wizzstick

Joined

• started 36 topics
• posted 716 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by wizzstick

• 
  91

  Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh

  by oppostate in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in another thread i wrote some notes about why using jehovah in english is as good as using yahweh.

  i'm starting a discussion on this topic because it sounds quite ignorant to hear people talk of the monk who started using it in latin without really understanding why the monk did so.. the spanish dominican monk, raymundus martini, in 1270, didn't get hoodwinked by an old jewish superstition about pronouncing the divine name with the vowel points of another word.. 1. first the vowel points of adonay and jehovah cannot be the same for grammatical reasons.

  you just can't use the same vowel points because some vowels aren't paired with some consonants in pronouncing hebrew words.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Vowel points of יְהֹוָה and אֲדֹנָי
  

  The spelling of the Tetragrammaton and connected forms in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Bible, with vowel points shown in red.

  The table below shows the vowel points of Yehovah and Adonay, indicating the simple sheva in Yehovah in contrast to the hataf patah in Adonay. As indicated to the right, the vowel points used when YHWH is intended to be pronounced as Adonai are slightly different to those used in Adonai itself.

  Hebrew (Strong's #3068) YEHOVAH יְהֹוָה			Hebrew (Strong's #136) ADONAY אֲדֹנָי
  י	Yod	Y	א	Aleph	glottal stop
  ְ	Simple sheva	E	ֲ	Hataf patah	A
  ה	He	H	ד	Dalet	D
  ֹ	Holam	O	ֹ	Holam	O
  ו	Vav	V	נ	Nun	N
  ָ	Qamats	A	ָ	Qamats	A
  ה	He	H	י	Yod	Y

  The difference between the vowel points of ’ǎdônây and YHWH is explained by the rules of Hebrew morphology and phonetics. Sheva and hataf-patah were allophones of the same phoneme used in different situations: hataf-patah on glottal consonants including aleph (such as the first letter in Adonai), and simple sheva on other consonants (such as the Y in YHWH)
• 
  91

  Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh

  by oppostate in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in another thread i wrote some notes about why using jehovah in english is as good as using yahweh.

  i'm starting a discussion on this topic because it sounds quite ignorant to hear people talk of the monk who started using it in latin without really understanding why the monk did so.. the spanish dominican monk, raymundus martini, in 1270, didn't get hoodwinked by an old jewish superstition about pronouncing the divine name with the vowel points of another word.. 1. first the vowel points of adonay and jehovah cannot be the same for grammatical reasons.

  you just can't use the same vowel points because some vowels aren't paired with some consonants in pronouncing hebrew words.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Preface to the English Standard Version Bible

  When the vowels of the word ’adonay are placed with the consonants of YHWH, this results in the familiar word Jehovah that was used in some earlier English Bible translations. As is common among English translations today, the ESV usually renders the personal name of God (YHWH) with the word Lord (printed in small capitals). An exception to this is when the Hebrew word ’adonay appears together with YHWH, in which case the two words are rendered together as “the Lord [in lower case] God [in small capitals].” In contrast to the personal name for God (YHWH), the more general name for God in Old Testament Hebrew is ’elohim and its related forms of ’el or ’eloah, all of which are normally translated “God” (in lower case letters). The use of these different ways to translate the Hebrew words for God is especially beneficial to the English reader, enabling the reader to see and understand the different ways that the personal name and the general name for God are both used to refer to the One True God of the Old Testament.
• 
  91

  Why using Jehovah for God's name is as good as using Yahweh

  by oppostate in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in another thread i wrote some notes about why using jehovah in english is as good as using yahweh.

  i'm starting a discussion on this topic because it sounds quite ignorant to hear people talk of the monk who started using it in latin without really understanding why the monk did so.. the spanish dominican monk, raymundus martini, in 1270, didn't get hoodwinked by an old jewish superstition about pronouncing the divine name with the vowel points of another word.. 1. first the vowel points of adonay and jehovah cannot be the same for grammatical reasons.

  you just can't use the same vowel points because some vowels aren't paired with some consonants in pronouncing hebrew words.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  To continue using the often repeated false assertion that Jehovah is inaccurate because of YHWH using vowel points of ADONAY and that the Catholic monk made a mistake is just propagating a tradition based on lack of appropriate research.

  From Wikipedia article on Jehovah (bold mine):

  According to a Jewish tradition developed during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the Tetragrammaton is written but not pronounced. When read, substitute terms replace the divine name where יְהֹוָה appears in the text. It is widely assumed, as proposed by the 19th-century Hebrew scholar Gesenius, that the vowels of the substitutes of the name—Adonai (Lord) and Elohim (God)—were inserted by the Masoretes to indicate that these substitutes were to be used. When יהוה precedes or follows Adonai, the Masoretes placed the vowel points of Elohim into the Tetragrammaton, producing a different vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יֱהֹוִה, which was read as Elohim. Based on this reasoning, the form יְהֹוָה (Jehovah) has been characterized by some as a "hybrid form",and even "a philological impossibility".

  Early modern translators disregarded the practice of reading Adonai (or its equivalents in Greek and Latin, Κύριος and Dominus) in place of the Tetragrammaton and instead combined the four Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton with the vowel points that, except in synagogue scrolls, accompanied them, resulting in the form Jehovah.
  

  Development
  
  The most widespread theory is that the Hebrew term יְהֹוָה has the vowel points of אֲדֹנָי (adonai). Using the vowels of adonai, the composite hataf patah ֲ under the guttural alef א becomes a sheva ְ under the yod י, the holam ֹ is placed over the first he ה, and the qamats ָis placed under the vav ו, giving יְהֹוָה (Jehovah). When the two names, יהוה and אדני, occur together, the former is pointed with a hataf segol ֱ under the yod י and a hiriq ִ under the second he ה, giving יֱהֹוִה, to indicate that it is to be read as (elohim) in order to avoid adonai being repeated.

  יֱהֹוִה is YHWH.

  To get to Jehovah we latinize YHWH to JHVH.

  Now we need vowels. These are inserted from adonai. Which was added for superstitious reasons.

  Thus Jehovah is a hybrid word. A mixture of the latinized JHVH and the vowels from from adonai.

  Of course if God REALLY wanted the whole world to know the correct way to pronounce his name, he could have ensured the whole world did know that one name. A name to run to in a time of distress. But he doesn't. That's why comparing it to Jehoshua, Jehoshaphat, Jehoadah, Jehoaddan, Jehoahaz, Jehoash etc is pointless. They are not the name of God. The name people need to call out to for saving.
  

  Instead people have to choose between a best guess (Yahweh) or a made up name (Jehovah)!
  

  Funny that eh?
  
• 
  174

  The Bible is NOT Error-Free

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.

  but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?

  why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Not proving that the Bible is inspired does not invalidate it from being inspired.

  So how does one 'validate' divine inspiration?
  
• 
  174

  The Bible is NOT Error-Free

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.

  but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?

  why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  When Paul wrote that All scripture is inspired, he meant that the preChristian writings got their ideas from events that had to do with God and his people of the past, along with the inspired prophets.

  Really? Where is your evidence to support this claim? The Bible states:
  

  All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

  Seems a bit of a tall order to get all of that just from relaying events to do with God and his people!
• 
  87

  Disturbing hidden image in w15 04/15 page 9 (Not DF image)

  by campaign of hate in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  could someone do me a favor and post the picture on page 9 on the above mentioned watchtower.. i'll point it out, very surprised no one else has picked up on this creepy image..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  The problem I have with the whole 'hidden images in WT publications' is...
  

  Why?

  What does it achieve?

  I can buy the disgruntled/bored artists idea, but beyond that I can't see what the point would be.

  Unless someone can propose a scientific answer as to why the WT would put in images of a bloke lying on the ground?

  And please don't propose its something to do with demons or the masons. I'm an adult looking from grown up answers thanks.
  

  Just...why?
  
• 
  10

  Did Jason B Dunn say the "New World Translation is the most accurate translation there is?" Why make a new Bible than?

  by MagicMItchJensen in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the circuit overseer mentioned something about the nwt being the most accurate translation according to professor jason b dunn, i heard this nonsense before but never really dug deep in to this topic because non of us really had a choice as jws but to accept all their random musing of our uneducated leaders as factual.

  1. if the new world translation was the picture perfect translation of all the bibles and we went door to door telling everyone we had the "most honest bible", why did they change it to a paraphrased version?

  what success have you had getting jehovah's witnesses to address why they tinkered with the new world translation, it was suppose to be the best translation and now it's turned in to a very loose paraphrased version.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  BeDuhn devotes the entire Appendix to the use of Jehovah in the NWT.

  And makes it very clear that Jehovah should not be inserted instead of Kyrios.

  Those muppets won't mention THAT from the platform.
  
• 
  69

  Breaking News: Anthony Morris III comments on Ireland legalization of gay marriage.

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  #notsatire.

  thanks to wifibandit and pixel for collaborating on this.

  more to come.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxce4duetw8.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Is AM3 suggesting his wife swore about it?

  Grief alive - mad, sad, deluded people.
  
• 
  6

  607 B.C. controversy

  by FusionTheism in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm not sure the whole 607 b.c.e.

  controversy is really that major of a deal.. even if the society admits it and changes it, that's only a difference of 20-21 years, so the governing body could just shift 1914 to 1934-1935 and say that world war ii and hitler was the beginning of the signs.. a much bigger issue is why they even say daniel's tree prophecy has an antitypical fulfillment, especially after their new light on types and antitypes..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Even if the Society admits it and changes it, that's only a difference of 20-21 years, so the Governing Body could just shift 1914 to 1934-1935 and say that World War II and Hitler was the beginning of the signs.

  Problems include:

  1) A 1984 WT which clearly stated it was not 1934 as 1914 was correct. Why did God's Organisation on Earth deny when his Son started to reign?
  

  2) 1914 has been such an intense focus by the Society for 130+ years, that it makes God look like a muppet to allow his only Organisation on Earth to preach the wrong date - plus you have Deuteronomy 18:20-22

  3) There are so many associated parts post 1914. Like 1919. They tie in the arrest in 1918 of the WT Directors and the subsequent release in 1919 to the fulfilment of prophecy. What about the 7 trumpet blasts of Revelation and the Cedar Point conventions. Where do you shift that to?

  4) What about Carl Orloff Johnson's work that he sent in 1977 to the WT? He was disfellowshipped for pointing out 1914 was wrong. Many have been thrown out over knowing 1914 was wrong. Where was God's Holy Spirit at all their Judicial Committees? Why did God want a false date printed and why did he enforce that false date?
  

  1914 is a millstone around their neck. They will get hammered for it (rightly so) for dropping it.
  
• 
  58

  Questions about the Flood for Brother Jeramy

  by cappytan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how long did the flood last?how long can land vegetation survive submerged in seawater?how long can freshwater fish survive in saltwater?how old is human civilization?

  what is the oldest settlement in south america?

  how did those people get there from the middle east after the flood wiped out everything on the earth?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  wizzstick

  Only one one scientist predicted actual rounded boulders as likely: Walt Brown. 13 years ago. Laugh all you want, his crazy theory is being confirmed constantly. He's made around 40 predictions. 5 are confirmed, the rest pending. And yet, he's just a dumb young earth creationist.

  Sounds good to me!

  Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Flood Model Doesn't Hold Water

  Oh wait...