The form of argument represented above is actually false association designed to give a desired conclusion, which is often also a false conclusion since it is based on a false association.
The problem is that Jehovah is not derived from Strong's #3050 + #1943, but rather is an English transliteration from the verb provided in the Masoretic Hebrew text, which Strong gives the number of #3068. The root of this verb is Strongs #1961, the infinitive, "to be". The Hebrew form for "Jehovah" is actually the third person masculine singular form of that verb, meaning "He is" or "He becomes" or "He will be", etc. As expressed in Exodus 3:14 in the first person form, it is often translated as "I am", "I become", or "I will be", etc. The full expression in Exodus 3:14 is "I am who I am", or "I will be who I will be", etc. The name thus is referring to WHO God is, all that HE IS, all of His attributes, including his loyalty to fulfilling his promises.
I hear you, but when you pronounce the name, Jeh-hovah (Yah-hovah) what you're in effect saying in Hebrew is Yah "ruin" or "cursed". If you're doing it out of ignorance, that's different. But if you know that something you're saying in English means Cursed God in Hebrew, why would you want to keep saying it?
ReplyDeleteChris Rasmus stated: QUOTE: I hear you, but when you pronounce the name, Jeh-hovah (Yah-hovah) what you're in effect saying in Hebrew is Yah "ruin" or "cursed". :ENDQUOTE
DeleteThe above would be true IF indeed the Masoretes derived the forms they used from Strong's #3050 + #1943; the fact is that they derived the forms from Strong's 3068.
"Jehovah", of course, is not Hebrew -- it is a Latin form of the Holy Name based directly on Strong's #3068. It is not at all formed from Strong's #1943 or #1942. By pronouncing God's Holy Name in English as Jehovah, there is no reason at all that one should imagine and assume that one is combining the words designated by Strong's #3050 and #1943 so as be saying that Jah is ruin or cursed. Jehovah is directly based on Strong's #3068, not Strong's #1943 added to Strong's #3050.
You might want to do some more research on the satanically inspired, blasphemous false name 'JeHovah'.
ReplyDeleteI made a number of comments with links to websites and videos under my user name kevinb1914. You have to click 'Load more' near the bottom to see the latest comments.
https://thehovahofjehovah.blogspot.com/2012/04/does-hovah-really-mean-ruin-disaster.html
You can also check out my blogspot and respond with any comments:
http://yahuahisgod.blogspot.com/
Were you ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you now believe that God's Name is 'Yahweh', with 'Yah' being His shortened Name?
Root for Jehovah: Part 1
DeleteI have no reason to imagine and assume and claim to be a fact that "Hovah is the root for Jehovah." I do not believe at all that the Masoretes had any idea of forming the word often transliterated as HOVAH as being the root of the forms of the Holy Name that they presented.
God no where has given any command that one has to pronounce His Holy Name in all languages exactly as it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew so as to imagine and assume and proclaim as being a fact that the English form "Jehovah" is a "false Satanic name." What scripture identifies the English form of Strong's 3068 as Jehovah as being a false Satanic name? Such imaginations are not from any command of God, but comes from the command od men beyond what is written. I do believe that Satan is behind all the imaginations and assumptions that many are claiming to be fact about the Holy Name.
I definitely have no reason to imagine and assume that the common usage of the English form "Jehovah" is itself linked with the assumptions being made about Jabulon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahbulon
I, myself, cannot agree that the Latin forms Yahu'ah, Yahowah, Yahuwah are correct (all three are correct?), but then again I cannot state that any of these Latin forms are incorrect. From the scriptural standpoint, I do not believe it is a matter of any of these Latin/English forms being correct or incorrect.
YHWH forms no name at all in English. How does one pronounce YHWH in English? This is simply somebody's transliteration of the four letters that make the Holy Name in ancient Hebrew without any vowels. In ancient Hebrew, however, no word had any written vowels. Vowel sounds, however, were added when the words were spoken. Therefore, if one should think the Holy Name should be rendered in English as YHWH or JHVH, etc., then, to be consistent, it would seem that this should be done with every Hebrew name of the Bible. I don't know of anyone who does such, however.
I have no reason to think that addition of the letter "J" at any point in history to the English alphabet offers any reason at all to accept the common English usage of "Jehovah" as corresponding to Strong's #3068. The assumption appears to be that because the letter "J" was added (usually claimed to have happened in the 17th century), no such sounds existed in English until the letter "J" was added. The addition of the letter "J" to English alphabel, however, does not mean that the sounds attributed to letter "J" did not exist in the various dialects of English until the letter "J" was added. I am sure that the sounds existed long before the letter "J" was added; in other words, more than likely the letter "J" was added to accommodate already existing sounds, not to add sounds to English that had not existed before. Regardless, it has no bearing on using the common form of "Jehovah" to represent Strong's #3068.
Root for Jehovah Part 2
DeleteI definitely have no reason to imagine and assume that Satan had "'hovah' added to further the slandering of God's name by that 12th century Catholic Dominican monk, the Raymundus Martini moron." The historical fact is that Raymundus Martini gave the Holy Name the Latin spelling of "Yohoua." As best as I can determine, he disagreed with the sound system and the vowel points given by the Masoretes. When his work was finally published several centuries later, however, the editor changed "Yohoua" to "Jehova." Nevertheless, the forms "Iehouah," "Yehowah," "Jehovah," etc., are all based on direct transliteration of the most common form of the Holy Name that appears in the Masoretic text, which was in existence long before Martini was born.
I will say also that some of the Watchtower publications erred in what they presented concerning Raymundus Martini. Their errors were corrected in the their later publications. I discussed this at:
https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/2016/10/martini.html
For more related to Martini:
https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/raymundus-martini.html
The English form "Yahuah" is itself based on assumptions (although the assumptions are most often presented as being fact) and the idea that this Latin/English form is the orignal way it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew itself has to be assumed. No one on earth today knows for certainly what ancient Hebrew sounded like. Indeed, this was true when the Masoretes endeavored to assign sounds to the ancient Hebrew; the Masoretes themselves did not agree in many cases what sounds should be attributed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
Regardless, it is the Masoretic text, not Raymundus Martini, that the forms "Iehouah," "Yehowah", "Jehovah," etc. are based on.
Several centuries after the Masoretes completed their work, the claim was made that the Masoretes took vowel points from the Masoretic words often transliterated as ADONAI and ELOHIM to created the vowel points to be used in the forms of the Holy Name. Supposedly, the Masoreted did this to remind the reader to substitute ELOHIM or ADONAI wherever the Holy Name appears. However, we find nothing in the work of the Masoretes that suggests that they did such a thing.