This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
While I am in favor of the use of the name "Jehovah" I do not approve of deliberately making false statements to support the name Jehovah or any other view. I am therefore concerned by one of the comments in the article and I ask for proof to be provided for that comment, otherwise the comment needs to be removed.
The article says that the name "Jehovah" is used in the Revised Standard Version in 1952, however I believe that is a false statement unless one if referring to the Preface of that edition, in which case it is a misleading statement. That is because I have several printing editions of the Revised Standard Version bearing the copyright of 1952 (and printed before 1971), including one which specifically says it was printed in 1952, and no where in the scripture text (nor the translator's footnotes) of those Bibles have I found the name "Jehovah". Further the Prefaces of those Bibles are antagonistic towards the name "Jehovah" being in the Revised Standard Version Bible. The edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible (Old and New Testaments) which has the copyright of 1946 for the New Testament and the copyright of 1952 for the Old Testament and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons with the printing date of 1952 on the title page and which shows on the copyright page that the copyrights were still owned by the "Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America" says the following in its Preface in a paragraph (the first part of the paragraph and the last part of the paragraph) which begins on page vi and ends on page vii: "A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. ... For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there are other gods from whom he had to be distinguished was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."
In this 1952 printing of the Revised Standard Version Bible, Exodus 3:15,16, 6:2,3, and even Psalms 83:18 say "The LORD" (or "the LORD") instead of "Jehovah". In Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4 it says "the LORD GOD". Even the three place names which included the name "Jehovah" in the KJV don't include "Jehovah" in the 1952 Revised Standard Version Bible. For example the Revised Standard Version Bible of 1952 says "The LORD will provide" at Genesis 22:14, at Exodus 17:15 it says "The LORD is my banner", and at Judges 6:24 it says "The LORD is peace". 67.150.2.242 ( talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a substantial amount of duplication, as well as text that is not in an appropriate form for an encyclopedia. I have not verified sources, nor do I necessary endorse various positions stated in the article. However, please do not recreate lengthy sections that duplicate information already in the article. The article still needs a bit of cleaning up, but it's a start.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The contents of http://av1611.com cannot be accepted as a source because this is a self-published material. If this man, John Hinton, trully has a Ph.D. in Biblical/Religious Studies, if he has something really important to say, he should have written at least few articles in academic magazines. If you can find such articles, we can use them in the article.-- Vassilis78 ( talk) 06:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to want to deny any argument for the name of "Jehovah" as God's name. Who are you to claim whether or not someone's info has a valid point of scholarship or not? Why are not all sides of the issue allowed? One can only conclude your mission is to hide some sides of the issue, which is not the basis of dictionaries. Christopher1X ( talk) 11:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Um...all scholar material are "self-published" by some form or another. No documentation could ever be allowed by that rule. The "William Robertson Smith, in his A Dictionary of the Bible (1863) summarizes the results of these discourses, and concludes that "whatever, therefore, be the true pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not Jehovah".[51]" is self- published, as well as "(editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder")", as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica was "self-published by it's editors. Even Noah Webster's Dictionary was self published. Don't tell me your deletion had nothing to do with your views. Christopher1X ( talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are those who keep changing the documented facts in this article, i.e. John Gill & John Hinton, changing the information to set bias against the name "Jehovah"? It can only be concluded that "they" are attacking the name of God, "Jehovah", which is not the basis of the article on "Jehovah" nor of ANY DICTIONARIES PURPOSE. Why is it that on an article about "Jehovah", only the scoffers and claims of the modern scholarship that attack the name of GOD as "Jehovah" are allowed? WHY ARE THE ARGUMENTS AND FACTS FOR GOD'S NAME, "JEHOVAH", NOT ALLOWED TO BE STATED WITHOUT BEING REWRITTEN BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT "JEHOVAH? What a sham this is. These people who are doing this want to hide the arguments and documented facts even though they never give resources. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE FOR BIAS BUT OF FACTS. QUIT BIASING AND CONTROLLING THE FACTS AND LET THE INFORMATION STAND FOR THE READER TO RESEARCH! LET ALL SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT BE UNADULTERATED IN IT'S PRESENTATION!!! THIS VANDALISM NEEDS TO QUIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1X ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro & Vassilis78, the information I posted on John Gill and John Hinton was the straightforward facts of their viewpoints and documentation. Why is it that on every bit of information posted that agrees to (John Gill) documentation that "Jehovah" is the name of God is "hounded" by comments saying "scholars believe this letter now to be a fake" without any evidence or documentation, or, "scholars now believe this to be wrong", or "Early English translators followed the practice (editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder")" or "We know now that this is not the case"? These statements are opinion/ belief based and should not be allowed to "color" EVERY documented point of every viewpoint. Or the removal of arguments of John Hinton Ph.D on the fact that Hebrew cannot be discerned clearly without the vowel points, which is an important factual argument? Why is it that a viewpoint cannot be unadulterated in it's presentation so that people can research the viewpoints of ALL SIDES and decide for themselves? Bias is inherent with many viewpoints. But vandalism of a viewpoint should not be allowed. You can state your viewpoint with your documented information in YOUR section and it should not be tampered with. Another viewpoint should also be allowed in another section THAT IS NOT COMPROMISED OR VANDALISED or TAMPERED WITH. This is only fair and just to the whole discussion. It seems now that you have hi-jacked and LOCKED DOWN the article and refuse to allow other viewpoints to be presented without compromise and vandalism. Explain why this is being done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1X ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro, the "mainstream" scholars can and have been wrong before on many issues. the issue still needs to be addressed as to why a viewpoint cannot be given without being vandalized by those with opposing viewpoints. it should also be addressed why those of one viewpoint can "control" and "lockdown" the article by "Semi-Protecting" it so that only their viewpoint is given in the article. all need to address this issue in fairness to all viewpoints. I WOULD LIKE ANSWERS FROM THOSE WHO HAVE "Semi-Protected" THIS ARTICLE on "Jehovah", for they are the one who are not being fair so that all sides of the issue can be given. Since they have "Semi-Protected" this article they are now the only ones who can "Edit", and are systematically going through and "Coloring" viewpoints to their viewpoint. How is this in any way fair to ALL viewpoints? Christopher1X ( talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
jeffro, you never addressed any of the issues brought up. If you are "not judging mainstream viewpoints" for correctness, why is the "Jehovist" "mainstream viewpoint" being systematically colored by judgment of correctness to the "non-Jehovist""mainstream viewpoints"? It would seem that "judgment" IS being rendered by control of the what the article is and is not allowed to present. Is it "suitable" to not allow a different "mainstream" (Jehovist)viewpoint to be presented unadulterated? The "Jehovist" viewpoint IS a "mainstream viewpoint" also. Yet those of you who don't want it heard, presented or recognized have semi-protected this article to refuse the hearing of the "Jehovist" argument. The premise of your argument is to remove "viewpoints" with which you don't agree with, which i OBJECT to. All "viewpoints" should be allowed to be presented without being "colored" by an opposing "viewpoint. That is the only way to be academically truthful to the whole subject. Christopher1X ( talk) 10:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The amount of detail about Gill seems to be a bit much when it is considered that his views are not broadly supported by current experts in the field. Previous attempts at indicating that Gill's contentions are known (or widely considered by experts) to be false ( [1]) have been deleted from the article, leaving the impression that Gill's views may be widely supported. This would seem to constitute undue weight to his views.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Jehovist" viewpoint is not outdated in scholarship or in accuracy. Scholars who want to attack the documented history from Jewish sources do so by reasons of wanting to tamper with the Word of God and throw out It's authority. Karaite Jews who have keep the vowel-pointed Tanach since 120 BC agree with the "Jehovist" viewpoint and hold it as their own. It is the Rabbinic "oral law", the catholics, and unbelievers, who want to subvert the Scripture so that their "priests" can make rules as they want. Gill is also not outdated or inaccurate in the historical research he has documented. It is the same people who want to subvert the authority of God and His word that try to smear Gill and others who declare the Authority of Scripture. Jesus Christ talked about the vowel-points and accents in Matthew 5:18. Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, who is our Saviour, and author of the Scriptures, old and new testaments, is He wrong as well? Christopher1X ( talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the speculative reference about Jesus allegedly referring to vowel points. The word translated 'tittle' refers to elements of Hebrew writing analogous to serifs in Latin typography. [2] The word translated 'jot' (from Greek iota) refers to the corresponding letter of the Hebrew alphabet, yodh (י).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to commend and give applause to everyone as of 10/09/09 for the section "Hebrew Vowel-Points"on the "Jehovah" wikipedia page. It shows that both sides of the argument can be given in full for people to research and process without one point being undercut by the other. Allowing both sides of the argument to be presented without subversion by the other it seems is the fair and honest way to debate on any issue. Again, applause to everyone for allowing the debates full arguments to be given. Christopher1X ( talk) 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand how your recent edits improve this article. Please clarify. Bwrs ( talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not personally going to alter this statement, because it appears that this article is the center of quite a bit of controversy, but I think I'll weigh in on what I believe is an unfair statement. The following is found in this article: "Early English translators followed the practice (editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder") of the Christian scholars who first began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew and who, being unacquainted with Jewish tradition, read יְהֹוָה as it stood, and transcribed it as 'Jehovah'.[12][13]" I realized that there is a citation for this material, but let's look carefully at this claim. We are told here that the earliest Christian users of the English form "Jehovah" were ignorant of the Jewish tradition of not pronouncing the name, but of pronouncing it "Adonay" (Lord). However, a survey of Christian translating practices from the earliest times shows that Christian scholars have always been acquainted with the practice, and usually have followed it. In the New Testament, written sometime between 30 and 200 A.D., depending on one's viewpoint, quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures invariably translate the tetragrammaton as "kurios," the Greek equivalent of Lord (Hebrew "Adonay"). The Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, used by Christians from the beginning of Christianity, also follows this practice. The Latin Vulgate, the Bible of Roman Catholicism from 400 A.D. until now (although it has been revised) also translates the tetragrammaton consistently as "Dominus" (Lord). During the early period of English Bible translation, the few Christians who did know some Hebrew had often learned it from Jewish Rabbis, who would have followed the Jewish tradition on this point. Early English translations do this also, except in a few places (seven in the King James Version) where the translators felt the need to make it clear that the tetragrammaton was being referred to, as opposed to Adonay.
I think it would be much more fair to say that the early Christian scholars disagreed with or disregarded this practice. To say that they were ignorant of the Jewish tradition is nothing but an unfair and prejudiced statement against the use of the term "Jehovah." Mitchell Powell ( talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned with the first reference following the this sentence: "It is used as an alternative to Yahweh, which sources based on Christian and pagan texts of the early Christian era indicate to be a more accurate pronunciation.[1][2][3]" The source [1] cited here is entitled "Greek Magical Papyri Texts," but no page number is given, making it very difficult to check the reference. I've tried to, and I've found only one reference to the word Yahweh, on page 66, where it has the following: "(cf. line 591, SEMESILAM: Eternal sun; and line 593, IAO: Yahweh)." So what is apparently being claimed here is that the use of the word "IAO" in the Mithras Liturgy implies the Hebrew word Yahweh. However, other forms are also used in the Mithras Liturgy as cited in this source, including (I'm presenting these in alphabetical order): AEEIOYO, EEO OEEO IOO OE EEO EEO OE EO IOO OEEE OEE OOE IE EO OO OE IEO OE OOE IEO OE IEEO EE IO OE IOE OEO EOE OEO OIE OIE EO OI III EOE OYE EOOEE EO EIA AEA EEA (615) EEEE EEE EEE IEO EEO OEEEOE EEO EYO OE EIO EO OE OE EE OOO YIOE, EIOAE, EY EIA EE, EYE YIA EEI AO EIAY IYA IEO, OAI, IE OE IOEIO, OEY AEO EYA EOE YAE IAE, OOO AAA EEE, YEI AYI EYOIE, YE YOE, and this is only a fraction of what can be found in the Mithras Liturgy. Therefore to pick out "IAO" from this mass of vowels and say that it supports a particular pronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH is quite a stretch. Why pick IEO and say that support the Old Latin spelling IEHOUAH? Because the pronunciation Yahweh is accepted and therefore any resemblence to Jehovah (IE, IO, IEO, YE, YO, YOE) is ignored. So this source only supports "Yahweh" if we start with the assumption that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation. Far from being scholarly support, this source does not directly address the issue of the tetragrammaton, and only means something to a reader who is already decided as to its pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Mitchell Powell ( talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The current tone of the introduction seems inappropriate. Basically, the first paragraph says 'This article is about Jehovah. Use of the name is wrong.'. The article is primarily about the name Jehovah, not about how Yahweh may be a better title. Though that should be mentioned, the current presentation is unnecessarily smarmy.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The intro is stupid. It tells me that Jehovah is יְהֹוָה but it doesn't actually offer an explanation of what יְהֹוָה is! If a person doesn't know what Jehovah is then this article is completly pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarjunkie66 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As an answer to the [3], I quote from the referenced source:
-- pvasiliadis 08:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The previous text will have to be restored. Soidi ( talk) 09:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Answers:
-- pvasiliadis 14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that it is unnecessary to elaborate on the word term when referring to יְהֹוָה (or any other word). The default English meaning of term in the context used can refer to any word or phrase, and whether the particular term in question is special in some way, such as being a 'hybrid form' is superfluous.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
While I am in favor of the use of the name "Jehovah" I do not approve of deliberately making false statements to support the name Jehovah or any other view. I am therefore concerned by one of the comments in the article and I ask for proof to be provided for that comment, otherwise the comment needs to be removed.
The article says that the name "Jehovah" is used in the Revised Standard Version in 1952, however I believe that is a false statement unless one if referring to the Preface of that edition, in which case it is a misleading statement. That is because I have several printing editions of the Revised Standard Version bearing the copyright of 1952 (and printed before 1971), including one which specifically says it was printed in 1952, and no where in the scripture text (nor the translator's footnotes) of those Bibles have I found the name "Jehovah". Further the Prefaces of those Bibles are antagonistic towards the name "Jehovah" being in the Revised Standard Version Bible. The edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible (Old and New Testaments) which has the copyright of 1946 for the New Testament and the copyright of 1952 for the Old Testament and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons with the printing date of 1952 on the title page and which shows on the copyright page that the copyrights were still owned by the "Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America" says the following in its Preface in a paragraph (the first part of the paragraph and the last part of the paragraph) which begins on page vi and ends on page vii: "A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. ... For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there are other gods from whom he had to be distinguished was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."
In this 1952 printing of the Revised Standard Version Bible, Exodus 3:15,16, 6:2,3, and even Psalms 83:18 say "The LORD" (or "the LORD") instead of "Jehovah". In Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4 it says "the LORD GOD". Even the three place names which included the name "Jehovah" in the KJV don't include "Jehovah" in the 1952 Revised Standard Version Bible. For example the Revised Standard Version Bible of 1952 says "The LORD will provide" at Genesis 22:14, at Exodus 17:15 it says "The LORD is my banner", and at Judges 6:24 it says "The LORD is peace". 67.150.2.242 ( talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a substantial amount of duplication, as well as text that is not in an appropriate form for an encyclopedia. I have not verified sources, nor do I necessary endorse various positions stated in the article. However, please do not recreate lengthy sections that duplicate information already in the article. The article still needs a bit of cleaning up, but it's a start.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The contents of http://av1611.com cannot be accepted as a source because this is a self-published material. If this man, John Hinton, trully has a Ph.D. in Biblical/Religious Studies, if he has something really important to say, he should have written at least few articles in academic magazines. If you can find such articles, we can use them in the article.-- Vassilis78 ( talk) 06:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to want to deny any argument for the name of "Jehovah" as God's name. Who are you to claim whether or not someone's info has a valid point of scholarship or not? Why are not all sides of the issue allowed? One can only conclude your mission is to hide some sides of the issue, which is not the basis of dictionaries. Christopher1X ( talk) 11:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Um...all scholar material are "self-published" by some form or another. No documentation could ever be allowed by that rule. The "William Robertson Smith, in his A Dictionary of the Bible (1863) summarizes the results of these discourses, and concludes that "whatever, therefore, be the true pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not Jehovah".[51]" is self- published, as well as "(editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder")", as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica was "self-published by it's editors. Even Noah Webster's Dictionary was self published. Don't tell me your deletion had nothing to do with your views. Christopher1X ( talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are those who keep changing the documented facts in this article, i.e. John Gill & John Hinton, changing the information to set bias against the name "Jehovah"? It can only be concluded that "they" are attacking the name of God, "Jehovah", which is not the basis of the article on "Jehovah" nor of ANY DICTIONARIES PURPOSE. Why is it that on an article about "Jehovah", only the scoffers and claims of the modern scholarship that attack the name of GOD as "Jehovah" are allowed? WHY ARE THE ARGUMENTS AND FACTS FOR GOD'S NAME, "JEHOVAH", NOT ALLOWED TO BE STATED WITHOUT BEING REWRITTEN BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT "JEHOVAH? What a sham this is. These people who are doing this want to hide the arguments and documented facts even though they never give resources. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE FOR BIAS BUT OF FACTS. QUIT BIASING AND CONTROLLING THE FACTS AND LET THE INFORMATION STAND FOR THE READER TO RESEARCH! LET ALL SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT BE UNADULTERATED IN IT'S PRESENTATION!!! THIS VANDALISM NEEDS TO QUIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1X ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro & Vassilis78, the information I posted on John Gill and John Hinton was the straightforward facts of their viewpoints and documentation. Why is it that on every bit of information posted that agrees to (John Gill) documentation that "Jehovah" is the name of God is "hounded" by comments saying "scholars believe this letter now to be a fake" without any evidence or documentation, or, "scholars now believe this to be wrong", or "Early English translators followed the practice (editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder")" or "We know now that this is not the case"? These statements are opinion/ belief based and should not be allowed to "color" EVERY documented point of every viewpoint. Or the removal of arguments of John Hinton Ph.D on the fact that Hebrew cannot be discerned clearly without the vowel points, which is an important factual argument? Why is it that a viewpoint cannot be unadulterated in it's presentation so that people can research the viewpoints of ALL SIDES and decide for themselves? Bias is inherent with many viewpoints. But vandalism of a viewpoint should not be allowed. You can state your viewpoint with your documented information in YOUR section and it should not be tampered with. Another viewpoint should also be allowed in another section THAT IS NOT COMPROMISED OR VANDALISED or TAMPERED WITH. This is only fair and just to the whole discussion. It seems now that you have hi-jacked and LOCKED DOWN the article and refuse to allow other viewpoints to be presented without compromise and vandalism. Explain why this is being done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1X ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro, the "mainstream" scholars can and have been wrong before on many issues. the issue still needs to be addressed as to why a viewpoint cannot be given without being vandalized by those with opposing viewpoints. it should also be addressed why those of one viewpoint can "control" and "lockdown" the article by "Semi-Protecting" it so that only their viewpoint is given in the article. all need to address this issue in fairness to all viewpoints. I WOULD LIKE ANSWERS FROM THOSE WHO HAVE "Semi-Protected" THIS ARTICLE on "Jehovah", for they are the one who are not being fair so that all sides of the issue can be given. Since they have "Semi-Protected" this article they are now the only ones who can "Edit", and are systematically going through and "Coloring" viewpoints to their viewpoint. How is this in any way fair to ALL viewpoints? Christopher1X ( talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
jeffro, you never addressed any of the issues brought up. If you are "not judging mainstream viewpoints" for correctness, why is the "Jehovist" "mainstream viewpoint" being systematically colored by judgment of correctness to the "non-Jehovist""mainstream viewpoints"? It would seem that "judgment" IS being rendered by control of the what the article is and is not allowed to present. Is it "suitable" to not allow a different "mainstream" (Jehovist)viewpoint to be presented unadulterated? The "Jehovist" viewpoint IS a "mainstream viewpoint" also. Yet those of you who don't want it heard, presented or recognized have semi-protected this article to refuse the hearing of the "Jehovist" argument. The premise of your argument is to remove "viewpoints" with which you don't agree with, which i OBJECT to. All "viewpoints" should be allowed to be presented without being "colored" by an opposing "viewpoint. That is the only way to be academically truthful to the whole subject. Christopher1X ( talk) 10:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The amount of detail about Gill seems to be a bit much when it is considered that his views are not broadly supported by current experts in the field. Previous attempts at indicating that Gill's contentions are known (or widely considered by experts) to be false ( [1]) have been deleted from the article, leaving the impression that Gill's views may be widely supported. This would seem to constitute undue weight to his views.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The "Jehovist" viewpoint is not outdated in scholarship or in accuracy. Scholars who want to attack the documented history from Jewish sources do so by reasons of wanting to tamper with the Word of God and throw out It's authority. Karaite Jews who have keep the vowel-pointed Tanach since 120 BC agree with the "Jehovist" viewpoint and hold it as their own. It is the Rabbinic "oral law", the catholics, and unbelievers, who want to subvert the Scripture so that their "priests" can make rules as they want. Gill is also not outdated or inaccurate in the historical research he has documented. It is the same people who want to subvert the authority of God and His word that try to smear Gill and others who declare the Authority of Scripture. Jesus Christ talked about the vowel-points and accents in Matthew 5:18. Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, who is our Saviour, and author of the Scriptures, old and new testaments, is He wrong as well? Christopher1X ( talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the speculative reference about Jesus allegedly referring to vowel points. The word translated 'tittle' refers to elements of Hebrew writing analogous to serifs in Latin typography. [2] The word translated 'jot' (from Greek iota) refers to the corresponding letter of the Hebrew alphabet, yodh (י).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to commend and give applause to everyone as of 10/09/09 for the section "Hebrew Vowel-Points"on the "Jehovah" wikipedia page. It shows that both sides of the argument can be given in full for people to research and process without one point being undercut by the other. Allowing both sides of the argument to be presented without subversion by the other it seems is the fair and honest way to debate on any issue. Again, applause to everyone for allowing the debates full arguments to be given. Christopher1X ( talk) 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand how your recent edits improve this article. Please clarify. Bwrs ( talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not personally going to alter this statement, because it appears that this article is the center of quite a bit of controversy, but I think I'll weigh in on what I believe is an unfair statement. The following is found in this article: "Early English translators followed the practice (editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder") of the Christian scholars who first began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew and who, being unacquainted with Jewish tradition, read יְהֹוָה as it stood, and transcribed it as 'Jehovah'.[12][13]" I realized that there is a citation for this material, but let's look carefully at this claim. We are told here that the earliest Christian users of the English form "Jehovah" were ignorant of the Jewish tradition of not pronouncing the name, but of pronouncing it "Adonay" (Lord). However, a survey of Christian translating practices from the earliest times shows that Christian scholars have always been acquainted with the practice, and usually have followed it. In the New Testament, written sometime between 30 and 200 A.D., depending on one's viewpoint, quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures invariably translate the tetragrammaton as "kurios," the Greek equivalent of Lord (Hebrew "Adonay"). The Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, used by Christians from the beginning of Christianity, also follows this practice. The Latin Vulgate, the Bible of Roman Catholicism from 400 A.D. until now (although it has been revised) also translates the tetragrammaton consistently as "Dominus" (Lord). During the early period of English Bible translation, the few Christians who did know some Hebrew had often learned it from Jewish Rabbis, who would have followed the Jewish tradition on this point. Early English translations do this also, except in a few places (seven in the King James Version) where the translators felt the need to make it clear that the tetragrammaton was being referred to, as opposed to Adonay.
I think it would be much more fair to say that the early Christian scholars disagreed with or disregarded this practice. To say that they were ignorant of the Jewish tradition is nothing but an unfair and prejudiced statement against the use of the term "Jehovah." Mitchell Powell ( talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned with the first reference following the this sentence: "It is used as an alternative to Yahweh, which sources based on Christian and pagan texts of the early Christian era indicate to be a more accurate pronunciation.[1][2][3]" The source [1] cited here is entitled "Greek Magical Papyri Texts," but no page number is given, making it very difficult to check the reference. I've tried to, and I've found only one reference to the word Yahweh, on page 66, where it has the following: "(cf. line 591, SEMESILAM: Eternal sun; and line 593, IAO: Yahweh)." So what is apparently being claimed here is that the use of the word "IAO" in the Mithras Liturgy implies the Hebrew word Yahweh. However, other forms are also used in the Mithras Liturgy as cited in this source, including (I'm presenting these in alphabetical order): AEEIOYO, EEO OEEO IOO OE EEO EEO OE EO IOO OEEE OEE OOE IE EO OO OE IEO OE OOE IEO OE IEEO EE IO OE IOE OEO EOE OEO OIE OIE EO OI III EOE OYE EOOEE EO EIA AEA EEA (615) EEEE EEE EEE IEO EEO OEEEOE EEO EYO OE EIO EO OE OE EE OOO YIOE, EIOAE, EY EIA EE, EYE YIA EEI AO EIAY IYA IEO, OAI, IE OE IOEIO, OEY AEO EYA EOE YAE IAE, OOO AAA EEE, YEI AYI EYOIE, YE YOE, and this is only a fraction of what can be found in the Mithras Liturgy. Therefore to pick out "IAO" from this mass of vowels and say that it supports a particular pronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH is quite a stretch. Why pick IEO and say that support the Old Latin spelling IEHOUAH? Because the pronunciation Yahweh is accepted and therefore any resemblence to Jehovah (IE, IO, IEO, YE, YO, YOE) is ignored. So this source only supports "Yahweh" if we start with the assumption that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation. Far from being scholarly support, this source does not directly address the issue of the tetragrammaton, and only means something to a reader who is already decided as to its pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Mitchell Powell ( talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The current tone of the introduction seems inappropriate. Basically, the first paragraph says 'This article is about Jehovah. Use of the name is wrong.'. The article is primarily about the name Jehovah, not about how Yahweh may be a better title. Though that should be mentioned, the current presentation is unnecessarily smarmy.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The intro is stupid. It tells me that Jehovah is יְהֹוָה but it doesn't actually offer an explanation of what יְהֹוָה is! If a person doesn't know what Jehovah is then this article is completly pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarjunkie66 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As an answer to the [3], I quote from the referenced source:
-- pvasiliadis 08:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The previous text will have to be restored. Soidi ( talk) 09:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Answers:
-- pvasiliadis 14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Please note that it is unnecessary to elaborate on the word term when referring to יְהֹוָה (or any other word). The default English meaning of term in the context used can refer to any word or phrase, and whether the particular term in question is special in some way, such as being a 'hybrid form' is superfluous.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)