Thread 18097900

Reminder: "Yahweh" is not God's name, but a modern contrivance designed to make the Lord seem insignificant. The King James doesn't refer to Yahweh even a single time. No Yeshua or Yahashua either. His name is JESUS and THE LORD.

>>18097900 (OP)
All baptards are in hell screaming in pain and agony ans regret for following a false religion thats your destiny

>>18097950
Meds. Now.

>>18097900 (OP)
> "Yahweh" is not God's name, but a modern contrivance designed to make the Lord seem insignificant.
יהוה (Yahweh) comes from the Hebrew verb for the phrase “he causes to be”, which is a pretty fitting divine name for the creator of the universe and everything in it. The title LORD comes from the Greek translation of the Bible where κύριος (Kyrios, Greek for LORD) was used for יהוה due to a growing social taboo among the Jews of saying the divine name out loud when reading the scriptures.

If you don’t believe me, go and look at the Greek and Hebrew side by side. Where you see יהוה (Yahweh) in Hebrew you’ll see κύριος (Kyrios) is Greek.

>>18098031
>יהוה
>Yahweh
Pick one.

>>18098031
Only the KJV is divinely infallible
All the other versions are fake and Satanic

>>18098181
proof?

>>18097900 (OP)
God gave his name to his people, so that in Christ they can have their salvation secured. Only they have his name, and that is the one true God.

>>18098188
King James was gay a full 400 years before it was acceptable meaning he was a prophet. Gafcon seething.

>>18097900 (OP)
Jehovah isn't either and yet the KJV includes it (Psalm 83:18, KJV).

>>18097900 (OP)
>The King James doesn't refer to Yahweh even a single time
It refers to Jehovah, which is a less accurate reconstruction of the same name. Does it feel more significant to you?

>>18098252
I'll trust the King James "reconstruction" over yours.

>>18098071
Yahweh is a transliteration of יהוה.

>>18098312
No, it's not.

>>18098329
What sounds do you think the letters י, ה, and ו make?

>>18098343
Yeh ho vad

>>18098354
They make the sounds Y, H, and V/W (V in modern Hebrew, W in ancient). The name is YHWH, letter for letter; "Yahweh" is an educated guess at how it would have been pronounced based on Hebrew grammar, while "Yehovah" is the result of applying the vowel markings of "Adonai" to "YHWH", which Jewish scribes would do to remind the reader that the name must be read "Adonai" because of the taboo on pronouncing the true name of God.

Why should we care what the Bible says? Much less some version released in 1611 based on lower quality manuscripts than what we have now? Is it the flowery old timey language?

I can almost forgive people who follow the Bible because they know not what they do, but KJV onlyism is absolutely retarded.

>>18098276
King James was gay.

>>18097900 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9q_b9UvfBY

>>18098524
>Much less some version released in 1611 based on lower quality manuscripts than what we have now?
Actually it's accurate to the originals. The accuracy is the whole point. The modern critical text is the corrupted version.

Sadly, most translations of that modern critical text will also pile an extremely lazy, half-baked translation on top of that, to make the end result even worse and completely inaccurate to the original.

>Why should we care what the Bible says?
If you really don't care, anon, then why do you want to shill a corrupted version so badly that you would post all this here?

>>18098628
I don't care but I also think you're retarded and wrong. Enjoy your Jewish thees and thous I guess.

>>18098252
>It refers to Jehovah, which is a less accurate reconstruction of the same name.
If the original Old Testament actually had those vowel points, then it's accurate to write that name. The text "יְהֹוָה" with the vowel points actually does transliterate to "Jehovah" in English, similar to how other Hebrew names like "Jehoram" and "Jehoiada" etc. had the same starting letters.

>>18098636
The biggest inaccuracy is that it starts with a fuckin J, which English speakers pronounce like a normal J. If you insist on the vowels from Jehovah, it should still be changed to be Yehowah.

>>18098773
>The biggest inaccuracy is that it starts with a fuckin J
Why apply the rules differently here than are already established for Jehoash, Jehoiachin, etc.? Not to mention all the other names that start with J in English. John, Jeremiah, etc.

All the people who insist on changing this name for some reason don't seem to care about those other names (except some people also try to change the name "Jesus" as well, but not any of the other names). That seems really strange and almost like it can't be motivated by the right reasons for accuracy and so on. It's just meant to trivialize these important names and you always see people who are rabidly against Christianity using them.

>>18098793
That's not their names, you definitely don't speak Aramaic and probably don't speak even Hebrew or Koine Greek lmao.

You have been calling on the wrong person this whole time. It has all been in vain.

>>18097900 (OP)
What is your pastor's stance on israel and talmudic zionism?

>>18097900 (OP)
ICK!! Get out of the ice age. Nobody in the age of AI takes translations seriously. You will go to hell for dying in deception.

>>18097900 (OP)
Hebrews spoke English?

>>18097900 (OP)
Absolute retard.

>>18098276
In modern English (unlike in the 17th century), J and I are strictly delineated letters, and I is the one with a sound corresponding to hebrew yod. (though y does so more closely, word-initial i can sometimes make a y sound)
Furthermore, hebrew theophoric names all use ya or yahu, never yeho.

>>18098572
>>18098524
>>18098365
>>18098634
>>18098773
>>18099270
>>18099286
>>18099298
>>18099320
Tick tock.

>>18098636
The original Old Testament didn't have vowel points, they started using them after a significant portion of Jews no longer spoke Hebrew as their first language, as an aid to reading.

>>18100829
>The original Old Testament didn't have vowel points, they started using them after a significant portion of Jews no longer spoke Hebrew as their first language,
Jerome referred to these vowel points in ancient times (see the encircled text in attached). The difference between the word “ מַטֶּה ” = “staff” and the word “ מִטָּה ” = “bed”, in Hebrew, is only a difference of vowel points. Other than the vowel points, the two words are literally the same. Jerome had to be aware of the Hebrew vowels in this verse, to say that it says "differently" in Hebrew.

Papyrus 957 (referenced here >>18098636) further has spacing that implies the vowels and punctuation marks that would divide the text into verses already existed before the New Testament was written.

There is other evidence of the Qere and Kethiv readings with vowel points already existing side by side, simply by comparing ancient translations of the Hebrew text that were made into Greek and Syriac. This is because there are examples where one ancient translation took one pronunciation of a word, and the other ancient translation took the other one, wherein the only difference in the original Hebrew was in the vowel points of the Q'ri reading versus the Kethiv reading.

For example, the difference between the name “ עֹופַי ” (Ophai) as written in the text (i.e. Kethiv) and the Q’ri reading of “ עֵיפַי ” (Ephai) in Jeremiah 40:8. The Syriac and Targum translations followed the Q'ri pronunciation of this name (it only had different vowel points, nothing else was different) while the Septuagint Greek translation followed the Kethiv pronunciation. This implies both readings existed, with their differing vowel points, since those ancient translations were made.

Combined with the previous evidence, the vowel points clearly existed for the last 2000 years, at least. Considering the manuscript evidence as well, I'd say we have an indication that the vowels and punctuations actually date to around Ezra's time.

>>18097900 (OP)
Jesus just got deported. sorry libtard

>>18100932
Yes, the vowel points originated in antiquity, but the first versions of the text did not have them.

>>18100775
>evades the question like a dirty kike
what's wrong schlomo? the rebbe did not tell you how to answer a simple question?

>MUH KANG JAMES
yikes

>>18100829
>>18100932
>>18100949
Note that we've known the original OT didn't have vowel points since well before physical proof was discovered, for at least 500 years, as John Calvin in his commentaries mentions the Septuagint as evidence of this in that it contains ambiguous translations which would have been impossible if the vowel points were original.

>>18100932
>The difference between the word “ מַטֶּה ” = “staff” and the word “ מִטָּה ” = “bed”, in Hebrew, is only a difference of vowel points. Other than the vowel points, the two words are literally the same. Jerome had to be aware of the Hebrew vowels in this verse, to say that it says "differently" in Hebrew.
This is precisely the part Calvin uses as mentioned >>18102232 to conclude vowel points were unoriginal, because the mistranslation of "staff" at Genesis 47:31 would not have occurred had the vowel pointing been original. The ambiguity only exists without vowel pointing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iah
OOPSIE!
WE WUZ

>>18102243
>The ambiguity only exists without vowel pointing.
Logically that only proves that some copies didn't have it. This isn't something I dispute. But it doesn't logicaly prove that all copies didn't have it. I continue to maintain that some copies did have it, which is where we get it from.

>>18102232
>Note that we've known the original OT didn't have vowel points since well before physical proof was discovered, for at least 500 years,
This seems to weaken your case if anything, since you aren't even basing this on any kind of argument from silence (which has been disproven since ancient writers refer to their existence in some form).

>John Calvin in his commentaries mentions the Septuagint as evidence of this in that it contains ambiguous translations which would have been impossible if the vowel points were original.
Two things. Firstly, we do not have the original Septuagint of the 2nd century BC, which according to our sources was most likely a translation of the books of Moses into Greek. We do not have the original of this. What we do have is a much later edit of the Septuagint that translates the entire Old Testament into Greek, which was edited by Origen in the 3rd century AD. He or his immediate source may have simply translated from a source that didn't have the vowels, since not all copies had them. That would explain this but it doesn't prove that all copies did not have the vowels. It would make sense that, in an era where scribes work was costly and time consuming, that copies without vowel points would be made since it's possible to read the abjad text without them by a knowledgable reader.

>>18102627
It doesn't make sense that any copies would be absent of vowel pointing if it was original. It would be like finding a modern English book with no vowels in it. The only rational explanation is that vowel pointing didn't exist yet until after the OT was written.

>>18102640
>What we do have is a much later edit of the Septuagint that translates the entire Old Testament into Greek, which was edited by Origen in the 3rd century AD
This is a schizo conspiracy theory which merits no reply, however Calvin was not referring directly to the Septuagint text of Genesis but the citation of it in Hebrews 11:21 which follows the Septuagint, "Jacob worshipped [on] the head of his staff".

>>18102655
>however Calvin was not referring directly to the Septuagint text of Genesis but the citation of it in Hebrews 11:21
If anything Hebrews 11 saying "staff" only proves that Jerome knew about the vowel points, since he would have literally no reason to go against what it says in Hebrews, unless he knew the original Hebrew vowel points in Genesis 47:31 said "bed." That's not a contradiction by the way, it's just giving us another piece of information.

>>18102660
1. How in the world does a 1st century text like Hebrews tell us anything about a man who was born centuries later? 2. What is the relevance of the fact vowel pointing existed in Jerome's day to the claim it existed when the Old Testament was written?

>>18102669
>1. How in the world does a 1st century text like Hebrews tell us anything about a man who was born centuries later?
The New Testament is divinely inspired and it reveals a number of details about Old Testament events that aren't mentioned in the Old Testament itself. As just one example Paul in Acts 13 tells us that king Saul reigned for forty years, but you don't get that from the Old Testament itself.

Jesus Christ in the Gospels also makes a lot of statements that reveal more information about the Old Testament time period. But if you don't believe in divine inspiration of the Bible, then why do you even care about any of this?

>What is the relevance of the fact vowel pointing existed in Jerome's day to the claim it existed when the Old Testament was written?
The usual claim is that the vowel pointing didn't exist before around the 9th century AD, but that is disproven by all the evidence mentioned here. Papyrus 957, Jerome, and the different translations of passages like Jeremiah 40:8 (some using the pointings in the Qere and others using the Kethiv) have been discussed so far. As well as the fact that the Old Testament itself sometimes shortened names that start with the same two consonants (shortening specific names like Jehoram to Joram, Jehoiada to Joiada, Jehoash to Joash, etc.) as a way to ensure their names are not confused with the divine name, which is in fact translated to the specific term Jehovah when based on the vowel-pointed Hebrew text, יְהֹוָה

The only reason any of the above is denied is because some modern scholars ignore the earlier evidence for the vowels, and claim that they didn't exist until around the 9th century AD. This claim is based on, essentially, an argument from silence which ignores or inexplicably disqualifies (therefore fails to mention or acknowledge) evidence that they apparently do not like, such as what Jerome wrote, or papyrus 957, which implies otherwise. Hopefully that makes sense.

>>18102669
>>18102696
Also, if you were referring to Jerome, he obviously knew what the New Testament said. Despite knowing what the New Testament in Hebrews says, he still stated clearly that the Old Testament in Genesis 47:31 says "bed" according to the original Hebrew (see >>18100932). His only reason for doing so is because that word has different vowel pointings. Otherwise, it's identical to the word "staff." The passage in Hebrews 11 (if anything) only further confirms that he couldn't be relying on that text to claim that the original text of Genesis says what it says.

Genesis 47:31 is talking about Jacob bowing himself at the bed's head after Joseph promises to bury him in the promised land. Whereas Hebrews 11:21 is clearly talking about a later event where Jacob was dying and blessing Ephraim and Manasseh. We learn from Hebrews that he also worshipped while leaning on his staff, which doesn't contradict Genesis 47:31 since Genesis is actually talking about an earlier event where Joseph promised to bury Jacob in Canaan. Still, you could see how some people might get these two events confused if they didn't pay close attention to the details.

>>18098031
>comes from the Hebrew verb for the phrase “he causes to be”
No it doesn't,and it's not original.

>>18098636
Your pic is proof that it was written by westerners.

>>18100932
>Jerome referred to these vowel points in ancient times (see the encircled text in attached)
How do you know he's not talking about interpretation? He says fuck all about grammar there. He's even explaining an interpretation,not a fact or any fact about grammar. Are you retarded?

>>18098181
Why do you use the 1000 AD torah as your old testament?

>>18102767
>you're interpreting the text! That is not allowed!
How do you read a text without interpreting it? You're interpreting my text right now. You're not just looking at grammar, you are figuring out what I mean.

>>18102767
Commenting on Isaiah 65:15, Jerome speaks of the “difference of accent” a word can have. In a commentary on Ecclesiastes 12:5, Jerome mentions the difference that exists between two words in Hebrew (the words for “nut” and “watching”) that only differ in their vowel points; Jerome says that a “change in accent” signifies the difference between the two words. In his commentary on Ezekiel 27:18, Jerome again wrote, “Hebrew nouns have very different interpretations, from the difference of accent, and the change of letters and vowels, especially such as have their peculiar uses.” He mentions different accents imparting different meaning to Hebrew nouns, i.e. a change in accent could sometimes mean a different noun. And in his commentary on Genesis 19:33, he writes, “They point the word ‘she arose’ [as] ‘Bheqomah’.” (וּבְקוּמָהּ). These quotes suggest that the Hebrew text was already vowel-pointed (in some way) by this time. It challenges the predominant view of the much later origin of the vowels.

Also, in Letter 73 of Jerome to Evangelus, he said the following:
>It does not matter whether one pronounces ‘Salem’ or ‘Salim’, for the Hebrews seldom use vowels in the middle of words, and they are pronounced differently, according to the diversity of the countries and the fancy of the readers.

The fact he said that the Hebrews "seldom" use vowels implies that they did actually exist, that he was aware of them, and that they were sometimes used, but not regularly. Therefore Jerome said they are only "seldom" used by those who knew Hebrew, but didn't say "never used." This would make sense for the copying of abjad-based texts. More copies could be made if vowel points weren't included on every handwritten copy. A knowledgable reader would know/infer the vowels.

Jerome here also claims that even when vowels existed (outside of the matres lectionis) and were provided, they were nevertheless pronounced differently by different speakers, at least for proper names.

Serious question, why would an omniscient god care about you pronouncing his name correctly when he knows exactly what you mean when you say “god” or literally anything else?

And if he does care, why did he split humanity into thousands of languages at the Tower of Babel knowing that some people would never develop the ability to even say his name correctly if they did know it?

And why would he insist on white Americans saying it correctly when he knows ancient hebrew had no vowels and there’s no pronunciation guide, so they can only guess at how it is spoken?

God sure sounds like a fictional dude written by a fallible human.