God's Sacred and Holy Name...

God's Sacred and Holy Name...

Beautiful isn't it? How do you react when seeing God's Sacred and Holy Name? Are you overcome with a wondrous and overwhelming awe? If you were to enter into a Personal Relationship with someone whom you deemed special or important, what is the first thing you would want to know about that Person? What is Your Name?

Think about it, how well could you build a personal and intimate relationship with someone if you don't even know their name? The Bible states, "Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you indecisive ones." (James 4:8) Notice it requires action on your part, first? The Bible is like a mirror, it reflects your thoughts and inner person, the person you really are. "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

Question: If you met someone you really like, and I mean you really want to get to know this person, the first thing you want to know is their name. The second thing you want them to know is Your Name. Right? Suppose that person doesn't care to want to know your name at all? How would you Feel? If you don't care to learn about Jehovah, then why should he care about you? But he does care about you, more than you can ever imagine. Stop hurting him.

The proof that you do care, is that you are reading this article right now. Researching the Bible, reading the articles, learning, and yes, drawing closer to God. It's a process. Jesus Christ told his followers, "No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day." (John 6:44) Jehovah sent his only begotten Son for you, even before you knew about God's Precious Name. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Jehovah Witnesses are proud to bear the Name of the true God, JEHOVAH. "Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name." (Acts 15:14) “"I am the One who declared and saved and made known When there was no foreign god among you. So you are my witnesses, declares Jehovah, and I am God." (Isaiah 43:12)

Slandering or belittling God's Sacred and Holy Name can be bring certain death for the abuser. "So the abuser of Jehovah’s name should be put to death without fail. The entire assembly should stone him without fail. The foreign resident should be put to death the same as the native for his abusing the Name." (Leviticus 24:16)

Here's where it really pays to study. Satan is tricky, he tries to get people from using God's Name altogether. How? By removing God's Sacred and Holy Name from the Bible. This act of not using God's Name is a grave and serious sin, a willful act. "They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal." (Jeremiah 23:27) The Hebrew word used in taking God's Name in vain can also mean 'emptiness' or 'void' as in making worthless, belittling, or something of little value or treat as ordinary.

Rather, God's Name is a Protection. "The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous one runs and receives protection." (Proverbs 18:10) "At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name." (Malachi 3:16)

"During his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear." (Hebrews 5:7)

Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

Comments

  • TruthTruth Posts: 490

    Some people take that Holy Name in vain.

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606

    The Hebrew word for taking God's Name in vain is shav which also means emptiness. Like removing God's Name Jehovah, then substituting it with the Lord. It is the removing of the Name in a worthless way to hide his identity or to belittle the Name of the Uinversal Sovereign. Jehovah's Name has been under attack by apostates and opposers of Jesus Christ for many years. I make it a point of my faith to expose such one hyprocisy.

    What does Jehovah mean? Rotherham’s translation renders those words: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” So Jehovah can become whatever is needed in order to fulfill his purposes, and he can cause to happen whatever is required with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.

    Jesus Christ the Anointed One of Jehovah bears witness to his God and Father, and Does his Father's Will. Apostates and Opposers of Jesus Christ who continue to take God's Name in vain, not only slight the true God of Heaven, but also denounce Jesus Christ, the son of the living God. (Mathew 16:16) Jesus when translated literally means "Jehovah is Salvation".


    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

  • Noticed @BroRando comment on November 27 included several links to unstrustworthy JW.org. Comment on October 30 documents many unfulfilled predictions by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) in various publications, which proves the Society is NOT the correct communication channel to/for God (fails simple test of 100% accuracy).

    Deuteronomy 13:1-5 LEB => “If a prophet stands up in your midst or a dreamer of dreams and he gives to you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes about that he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other אלהים gods (those whom you have not known), and let us serve them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer, for יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God is testing you to know whether you love יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God with all of your heart and with all of your inner self. You shall go after יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God, and him you shall revere, and his commandment you shall keep, and to his voice you shall listen, and him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. But that prophet or the dreamer of that dream shall be executed, for he spoke falsely about יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God, the one bringing you out from the land of Egypt and the one redeeming you from the house of slavery, in order to seduce you from the way that יהוה Yahweh your אלהים God commanded you to go in it; so in this way you shall purge the evil from your midst.



    James 4:1-12 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) => From where are conflicts and from where are quarrels among you? Is it not from this, from your pleasures that wage war among your members? You desire and do not have; you murder and are filled with envy, and are not able to obtain; you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, in order that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with אלהים God? Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of אלהים God. Or do you think that in vain the scripture says, “The spirit which he caused to dwell in us desires jealously”? But he gives greater grace. Therefore it says, “אלהים God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Therefore subject yourselves to אלהים God. But resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to אלהים God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded! Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to gloominess. Humble yourselves before the יהוה Lord, and he will exalt you. Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. The one who speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of the law. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?




    @BroRando November 27 Rotherham’s translation renders those words: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” 

    The Emphasized Bible has a footnote following “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” 

    To follow the weighty explanation subjoined, it should be borne in mind that the Hebrew in ver. 14 is, second line, ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh, then in the fifth line ’ehyeh only; then that yahweh takes up the strain in ver. 15. “Hayah [the word rendered above “become”] does not mean ‘to be’ essentially or ontologically, but phenomenally.… It seems evident that in the view of the writer ’ehyeh and yahweh are the same: that God is ’ehyeh, ‘I will be,’ when speaking of Himself, and yahweh, ‘He will be,’ when spoken of by others. What he will be is left unexpressed—He will be with them, helper, strengthener, deliverer.”—Professor A. B. Davidson, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, Vol. II., 199. [It will be seen by the discriminating that the above brief exposition of the meaning of the Divine Name (Yahweh) is in essential accord with that offered in Chapter IV., of the Introduction to this Bible.]

     Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible: A Translation Designed to Set Forth the Exact Meaning, the Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred Original (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010).

    The Emphasized Bible introduction about original texts includes Chapter IV:

    the incommunicable name

    As it might appear premature, at the outset of this chapter, to spell out that Divine Name which some regard as not only incommunicable but unpronounceable, it will be considerate to begin the present investigations by the aid of circumlocution and abbreviation, especially as no inconvenience will be occasioned thereby. The Tetragrammaton, or name of four letters (in allusion to the four letters YHWH), is a technical term frequently employed by scholars, and will here, for a little, serve a useful purpose. Besides employing this term, we can reverently speak of “The Name,” or can set down the first letter only, “Y,” in the same way as critics are wont to use the Hebrew letter yod as the initial of the Divine Name intended. This understood, we can intelligibly proceed. Our very first sub-division will indicate the serious turn which this inquiry necessarily takes.

    I.—The Name Suppressed

    A. The Fact

    It is willingly admitted that the suppression has not been absolute; at least so far as Hebrew and English are concerned. The Name, in its four essential letters, was reverently transcribed by the Hebrew copyist, and therefore was necessarily placed before the eye of the Hebrew reader. The latter, however, was instructed not to pronounce it, but to utter instead a less sacred name—Adonay or Elohim. In this way The Name was not suffered to reach the ear of the listener. To that degree it was suppressed. The Septuagint, or ancient Greek version, made the concealment complete by regularly substituting Kurios; as the Vulgate, in like manner, employed Dominus; both Kurios and Dominus having at the same time their own proper service to render as correctly answering to the Hebrew Adonay, confessedly meaning “Lord.” The English versions do nearly the same thing, in rendering The Name as Lord, and occasionally God; these terms also having their own rightful office to fill as fitly representing the Hebrew titles Adonay and Elohim and El. So that the Tetragrammaton is nearly hidden in our public English versions. Not quite. To those who can note the difference between “Lord” and “Lord” and between “God” and “God,” and can remember that the former (printed with small capitals) do while the latter do not stand for The Name—to such an intimation of the difference is conveyed. But although the reader who looks carefully at his book can see the distinction, yet the mere hearer remains completely in the dark respecting it, inasmuch as there is no difference whatever in sound between “Lord” and “Lord” or “God” and “God.” It hence follows that in nearly all the occurrences of The Name (some 7,000 throughout the Old Testament) the especial Name of God is absolutely withheld from all who simply hear the Bible read. “Nearly all,” for there are about half a dozen instances in the A.V., and a few more in the R.V., in which this concealment does not take place. In other words there are these very few places in which the Tetragrammaton appears as “Jehovah”; and although it may be asked, “What are they among so many?” still their presence has an argumentative value. If it was wrong to unveil the Tetragrammaton at all, then why do it in these instances? If, on the other hand, it was right to let it be seen in these cases, then why not in all? With the exceptions explained, however, it remains true to say, that in our public versions the one especial Name of God is suppressed, wholly concealed from the listening ear, almost as completely hidden from the hastening or uncritical eye.

    B. The Immediate Consequences of the Suppression

    These are—

    (i.) Partly literary, though more than that. Reference is here made to the confusion into which many things are thrown through this abnormal state of things. “Baal” is “lord” and so is “Adon” (Adonay)—that is unfortunate; but why add to the embarrassment by rendering YHWH (and YH, the shorter form) also as “Lord”? Worst of all is the confusion when “Y” and Adonay occur together, as they do many times in the Book of Ezekiel. Inasmuch as to say, “Lord Lord” for “Adonay Y,” was too grotesque and misleading (positively false to the ear), the new device had to be resorted to of rendering this combination by “Lord God”—“God” in this case, and not “Lord” at all, standing for The Name. Even YH (the shorter form) and YHWH (the full form) of the Tetragrammaton, coming together, caused a dilemma; though in these instances, the acuteness of the trouble compelled the adoption of a partial remedy, and “the Lord Jehovah” is the result. “Confusion,” then, is a term not a whit too strong to apply to these varying devices. No wonder that even intelligent and educated people are continually forgetting what they have heard or read concerning so involved a matter.

    (ii.) Partly practical. Is it too much to assume that The Name has about it something very grand or very gracious, or at least something very mysterious? Whichever conclusion is received, the question arises whether there is not something essentially presumptuous, however little intended, in substituting for it one of the commonest of titles, seeing that there are on earth “lords many,” and the master of the humblest slave is his “lord”? There is surely nothing very grand or gracious or mysterious in that! It is therefore the most natural presumption that the suppression of The Name has entailed on the reader, and especially upon the hearer, irreparable loss.

    C. The Reason for the Suppression

    The motive was good—let that be assumed. It was to safeguard the Divine Majesty in the minds of men. It was to prevent the inconsiderate mention of Him before whom seraphs veil their faces—though even so it is very difficult to see how one name should occasion irreverence and another not. Why not, then, leave Him altogether unnamed? Why not fear to allude to Him by any title that could definitely refer to Him? The passages commonly cited as furnishing good reason for the suppression surely cannot mean what is thus attributed to them, since there is a wide distinction between not taking His Name in vain, and not taking His Name into our lips at all, even for prayer or praise. In a word, the motive is respected; but the reverence is regarded as misapplied—the reason given is seen to be invalid.

    II.—The Name Restored

    A. Why?

    1. Because its suppression was a mistake. So grave a mistake cannot be corrected too soon. An unwarrantable liberty has been taken; the path of humility is to retrace our steps.

    2. Because thereby serious evil may be averted. Men are saying to-day that “Y” was a mere tribal name, and are suggesting that “Y” Himself was but a local deity. As against this, only let The Name be boldly and uniformly printed, and the humblest Sunday School teacher will be able to show the groundlessness of the assertion.

    3. Because solid advantage may be counted upon as certain to follow the restoration. Even if the meaning of The Name should not disclose itself, the word itself would gradually gather about it the fitting associations—and that would be a gain; and godly readers would be put on quest—and that would be a further gain; and if the true significance of the Tetragrammaton should be brought to light, there would be a trained constituency to whom appeal could be made—and that would be a yet greater gain.

    A Plausible Objection Answered.—A plausible argument in favour of leaving The Name veiled, as it is now, may be based upon its concealment by the Septuagint. The plea takes the following form. The Septuagint conceals the Tetragrammaton under the common title Kurios, “Lord.” Jesus used that version as it stood, notably in citing Psalm 110:1. Therefore what was good enough for Him should be good enough for us. Answer First: Jesus Christ was not a scribe or literary critic: His mission was much higher. Answer Second: Jesus had to plead his Messiahship at the bar of the Scriptures as then current; and any criticism by Him of the nation’s Sacred Documents might have placed a needless obstacle in the people’s path. We thus conclude that the objection may and should be set aside as inconclusive, and so fall back on the reasons given why the Divine Name should be suffered uniformly to appear.

    B. In What Form?

    1. Why not in the form “Jehovah”? Is that not euphonious? It is, without question. Is it not widely used? It is, and may still be freely employed to assist through a period of transition. But is it not hallowed and endeared by many a beautiful hymn and many a pious memory? Without doubt; and therefore it is with reluctance that it is here declined. But why is it not accepted? There it is—familiar, acceptable, ready for adoption. The reason is, that it is too heavily burdened with merited critical condemnation—as modern, as a compromise, as a “mongrel” word, “hybrid,” “fantastic,” “monstrous.” The facts have only to be known to justify this verdict, and to vindicate the propriety of not employing it in a new and independent translation. What are the facts? And first as to age. “The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.” Next, as to formation. “Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for jhvh, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16.… To give the name jhvh the vowels of the word for Lord (Heb. Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah, is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal—viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 a.d.” From this we may gather that the Jewish scribes are not responsible for the “hybrid” combination. They intentionally wrote alien vowels—not for combination with the sacred consonants, but for the purpose of cautioning the Jewish reader to enunciate a totally different word, viz., some other familiar name of the Most High.

    2. The form “Yahweh” is here adopted as practically the best. The only competing form would be “Yehweh,” differing, it will be observed, only in a single vowel—“e” for “a” in the first syllable. But even this difference vanishes on examination. It is true that “Yehweh” is intended to suggest the derivation of the noun from the simple (Kal) conjugation of the verb, and that some scholars take “Yahweh” as indicating a formation from the causative (Hiphil) conjugation; but, since other scholars (presumably because of the aspirate h) regard “Yahweh” itself as consistent with a Kal formation, thereby leaving us free to accept the spelling “Yahweh” without prejudging the question of the precise line of derivation from the admitted root hâyâh, we may very well accept the spelling now widely preferred by scholars, and write the name—“Yahweh.”

    3. The exact pronunciation claims a word to itself. “The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahwè (or Iahway, the initial I=y, as in Iachimo). The final e should be pronounced like the French ê, or the English e in there, and the first h sounded as an aspirate. The accent should be on the final syllable.” This statement gives rise to a question of rhythm, which is sure sooner or later to make itself felt. We are so used to the three syllables of the form “Jehovah,” with its delightfully varied vowels, that we shrink back dismayed in anticipation of the disturbing effect on our Psalmody of the substitution of Yahweh′ for Jehóvah. Our apprehensions may be dismissed. The readjustment is mainly the business of our hymn-writers; and if it should prove literally true, that “new mercies” shall “new songs” demand, which shall enshrine a new accent in a new rhythm, then we may rest assured that sanctified genius and enthusiasm will prove equal to the occasion. The Translator of The Emphasised Bible has in his own humble province recast a good many lines in his rendering of “The Psalms” in consideration of the modified rhythm now required. As for the rest, it may with confidence be counted upon that increasing familiarisation and the silent growth of hallowed memories will ultimately render thrice welcome what was at first so strange.

    III.—The Name Explained

    1. It certainly appears to be explained in Exodus 3:14. It does not follow that the statements there made are rightly understood; nor can any compelling reason be assigned why a translator should be ready to expound everything which he has to represent in English. Nevertheless, the correct rendering of the above passage is so connected with the meaning of The Name, that, were it not for special reasons, the attempt now to be made might not have provoked the charge of presumption. As it is, the reproach of rashness cannot easily be escaped.

    2. Confessedly it is very discouraging to find the editor of the Polychrome Bible declaring bluntly: “The meaning of jhvh is uncertain.” That it is uncertain would appear to be the natural conclusion deducible from the varieties of meaning summed up in the Oxford Gesenius under the name “Yahweh.”b

    3. As against this discouragement it may be considered whether the Old Testament does not strongly embolden us to hope that greater success and greater unanimity may yet be attained. Is not a hidden name almost a contradiction in terms? Does not “name” in the Bible very widely imply revelation? Men’s names are throughout the Scriptures fraught with significance, enshrining historical incidents, biographical reminiscences, and so forth; and why should the Name of the Ever-Blessed be an exception to this rule? Does not the Almighty Himself employ this Name of His as though it had in it some self-evident force and fitness to reveal His nature and unfold His ways? His Name is continually adduced by Himself as His reason for what He does and what He commands: “For I am Yahweh.” Israel and the nations are placed under discipline, says the Divine Speaker, “that they may know that I am Yahweh.” Is it not probable, then, that His Name was intended to be understood? Thus encouraged, we proceed; only requesting that the exposition which follows may be regarded as—

    4. An Individual Opinion respectfully submitted.

    (a) The conclusion formed may be thus expressed: The Name itself signifies, “He who becometh”; and the formula by which that significance is sustained and which is rendered in the Authorised Version “I am that I am,” expresses the sense, “I will become whatsoever I please”; or, as more exactly indicating the idiom involved, “I will become whatsoever I may become.” We amplify the “may,” and more freely suggest the natural latitude which the idiom claims, by saying: “Whatsoever I will, may, or can become.”

    (b) The reasons for this conclusion are two: First, that it gives the simplest, most obvious, most direct force to the derivation of The Name itself, as generally admitted. Yahweh is almost always regarded as the third person, singular, masculine, imperfect tense, from the root haweh, an old form of the root hayah. The one meaning of hawah is “become.” So that the force of yahweh thus derived, as a verb, would be “He will become”; or, as expressive of use and wont, “He becometh.” Then, passing into use as a noun, it is—“He who becometh,” “The Becoming One.” That is precisely how any other Hebrew name would be formed and would yield up its inherent significance. Thus viewed, its human-like simplicity would be its great recommendation. If the Eternal would speak to man so as to be understood, we seem compelled to expect that He will speak after the manner of men. And if after the manner of men He pleases to take and bear a Name, it would seem the very perfection of condescension that His Name should be formed after the manner of men’s names. Second, the sense of the formula given above is very simply and idiomatically obtained. The formula itself is ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh, in which it should be noted that the verb ’ehyeh, “I will become,” runs forward into a reduplication of itself; for it is that which constitutes the idiom. As a mere repetition, the assertion would be unmeaning. To escape this we must resort to mystery or imagination or—idiom. How if the mystery itself is imaginary; and where is imagination to end? how is it to be reduced to any trusty significance? Would it not be more humble and childlike to be prepared to find that the All-wise and All-loving is simply addressing us in an idiom of our own? We have many such idiomatic formulæ even in English: “I will speak what I will speak,” and the like. Only, after the manner of our tongue, we avoid the semblance of meaningless repetition by emphasising the auxiliary verb: “I will speak what I will speak”—my mind is made up; or “I will speak what I can, may, must speak”—according to need and opportunity. Now, in Hebrew, the future (imperfect, or incipient) tense (the one used here) is freely employed to express mood; in other words, to convey those nicer shades of thought which in English are conveyed by such helping words as “will,” “can,” “may,” “could,” “would,” “might,” “must.” The only question is whether we can assure ourselves that we are not acting fancifully in resorting to that principle of interpretation in the important statement before us. Have we any examples of such an idiom finding place where, as in Exo. 3:14, a word is folded back upon itself? As a matter of fact, we have in the Old Testament at least three examples in which the recognition of this simple idiom brings out an excellent sense, and in which the Authorised Version leads the way (followed by the Revised) in so expressing the sense.

    Example I.—1 Samuel 23:13, A.V. and R.V.: “And they went whithersoever they could go.” Heb.: “wayyithhalleku ba’asher yithhallaku.” Freely: “And they wandered wheresoever they could, would, or might wander.” The repetition is there, and the idiom, and the clear sense of it.

    Example II.—2 Samuel 15:20, A.V. and R.V.: “Seeing I go whither I may.” Heb.: “wa’ani hôlêk ‘al ’asher ’ani hôlêk.” Lit.: “And (or seeing) I am going whither I am going.” Again the repetition, again the idiom, again the fit sense thereby conveyed.

    Example III.—2 Kings 8:1, A.V. and R.V.: “And sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn.” Heb.: “weguri ba’asher thaguri.” In the first passage the auxiliary is “could”; in the second, “may”; in the third, “canst.” Idiom is recognised in all, and through it the meaning is seized and well expressed.

    We thus gain all needful countenance for the idiomatic explication of Exo. 3:14:

    I will become whatsoever I will—may—can—become.

    The only difficulty is to suggest the suitable latitude, without multiplying′ words and without violating any known characteristic of the Speaker. Perhaps the best word on this momentous occasion is: “what I please,” since we know that the Divine resources are infinite, and that God will please to become to His people only what is wisest and best. Thus viewed, the formula becomes a most gracious promise; the Divine capacity of adaptation to any circumstances, any difficulties, any necessities that may arise, becomes a veritable bank of faith to such as love God and keep His commandments. The formula is a promise, the promise is concentrated in a Name. The Name is at once a revelation, a memorial, a pledge. To this Name, God will ever be faithful; of it He will never be ashamed; by it He may ever be truthfully proclaimed and gratefully praised.

    ||This|| is my name to times age-abiding,

    And ||this|| my memorial to generation after generation.

    Praise ye Yah、

    For good′ is Yahweh,

    Sing praises to his name,

    For it is sweet.

    Praise Yahweh、 all ye nations,

    Laud him、 all ye tribes of men;

    For his lovingkindness hath prevailed over us、

    And the faithfulness of Yahweh is to times age-abiding.

    Praise ye Yah.

    5. Whether the foregoing explanation is ever likely to be generally accepted or not, one thing appears to be more and more certain the more the evidence is considered, that the name Yahweh has some inherent meaning of great force and graciousness; at the very least a significance of sufficient peculiarity to make it more fitting to be employed on some occasions than on others. This conclusion, which on its own merits will scarcely be denied, invests the matter with a literary interest which it will be fair not to forget. It may deliver the most open-minded critic from a too ready resort to documentary hypotheses to account for the presence or absence of The Name in or from some verses, sections, and books. The use of previous documents may go some way to account for the appearance and disappearance of that Name; but internal fitness to be avoided or employed may be an equally feasible explanation. Leaving aside the interesting question whether the sudden appearance of the name Yahweh in combination with Elohim in Genesis 2 may not owe its presence to the tenour of the new section which commences at verse 4, in view of Man’s coming upon the scene, there are some examples of the presence and absence of The Name to which any documentary hypothesis would appear to be altogether alien. For instance, is it not indicative of what we may call changed moral atmosphere that the prologue of the Book of Job (chapters 1 and 2) and the epilogue (chapters 38–42) should be replete with the especially gracious proper name “Y,” whereas throughout the whole of the doubting, questioning, arguing portion of the Book The Name should occur only once, chapter 12:9, and then with uncertain attestation? It appears to be equally indicative of a most delicate sense of fitness, that, whereas The Name is employed on an average nearly once in each of the eight-versed sections of Psalm 119—a Psalm pervaded by the atmosphere of sustained communion with Yahweh—the one exception, in which a less sacred divine name is used is the single instance in which the Psalmist’s mind comes into contact with the colder air of disloyalty to the Gracious Being whom he himself delighted to worship:—

    “Depart from me, ye evil-doers,—

    That I may observe the commandments of my God.”

    It is with a feeling of lively satisfaction that the materials for judgment concerning all such peculiarities of sacred usage are now clearly set forth in the pages of The Emphasised Bible

     Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible: A Translation Designed to Set Forth the Exact Meaning, the Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred Original, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010), 22–29.

    Joseph Bryant Rotherham documented "Jehovah" sound for God's name was not known before 1520 AD (500 years ago).


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article that also mentions 1520 AD for "Jehovah" sounding of God's name:

    Jehovah (Yahweh)

    The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, “Lexicon”, Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.).

    Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst (”Vet. Test. Concordantiae”, Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern (”Vet. Test. Concordantiae”, Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by “Lord” (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai—usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.

    Pronunciation of Jehovah

    The Fathers and the Rabbinic writers agree in representing Jehovah as an ineffable name. As to the Fathers, we only need draw attention to the following expressions: onoma arreton, aphraston, alekton, aphthegkton, anekphoneton, aporreton kai hrethenai me dynamenon, mystikon. Leusden could not induce a certain Jew, in spite of his poverty, to pronounce the real name of God, though he held out the most alluring promises. The Jew’s compliance with Leusden’s wishes would not indeed have been of any real advantage to the latter; for the modern Jews are as uncertain of the real pronunciation of the Sacred name as their Christian contemporaries. According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of the Temple. The Mishna refers to our question more than once: Berachoth, ix, 5, allows the use of the Divine name by way of salutation; in Sanhedrin, x, 1, Abba Shaul refuses any share in the future world to those who pronounce it as it is written; according to Thamid, vii, 2, the priests in the Temple (or perhaps in Jerusalem) might employ the true Divine name, while the priests in the country (outside Jerusalem) had to be contented with the name Adonai; according to Maimonides (”More Neb.”, i, 61, and “Yad chasaka”, xiv, 10) the true Divine name was used only by the priests in the sanctuary who imparted the blessing, and by the high-priest on the Day of Atonement. Phil [”De mut. nom.”, n. 2 (ed. Marg., i, 580); “Vita Mos.”, iii, 25 (ii, 166)] seems to maintain that even on these occasions the priests had to speak in a low voice. Thus far we have followed the post-Christian Jewish tradition concerning the attitude of the Jews before Simeon the Just.

    As to the earlier tradition, Josephus (Antiq., II, xii, 4) declares that he is not allowed to treat of the Divine name; in another place (Antiq., XII, v, 5) he says that the Samaritans erected on Mt. Garizim an anonymon ieron. This extreme veneration for the Divine name must have generally prevailed at the time when the Septuagint version was made, for the translators always substitute Kyrios (Lord) for Jehovah. Ecclesiasticus 23:10, appears to prohibit only a wanton use of the Divine name, though it cannot be denied that Jehovah is not employed as frequently in the more recent canonical books of the Old Testament as in the older books.

    It would be hard to determine at what time this reverence for the Divine name originated among the Hebrews. Rabbinic writers derive the prohibition of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, as the name of Jehovah is called, from Leviticus 24:16: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die”. The Hebrew participle noqedh, here rendered “blasphemeth”, is translated honomazon in the Septuagint, and appears to have the meaning “to determine”, “to denote” (by means of its proper vowels) in Genesis 30:28; Numbers 1:17; Isaiah 62:2. Still, the context of Leviticus 24:16 (cf. verses 11 and 15), favours the meaning “to blaspheme”. Rabbinic exegetes derive the prohibition also from Exodus 3:15; but this argument cannot stand the test of the laws of sober hermeneutics (cf. Drusius, “Tetragrammaton”, 8–10, in “Critici Sacri”, Amsterdam, 1698, I, p. ii, col. 339–42; “De nomine divino”, ibid., 512–16; Drach, “Harmonic entre l’église et la Synagogue”, I, Paris, 1844, pp. 350–53, and Note 30, pp. 512–16).

    What has been said explains the so-called qeri perpetuum, according to which the consonants of Jehovah are always accompanied in the Hebrew text by the vowels of Adonai except in the cases in which Adonai stands in apposition to Jehovah: in these cases the vowels of Elohim are substituted. The use of a simple shewa in the first syllable of Jehovah, instead of the compound shewa in the corresponding syllable of Adonai and Elohim, is required by the rules of Hebrew grammar governing the use of shewa. Hence the question: What are the true vowels of the word Jehovah?

    It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, “Dictionary of the Bible”, II, 1899, p. 199: Gesenius-Buhl, “Handwörterbuch”, 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as it propagator in the world of scholars and commentators. But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant (e.g. Cajetan and Théodore de BÈze), are perfectly familiar with the word. Galatinus himself (”Areana cathol. veritatis”, I, Bari, 1516, a, p. 77) represents the form as known and received in his time. Besides, Drusius (loc. cit., 351) 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 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin.

    No wonder then that this form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of the Divine name by such scholars as Michaelis (”Supplementa ad lexica hebraica”, I, 1792, p. 524), Drach (loc. cit., I, 469–98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, 327), and others.

    • Jehovah is composed of the abbreviated forms of the imperfect, the participle, and the perfect of the Hebrew verb “to be” (ye=yehi; ho=howeh; wa=hawah). According to this explanation, the meaning of Jehovah would be “he who will be, is, and has been”. But such a word-formation has no analogy in the Hebrew language.

    • The abbreviated form Jeho supposes the full form Jehovah. But the form Jehovah cannot account for the abbreviations Jahu and Jah, while the abbreviation Jeho may be derived from another word.

    • The Divine name is said to be paraphrased in Apocalypse 1:4, and 4:8, by the expression ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos, in which ho erchomenos is regard as equivalent to ho eromenos, “the one that will be”; but it really means “the coming one”, so that after the coming of the Lord, Apocalypse 11:17, retains only ho on kai ho en.

    • the comparison of Jehovah with the Latin Jupiter, Jovis. But it wholly neglects the fuller forms of the Latin names Diespiter, Diovis. Any connection of Jehovah with the Egyptian Divine name consisting of the seven Greek vowels has been rejected by Hengstenberg (Beitrage zur Einleiung ins Alte Testament, II, 204 sqq.) and Tholuck (Vermischte Schriften, I, 349 sqq.).

    To take up the ancient writers:

    • Diodorus Siculus writes Jao (I, 94);

    • Irenaeus (Against Heresies II.35.3), Jaoth;

    • the Valentinian heretics (Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.4.1), Jao;

    • Clement of Alexandria (Stromata V.6), Jaou;

    • Origen (Commentary on John II.1), Jao;

    • Porphyry (Eusebius, “Praep. evang”, I, ix, in P.G., XXI, col. 72), Jeuo;

    • Epiphanius (Against Heresies I.3.40), Ja or Jabe;

    • Pseudo-Jerome (”Breviarium in Pss.”, in P.L., XXVI, 828), Jaho;

    • the Samaritans (Theodoret, in “Ex. quaest.”, xv, in P.G., LXXX, col. 244), Jabe;

    • James of Edessa (cf. Lamy, “La science catholique”, 1891, p. 196), Jehjeh;

    • Jerome (Epistle 25) speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name II I II I.

    The judicious reader will perceive that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name. Inserting the vowels of Jabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name. It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue by means of the Samaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.

    Meaning of the Divine Name

    Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, “Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache”, 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to a person or a thing the action of the quality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb “to be”, Jahveh means “He Who is”, Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply.

    Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal. Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Exodus 3:14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning “to be”; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi’el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.

    On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Exodus 3:6–16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: “If they should say to me: What is his [God’s] name? What shall I say to them?” In reply, God returns three times to the determination of His name.

    First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb “to be”; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: “I am who am” (Vulgate), “I am who is” (Septuagint), “I shall be [who] shall be” (Aquila, Theodotion), “the Eternal who does not cease” (Ar.); only the above-mentioned Targums see any reference to the creation of the world.

    The second time, God uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb “to be”; here the Syriac, the Samaritan, the Persian versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem retain the Hebrew, so that one cannot tell whether they regard the imperfect as a qal or a hiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause; but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum of Jonathan suppose here the imperfect qal: “He Who Is, hath sent me to you” instead of “I Am, hath sent me to you: (Vulgate); “ho on sent me to you” (Septuagint); “I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you” (Targ. Jon.).

    Finally, the third time, God uses the third person of the imperfect, or the form of the sacred name itself; here the Samaritan version and the Targum of Onkelos retain the Hebrew form; the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac version render “Lord”, though, according to the analogy of the former two passages, they should have translated, “He Is, the God of your fathers, … hath sent me to you”; the Arabic version substitutes “God”. Classical exegesis, therefore, regards Jahveh as the imperfect qal of the Hebrew verb “to be”.

    Here another question presents itself: Is the being predicated of God in His name, the metaphysical being denoting nothing but existence itself, or is it an historical being, a passing manifestation of God in time?

    Most Protestant writers regard the being implied in the name Jahveh as an historical one, though some do not wholly exclude such metaphysical ideas as God’s independence, absolute constancy, and fidelity to His promises, and immutability in His plans (cf. Driver, “Hebrew Tenses”, 1892, p. 17). The following are the reasons alleged for the historical meaning of the “being” implied in the Divine name:

    • The metaphysical sense of being was too abstruse a concept for the primitive times. Still, some of the Egyptian speculations of the early times are almost as abstruse; besides, it was not necessary that the Jews of the time of Moses should fully understand the meaning implied in God’s name. The scientific development of its sense might be left to the future Christian theologians.

    • The Hebrew verb hayah means rather “to become” than “to be” permanently. But good authorities deny that the Hebrew verb denotes being in motion rather than being in a permanent condition. It is true that the participle would have expressed a permanent state more clearly; but then, the participle of the verb hayah is found only in Exodus 9:3, and few proper names in Hebrew are derived from the participle.

    • The imperfect mainly expresses the action of one who enters anew on the scene. But this is not always the case; the Hebrew imperfect is a true aorist, prescinding from time and, therefore, best adapted for general principles (Driver, p. 38).

    • ”I am who am” appears to refer to “I will be with thee” of verse 12; both texts seems to be alluded to in Hosea 1:9, “I will not be yours”. But if this be true, “I am who am” must be considered as an ellipse: “I am who am with you”, or “I am who am faithful to my promises”. This is harsh enough; but it becomes quite inadmissible in the clause, “I am who am, hath sent me”.

    Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verb hayah has induced even the most ardent patrons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a description of God’s nature, the rules of hermeneutics urge us to take the expressions in Exodus 3:13–15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He Who Is, i.e., His nature is best characterized by Being, if indeed it must be designated by a personal proper name distinct from the term God (Revue biblique, 1893, p. 338). The scholastic theories as to the depth of meaning latent in Yahveh (Yahweh) rest, therefore, on a solid foundation. Finite beings are defined by their essence: God can be defined only by being, pure and simple, nothing less and nothing more; not be abstract being common to everything, and characteristic of nothing in particular, but by concrete being, absolute being, the ocean of all substantial being, independent of any cause, incapable of change, exceeding all duration, because He is infinite: “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, … who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8). Cf. St. Thomas, I.13.14; Franzelin, “De Deo Uno” (3rd ed., 1883, thesis XXIII, pp. 279–86


     Anthony Maas, “Jehovah (Yahweh),” ed. Charles G. Herbermann et al., The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church (New York: The Encyclopedia Press; The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1907–1913).


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • TruthTruth Posts: 490
    edited November 2021

    Jehovah Witness scholars state that God's name is NOT Jehovah.

    JW's scholars at the Watchtower admit that "Jehovah" is NOT God's unique name; it is an inferior and probably incorrect name for God. They chose a Catholic monk's made-up word instead.


    "While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century."

     Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Watchtower Society. Page 23. 1969 edition.

    -----

    And again:

    Aid to Bible Understanding, says on page 885 of its 1971 edition that Yahweh is "the most likely pronunciation" of the Hebrew letters YHWH.

  • BroRandoBroRando Posts: 606

    Now prove that the Strong's Lexicon is a lie which states, Jehovah = 'the existing One' 1) the proper name of the one true God.

    The LORD

    יְהוָה֙ (Yah·weh)

    Noun - proper - masculine singular

    Strong's Hebrew 3068: Jehovah = 'the existing One' 1) the proper name of the one true God 

    The reason you reject Jesus as the Christ the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16) is because you reject his Name which means Jehovah is Salvationhttps://biblehub.com/strongs/exodus/7-1.htm

    Visit JW.org to get Spiritual and Accurate Answers to Your Questions. Bible transliterated into over 120 languages.

Sign In or Register to comment.