if thou shalt confess with thty mouth Jesus as Lord." For example Jn.3:16 is also posited in a summary manner.

These summaries one cannot but help agape, eg, "Jesus is Lord" is, of course, the summary contents of the gospel just as is "that God raised Him up from the dead."

btw I even have Rom.10:17 before Rom.10:9, 10 unless you know a way to bypass the "hearing" part, ie, I've known others that have bypassed receiving messages directly from God and their awaiting to get released.

You also need a way to plug in "repentance" somehow into Rom.10:9, 10 as nobody gets to heaven unrepentant.

Old hearing Jack just winging it.

Must be Hawaiian, as I don't understand you.

Bottom line is one can only confess Jesus IF he repents. Nobody comes to Jesus without repentance in their heart.

 

[aspen]

God chooses us....we do not choose Him. Getting wrapped up in the contrived mechanics of salvation - as if it is a destination we are planning to travel to leaves us stuck in the planning stage - it is sort of like playing house. This is what happened with the Pharisees. They knew all the twists and turns and mechanics (even the ones they made up) involved in passing the muster for being declared righteous. They opposed Jesus with righteous indignation because they truly believed they had God on their side. Jesus opposed them because they were fans of truth not practitioners. CPS knows all the twists and turns involved in being declared a fit parent, but until the worker becomes a parent, they remain a fan of the truth, not a practitioner.

God does not want sacrifice (fans) He wants a broken heart (practitioners).....anything less restricts us to the level of self righteous, know it alls

 

[StanJ]

God chooses us....we do not choose Him. Getting wrapped up in the contrived mechanics of salvation - as if it is a destination we are planning to travel to leaves us stuck in the planning stage - it is sort of like playing house. This is what happened with the Pharisees. They knew all the twists and turns and mechanics (even the ones they made up) involved in passing the muster for being declared righteous. They opposed Jesus with righteous indignation because they truly believed they had God on their side. Jesus opposed them because they were fans of truth not practitioners. CPS knows all the twists and turns involved in being declared a fit parent, but until the worker becomes a parent, they remain a fan of the truth, not a practitioner.

God does not want sacrifice (fans) He wants a broken heart (practitioners).....anything less restricts us to the level of self righteous, know it alls

Well said aspen.

 

[shturt678]

Must be Hawaiian, as I don't understand you.

Bottom line is one can only confess Jesus IF he repents. Nobody comes to Jesus without repentance in their heart.

Thank you for your response again!

Sorry about any ambiguities. I'm pretty sure you and I have a different view of "repentance," because I use to see many turn from sin in light of Rom.3:19, 20, decades and decades ago, to the faith. Today I see where Christians: "Before I was bad, now I'm good..thank you Jesus," ie, more of a morality issue than one of a genuine "repentance." Thus today, "turning to the "faith," and not from "sin."

Old Jack,

btw my brother, part american Indain, German, French, living in da Hawaiin pidgin.

God chooses us....we do not choose Him. Getting wrapped up in the contrived mechanics of salvation - as if it is a destination we are planning to travel to leaves us stuck in the planning stage - it is sort of like playing house. This is what happened with the Pharisees. They knew all the twists and turns and mechanics (even the ones they made up) involved in passing the muster for being declared righteous. They opposed Jesus with righteous indignation because they truly believed they had God on their side. Jesus opposed them because they were fans of truth not practitioners. CPS knows all the twists and turns involved in being declared a fit parent, but until the worker becomes a parent, they remain a fan of the truth, not a practitioner.

God does not want sacrifice (fans) He wants a broken heart (practitioners).....anything less restricts us to the level of self righteous, know it alls

Thank you for caring again!

I only see one small little itsy bitsy issue, ie, God only has one way in His Ordo salutis, ie, one way of being "born again." In today's time there are hundreds of ways just looking at all the diverse "statements of faith." Don't get me wrong as all are Christians, however in the Kingdom "outwardly" needing to be in the Kingdom "inwardly" upon one's passing (forensic and secret call from heaven).

Old Jack that appreciates you and your words sir.

 

[Chopper]

God chooses us....we do not choose Him. Getting wrapped up in the contrived mechanics of salvation - as if it is a destination we are planning to travel to leaves us stuck in the planning stage - it is sort of like playing house. This is what happened with the Pharisees. They knew all the twists and turns and mechanics (even the ones they made up) involved in passing the muster for being declared righteous. They opposed Jesus with righteous indignation because they truly believed they had God on their side. Jesus opposed them because they were fans of truth not practitioners. CPS knows all the twists and turns involved in being declared a fit parent, but until the worker becomes a parent, they remain a fan of the truth, not a practitioner.

God does not want sacrifice (fans) He wants a broken heart (practitioners).....anything less restricts us to the level of self righteous, know it alls

I like your post there Aspen, very well done, and very true.

 

[shturt678]

Thank you folks for caring again!

I also think our Lord wants us in the "Kingdom of Christ" his way with broken hearts..."Kingdom of Christ" kind of first and foremost in the N.T. unless there's something I'm missing, eg, "just believe,"/"just confess,"/ "?,"/"keep things very very simple"???

Old uncomfortable and inconvenient Jack

 

[StanJ]

Thank you for your response again!

Sorry about any ambiguities. I'm pretty sure you and I have a different view of "repentance," because I use to see many turn from sin in light of Rom.3:19, 20, decades and decades ago, to the faith. Today I see where Christians: "Before I was bad, now I'm good..thank you Jesus," ie, more of a morality issue than one of a genuine "repentance." Thus today, "turning to the "faith," and not from "sin."

Old Jack,

btw my brother, part american Indain, German, French, living in da Hawaiin pidgin.

What is truth from scripture and what is practised by some is really irrelevant.

BTW...I know Jack, you've told me a couple of times.

 

[shturt678]

What is truth from scripture and what is practised by some is really irrelevant.

BTW...I know Jack, you've told me a couple of times.

Thank you for your response again!

Sorry bout that one again, ie, age thing...keep repeating things due to forgetting...sometimers or allstimers/

Appreciate you and your words...thank you again,

Old Jack

 

[Guestman]

I have disdain for those that try to assert their personal dogmas into the Word of God. Jehovah is NOT in the Greek or Hebrew of the OT and is NOT in the Greek of the NT. Pretty simple. The only Bible that use it are the KJV and NWT. Are you KJVO or JW?

Jehovah's Witnesses did not make up the name Jehovah but it has been in many Bible for centuries. The Bibles that use Jehovah are the King James Bible (4 times, Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 21:4; 26:4), the New World Translation (over 7,000 times), the American Standard Version (almost 7,000 times and of which the translators said in 1901: "The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. . . . This personal name [Jehovah], with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.",Yet, some 40 years later, the Revised Standard Version removed Jehovah from their Bible.), Young's Bible, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible, and the Divine Name King James Bible, to name a few.


However, most Bible translators have followed the pattern of the King James Bible and supplanted Jehovah with "God" or "Lord". For example, of the Protestant sponsored New International Version (which began to be prepared in 1965), Edwin Palmer, executive secretary for the NIV's committee, when asked why God's name of Jehovah was failed to be mentioned even once (though in the Hebrew Scriptures almost 7,000 times), replied: "Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you." Hence, Edwin Palmer showed bias against God's name of Jehovah, putting money ahead of the sacredness of God's name.


Deleting God’s name from his written Word and replacing it with “Lord” hinders readers from truly knowing who God is. Such a substitution creates confusion. For example, a reader may not be able to discern whether the term “Lord” refers to Jehovah or to his Son, Jesus.


Thus, in the scripture in which the apostle Peter quotes David as saying: “Jehovah said to my Lord [the resurrected Jesus]: ‘Sit at my right hand,’” many Bible translations read: “The Lord said to my Lord.” (Acts 2:34, NIV) In addition, David Clines, in his essay “Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology,” points out: “One result of the absence of Yahweh from Christian consciousness has been the tendency to focus on the person of Christ.” Thus, many churchgoers are hardly aware that the true God to whom Jesus directed his prayers is a Person with a name—Jehovah.

 

[StanJ]

Jehovah's Witnesses did not make up the name Jehovah but it has been in many Bible for centuries. The Bibles that use Jehovah are the King James Bible (4 times, Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 21:4; 26:4), the New World Translation (over 7,000 times), the American Standard Version (almost 7,000 times and of which the translators said in 1901: "The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. . . . This personal name [Jehovah], with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.",Yet, some 40 years later, the Revised Standard Version removed Jehovah from their Bible.), Young's Bible, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible, and the Divine Name King James Bible, to name a few.

However, most Bible translators have followed the pattern of the King James Bible and supplanted Jehovah with "God" or "Lord". For example, of the Protestant sponsored New International Version (which began to be prepared in 1965), Edwin Palmer, executive secretary for the NIV's committee, when asked why God's name of Jehovah was failed to be mentioned even once (though in the Hebrew Scriptures almost 7,000 times), replied: "Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you." Hence, Edwin Palmer showed bias against God's name of Jehovah, putting money ahead of the sacredness of God's name.

Deleting God’s name from his written Word and replacing it with “Lord” hinders readers from truly knowing who God is. Such a substitution creates confusion. For example, a reader may not be able to discern whether the term “Lord” refers to Jehovah or to his Son, Jesus.

Thus, in the scripture in which the apostle Peter quotes David as saying: “Jehovah said to my Lord [the resurrected Jesus]: ‘Sit at my right hand,’” many Bible translations read: “The Lord said to my Lord.” (Acts 2:34, NIV) In addition, David Clines, in his essay “Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology,” points out: “One result of the absence of Yahweh from Christian consciousness has been the tendency to focus on the person of Christ.” Thus, many churchgoers are hardly aware that the true God to whom Jesus directed his prayers is a Person with a name—Jehovah.

That didn't answer me at all, just spewed out either KJVO or JW propaganda. I'm leaning towards JW, so here is a response to your false teaching.

http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm

 

[Tex]

The name is wrong though."Jehovah" is transliterated from German, which did studies on the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew. Actually, the word "jew" and "Israel" are wrong too. In German, they pronounced the Ys as Js and the Ws as Vs. They are technically "yews" from "Yisrael" and they should have pronounced it "Yahowah".

Even more wrong, the tetragrammaton doesn't have vowels, YHWH. The German scholars then inserted vowels based on "adonai", which means "lord" (earthly or heavenly). So, YHWH became JHWH which then became Jahovah, or in English, Jehovah. Jehovah is likely not even close to the name pronounced.

So we still guess today. We know YHWH is correct. If it follows traditional Hebrew naming rules, there is a verb root corresponding to it. Lo and behold, the corresponding verb root is "to be" or "to exist".