Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Is Jehovah a False God?

The following is my response to a video on youtube, entitled:
World will recognize JWS false God Jehovah

I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and although the JWs claim Charles Taze Russell as one of their own, in reality, he was never a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. He did not believe in such an organization.

The information presented in the video concerning "Jehovah" and Raymundus Martini, however, is incorrect. It is but someone's imagination that Martini is alleged to have taken the vowels from the words ELOHIM and ADONAI (which words are someone's transliterations from the Masoretic Hebrew text) and mixed them with the tetragrammaton of God's Holy Name.

As to there being no letter "J" in the time of Martini, this is irrelevant, for it does not mean that the sounds (phonemes) that we, in English, associate with the letter "J" did not exist. Indeed, there is evidence that such sounds did exist, and were sometimes associated with the letters I or Y, consonantal "I"/"Y".

However, the concern over the pronunciation of the Holy Name is only relevant if one believes that God has decreed that one has to pronounce His Holy Name in English or other languages as it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. We find no such decree in the Bible; all such ideas originate from man, not from the Bible. And, if one is consistent with such ideas, one would end up rejecting the English form "Jesus" as being the name of God's son, the only name given by which we may be saved. (Acts 4:12) But then, since no one on earth today knows for a certainty how either God's Holy Name, or His Son's name, was originally pronounced in Hebrew, we would be left with no name by which we must be saved, if the scriptures were speaking of some exact Hebrew pronunciation. Actually, the entire reasoning is based on assumptions beyond what the Bible says. No where did God say that His Holy Name, as presented in other languages, must be pronounced as it originally pronounced in Hebrew, nor does the Bible say such concerning His Son's name.

The reality is that Raymundus Martini presented a Latin form of the Holy Name as "Yohoua" around 1270 AD (not 1520 AD, as presented in the video). This, however, does not mean that it was, at the time, pronounced in the same manner as we today, in English, would give to "Yohoua". As best as I can determine, Martini never stated where he obtained the vowels to make the Latin form, "Yohoua". The real point is that Martini never used the later English form "Jehovah" at all.

The date 1520 appears to have been confused Martini with Peter Galatinus, who in 1520, also did not present the Holy Name with the English "Jehovah", but he presented it as "IEHOUA". Again, this is not to say that Galatinus pronounced this form as we, today, would pronounce it in English. Nevertheless, it appears that the spelling he used was simply based on transliteration from the Masoretic text. There is no evidence at all that he took the vowels from ELOHIM and/or ADONAI (both of which are somebody's transliterations from the Masoretic text.)

It is incorrect to state that the vowels were taken out of God's Holy Name. In the original Hebrew there were no written vowels at all for any word whatsoever, and this includes God's Holy Name. Not that the words did not have vowels, but that the vowels were not written. Of course, no one could speak the Hebrew language if vowel sounds were not inserted into the words as spoken, thus, vowels were used when the words were spoken, but no vowels were written in the original Hebrew. Some do like to make it appear that the lack of vowels only pertained to God's Holy Name, but this is not true. Every word, including every name, in the original Hebrew, had no written vowels.

It is a popular claim that the Masoretes themselves inserted vowels from Adonai and/or Elohim into the tetragrammaton to form Jehovah (or, Yehowah); this also, however, is an assumption that has been repeated so many times that it has become accepted as fact. Some scholars, however, have shown that this assumption is not true. The truth is that, since no Hebrew word had any written vowels, the Masoretes, in producing their vowel points, in fact, inserted such written vowels into every word in the Hebrew text, including the word representing God's Holy Name. Nevertheless, many seem to single out the Holy Name as though it was the only word that did not have written vowels. Often these will present the Holy Name in an unpronounceable English transliterated form such as YHWH or JHVH; others claim the Hebrew for his name should be pronounced using the English form Yahweh. Some translations have supplied these as English forms of the Holy Name.

Nevertheless, the original Hebrew has no written vowels at all for any name or any word whatsoever. The vowels were spoken, however, although they were not written.

Consequently, the English form "Jehovah", and the vowels in that English form, were not originally provided by any Catholic monk; the written vowels in Hebrew were provided by the Masoretes long before any Monk provided a Latin form of the Holy Name. While I am sure that the Masoretes endeavored to provide the original sounding of the Hebrew, we cannot be certain that vowel points they provided do actually represent the original Hebrew phonemes.

The Masoretes provided at least two different variations of the Holy Name, depending on contextual sounding. This indicates that the Holy Name may not have had just one original pronunciation, but at least two, depending on the sounds in the context.

However, if one should get all upset, or claim that one should not pronounce the Holy Name in English because we do not know for a certainty how it was originally pronounced, then, to be consistent, we should not pronounce the name of the Messiah, either. "Jesus" is an English pronunciation which certainly is not the same pronunciation as the original Hebrew, and no one knows for a certainty how the name of the Messiah was originally pronounced in the original Hebrew.

On the other hand, some claim that the Holy Name is ineffable, that it should not be pronounced. Those who claim that pronouncing the Holy Name is not appropriate, do not, in fact, refrain from pronouncing the name, but they often will indeed say the name as being Adonai (Lord), Elohim (God), HaShem (the name), or as something else. If they would not actually say the Holy Name at all, they would have to read Deuteronomy 6:4 as "Hear, Israel: -- is our God; -- is one," which, of course, ends up being nonsense. If a Jew reads aloud Deuteronomy 6:4 from the Jewish Publication Society translation, he will be saying, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one." In effect, he will still be attributing the Holy Name to being "the LORD", and pronouncing the Holy Name, as being "the LORD". The Hebrew pronunciation of the Holy Name, however, is most definitely NOT "the LORD". Deuteronomy 6:4, in the World English, reads, "Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one." In the American Standard, it reads, "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." Either of these latter two translations are definitely much better than totally changing the Holy Name to "the LORD", which does not mean the same thing.

Another point is that many make much ado over "Jehovah" as being a different name from the Holy Name as given in Hebrew. In fact, it is the same "name" as given in Hebrew, but it is simply a different linguistic form of that name. The fact that it may not be pronounced as it was originally pronounced in Hebrew does not make it a different name. Similarly, "Jesus", "Joshua", "Yeshua", and even "Yahshua" are all the same name, being English forms based on linguistic variations of that name. The Hebrew has several different spellings and thus variations in pronunciation of the name we often speak of in English as "Jesus" or "Joshua".

Indeed, however, I do not know of any person, when reading the Bible aloud, who does not pronounce the Holy Name with some kind of oral expression. Most English translations present the Holy Name as "the LORD" or "GOD", and thus most English readers, when reading those translations, do pronounce (or, mispronounce) the Holy Name as "the LORD" or as "GOD", despite claims to the contrary. I do not know of anyone who simply skips the Holy Name so as not to pronounce the Holy Name, despite their claims of not pronouncing the Holy Name by pronouncing (mispronouncing) the Holy Name as "the LORD" or "GOD", or whatever else.

See my study:
Is God's Holy Name "The Lord"?

See also my resource page for "The Holy Name"

Restoration Light Home Site:


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Why are the citizens of Troy called Trojans instead of Troyans? Or more importantly why is the J pronounced as giraffe and as Janus instead of as Y. They don't come from the city of Troj.

  8. Not sure about your closing properly with Lord and God. Yes i understand vowels mean nothing. I also understand that if you search you then find liars publish everything as to how they are so sure of this language evolution or that evolution of words. Most are biased hatred or selective favortism. Unfortunately the truth is words change because of Bias hatred and selective favoritism of cultures not those of book authors claiming to be linguists.
    Thus i have read the Chinese year Kiah is Romanized and JIa is the true pronunciation. But enough sincere searching and we find why, because the word was Chia (Chiah) which is Kiah to some and Jia to others. This is not native only to China or Japan derived from Cipango (Chipango, Kipango) where obviously Kapan never took hold and certainly how could it be Sapan the way the 1992 Columbus movie said it. But this is also found in Turkey regarding a peak on Mount Ararat being Judi (which is also from Chudi and is why it is also Kudi of the Kurds). New rules will confuse when applied to old records. And people who do not recognize we all change things, the priority is to see the changes, not bicker whether they are true or not, or proper or not, etc. This is not about which authors are the know-it-alls. BUT it opens my eyes as to how Shulgi was first and became Dungi (king bullcrap), and opens my eyes how his son AmarPal became Amar-Sin, as well as Narmer or Nar was then mocked as Nar Merod or as Narmer Rod as rebel or with staff. English is written in cuneiform by our forefathers in Hattusa Turkey bck in 1640bc when Babel was 600 years old. It isthe Hittites of Hattusa that destroyed the city Ur 1000s of years before Babel vanished into ruins.

    So the JWs use of Jehovah is not an issue with me, but i know of only one anonymous author who understood using the name in the book 1974 God's Eternal Purpose Now Trumphing For Man's Good which began the 40 years of JWs forgetting the real Jehovah and what his name is by changing its meaning contrary to the book and making it a wishlist promise for Jehovah to give everyone anything they want in the 1000 years.

    My recent realization is with GOD is only in the Bible once where Jesus says Why do you call me Good (why do you call me God), no one is Good, except God is Good. Since Hittite is English, it existed to be used here. BUT the word El and Elohim is All Mighty not Good nor Good and is directly related to Allah meaning the same thing. Thus Islam uses the connection to original more so than English because the greatest power or greatest might of being all mighty is not seen by all people as the power of good. In fact humans argue whether being good is the real true power or whether forceful power and greed for money is the way to do good with such power. Thus might and good are not equal for most people because might can be bad unless you keep in mind that good will triumph.

    So now the name applicable to cause and effect is seen when you ask where did Chinese and Japanese come from as children of Noah. It is too evident that single syllable words were single pictoral consonants so that Y and H and W and H are four words, que sera que sera. Whether Hebrew Ha or Greek Ho the article defines he that is, and the Y and the W is in what manner, he is what he is (YHYH), no, he is what he is being, what he proves to be, what the results are (YHWH).

  9. My own greatest example in a single moment was an encounter with a ghost. I fell asleep after a rude friend puffed his marijuana smoke in my face and woke up where the room's nightlights lit up like it was bright heaven. I knew my eyes were dilated and i saw a ghost over my chest and i said jehovah do not let him into me. No change, nothing happened until i though how to put application to that name. If there is ectoplasm from humans, then someone is asleep, so i called out to my friend who woke up, the ghost vanished, the room went dark, and asking him what happened he said he went to the living room to watch TV and fell asleep. A ghost cannot enter against your will, that is why you must be drunk or drugged to become submissive to it, further unless entered by the ghost, the ghost cannot use your ectoplasm to appear to someone else. Thus the sleeping medium is already a possessed victim. And so i applied what i knew of the name, which means apply the truth he has taught you.