On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 01:02 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 11:22:09AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> >>
> >>YHWH is the Tetragrammaton. Jews (and some others) believe the name of
> >>their god may not not be spoken. Vowels are usually left out in
> >>Semitic
> >>languages, with sometimes placeholder consonants. In this case,
> >>various
> >>transcriptions of YHWH come out as "Yahweh," "Jehova," "Jehovah," etc.
> >
> > Correct, except for the Jehovah part. The use of jehovah has been
> >entirely
> >refuted by pretty much all bible scholars and the only translation
> >you'll find
> >it in is, IIRC, the King James. Jehovah's Witnesses still use it, of
> >course,
> >but..
>
> Nonsense. Do a Google search. It shows up in many texts, for many
> flavors of religion.
Many Bible texts? Care to tell us which ones? I don't really need to do much
of a google since I've got hardcopies of all the mainstream bibles sitting here
on the shelf, plus concordances. But just for instance:
American Standard Version did have it, however, the New American Standard
doesn't.
King James had it in 4 verses, but none in the New King James.
New International Version doesn't have it. The NIV is the favorite of most
fundys.
Revised Standard Version doesn't have it, nor does the New Revised Standard. The
RSV is considered by almost any biblical scholar to be the hands-down best
translation.
Douay-Rheims doesn't.
New American Bible, mostly used by Catholics, doesn't
Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible doesn't have it.
There are a couple fo the more recent colloquial translations that have it,
but those aren't well thought of by *any* scholars. In short, there are almost
no bible translations at all that use the name jehovah.
>
> The theory that the vowels were some of the ones in the Greek name for
> "Lord" is just one of several theories. Inasmuch as there are several
> main vowel sounds, nearly any attempt to speak "YHWH" out loud is going
> to lead to some sound that is a variant of "Yah-way" or "Ya-ho-way" or
> "Ya-ho-vah," given the usual Y/J and V/W and suchlike shifts.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>The "Yah" part is familiat to those familiar with Rastafarians, as Ja
> >>or Jah.
> >
> > Well, sort of -- but actually for them Jah is just the shortened
> >version of
> >Jah Ras Tafari, meaning Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethopia, direct
> >descendant of
> >the King David.
>
> Again, nonsense. I said "Jah" is another variant of the name of their
> god, and this is exactly what "Jah Ras Tafari" contains. And the word
> "Jah" pre-dated that Ethiopian politician by thousands of years.
>
> To claim that the "Jah" in a name applied mid-20th century is part of
> the "shortened version of Jah Ras Tafari" is silly.
>
> Get a clue, Harmon.
>
>
I have plenty of clues. I think you either need a new set of glasses or else
to put down that glass pipe if you have read *anything* at all about
Rastafarianism and don't understand that Jah is Haile Selassie. He *is* their
god. Yes, the name Yah or Jah predates them, but their use of it isn't even
remotely debatable.
Learn to read, Tim.
>
> None of the variant spellings of "Jesus" had _anything_ to do with "the
> name of the god" (in terms of the "jewish thing" you cite).
>
> The Jews did not confuse Joshua/Yeshua/Iosus/Jesus/whatever with their
> desert vengeance god YHWH. Neither should you.
The mainstream Jews of course did not, however, the jewish followers of him
most certainly did, and he very clearly said that he and YHWH were one and the
same. Or at least so we read in the New Testament.
Again, learn to read, Tim, this is another point that isn't at all debatable.
See John 10:30 "The Father and I are one." but that's not the only place. And
just that alone was enough to get him killed.
Oh, that reminds me -- another thing that the christers got wrong -- the
cross. There was none. The Romans, at least of that period, didn't "crucify"
anyone. The impaled them, essentially a stout post set into the ground with the
top end wittled to a fine point, which went up the ass of the victim. But of
course, that wouldn't look to great on the alter, would it?
>
> You're letting your mystical/Wiccan/pagan superstitious drivel
> interfere with scholarship.
>
I think I said before that I was only mildly interested in wicca.
--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
