Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>]

How do you see the translation of the tetragramaton in Jer 23:6 , and is the 
Jole 2:32 , "Call on the name of the LORD" , the same name , and should it 
be apllied in Rom 10:13

doug belot

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LM Barre" <l_barre AT yahoo.com>
To: "Yohanan bin-Dawidh" <yohanan.bin.dawidh AT gmail.com>; "b-Hebrew" 
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More Yahweh outside the Bible






Lloyd Barré



--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Yohanan bin-Dawidh <yohanan.bin.dawidh AT gmail.com> wrote:

From: Yohanan bin-Dawidh <yohanan.bin.dawidh AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] More Yahweh outside the Bible
To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 5:01 AM



Lloyd;
You wrote, "Actually, it's pronounced Yahweh. We know this from the LXX."
We do not know this from the LXX. I am glad that you are confident that such 
is the pronunciation, and if such is the pronunciation that you choose to 
use, I will not stop you from doing such, but please do not attempt to tell 
me how it is pronounced, especially using a Greek translation to do such.
As to the pronunciation of YHWH, as Yahweh, in my opinion, which could be 
wrong, this is a farce on part of the LXX, attempting to keep gentiles from 
actually knowing how to pronounce the name. The name of YHWH was given the 
vowel points to the Hebrew word Yahbeh, i.e. "Beautiful", as a mean to keep 
people from actually being able to pronounce the name.
No, this is not right. The LXX translators had the oral tradition for the 
vocalization of the name. I applaud the Jerusalem Bible and the New 
Jerusalem Bible for finally translating the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh."
You wrote, "I do not think that Isaac existed."
This is fine. I do think he existed, since he is one of my ancestors, and 
according to my people's accepted history, he definitely existed.
You are not reading the Bible critically.
You wrote, "You take a pious approach, not an academic one."
How is that I take a pious approach? I see myself as taking a logical 
approach, rather than a pious approach. I merely stated a fact that such 
things do not disprove the Torah per se, this is neither pious, nor impious, 
just logic.
As I said, empericism does not allow "proof" but only probability of various 
degrees.
You wrote, "The Torah was not formed until Ezra the Scribe."
We will have to agree to disagree, because I think it was completely formed 
during the time of Yohoshu'a bin-Nun.
But you have no reasons for thinking so. Just wishful thinking to support 
your Jewish nationalism.
Yohanan bin-Dawidh




_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 7/02/2009 
1:39 PM