New Online King James Bible Restores The Divine Name.

ok noturtypical and jmdewey60 listen up I guess I made this post just for you two.

Y-hshuah ( I removed a to consecrate name, many people do this with the Most High's Name), This name is a consecrated name, which means it is taken from Creator's Name, Y-h (notice though it is only half). It is true that it also can be transliterated in Joshua in english, (special note to those reading KJV NKJV pay attention in psalms, it was transliterated into saying jod instead of yod). The Messiah was of the Tribe of Judah in the lineage of David. (Opening of testimony of Matthew 1 gives lineage of Y-shuah to establish his identity already ie: King or Mashiach (Messiah). Also just throwing this out there but isn't it odd that John the Baptist was wearing same camel tallit as Elijah!? Just saying because traditionally it is told that Elijah would come back before the Messiah.

I must also appologize because I feel I lost my cool saying what you or anyone believes is garbage. At least you guys believe in the most high, so you are like my brothers from a different mother lol.. err anyway Y-hshuah was born in Israel (which today Palestine is trying to setup in his birthplace), and taken to Egypt out of fear of Herod's Decree. This draws many parrallels between him and Moses (many parralells between him and all the prophets), which some of his followers begin to recognize. I am not sure if it would be safe to say that the Messiah was a hellinistic, because those beliefs did not exist at his time (rather afterword). A lot of the Messiahs parables if you will came from places like Pikrei Avot etc etc. Just to use an example so what I am saying will make sense, The Messiah and his disciples are at this banquet of this tax collector. And his disciples are going to town on the wine and food. Pharisees rolls in and is like hey man why is your disciples eating and drinking? ! The Messiah responds with the parable of the wineskins and coats. (Depending on your version your reading Lk 5:30-39 Pikrei Avot 4:20), Pharisees knowing exactly what he meant immediately removed themselves from his presence.

So in short, one who wants to know the specifics about the Messiah should probably read Pikrei Avot, Psalms, lots of Torah reading (because He IS the word/Torah made flesh)..basically just go out and buy a siddur.) I am not sure how much but there deffinately is a mystical aspect to the Messiah. Some of His teachings could also be realized through the zohar(?.) The Siddur is a prayer book but also has many other facets which I am sure will help in your studies. Also check out books from FFOZ (First Fruits of Zion) (most notable are Paul And the Mystery of the Gospel) .. anyway guys again sorry for losing my cool.

The Emperor's daughter said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah: "What beautiful Torah in an ugly vessel." He replied, "Learn from the house of your father. In what is the wine stored?" "In jars of clay," she answered. "But all the common people store their wine in jars of clay! You use them too? You should keep your wine in jars of gold and silver!" She went and had the wine placed in vessels of gold and silver, and it turned sour. "Thus," said he to her, "It is the same with Torah!" She asked, "But are there not handsome people who are learned?" He replied, "If they were ugly they would be even more learned!" (Talmud Bavli Nedarim 50b)
The Tax Collector's Banquet

Imagine, if you will, a banquet at the house of Levi the tax collector. There is singing and drinking and eating and merriment, and in the midst of it reclines the Master and his disciples. On the periphery of the scene are the Pharisees and several disciples of Yochanan the Immerser.1 They have been following Yeshua, learning from him and scrutinizing him. They would not deign to eat with the sinners and tax collectors that constitute Yeshua's friends and followers, but they are intrigued enough to stay close and observe. As the meal progresses, the Pharisees began to ask Yeshua's disciples some questions such as, "How often do you fast?" The disciples are unable to answer with their mouths full, so they shrug and look at Yeshua. When these same critics turn to Yeshua, informing him that his disciples don't fast like the disciples of Yochanan and the disciples of the Pharisees, Yeshua disarms them with the double parable of the Old Coat and the New Wine. No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.' (Luke 5:36-39) It seems that the Master's profound observations concerning old wineskins, torn coats and new patches leave them speechless. They don't ask him any more questions, but perhaps that was only because, like the rest of us, they have no idea what Yeshua was talking about.
Incompatibility

Expositors have been scratching chins and nodding heads for a long time over the double parable of Luke 5:36-39.2 The meaning of the parable is seemingly obvious. The new garment is the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church and the old garment is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. No one tears a new garment to patch an old one. Grace and law do not mix. Similarly, the new wine is the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church and the old wineskin is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. Just as the new wine would burst the old skins and be spilled, so too the New Covenant Gospel of the Church Kingdom would be wasted if it was poured into the Old Covenant, Mosaic, legalistic religion of Judaism. In almost unanimous consent interpreters and commentators have agreed that the old wine, old wineskins and the old coat are all symbols of Judaism and Law whereas the new wine and the new coat are symbols of Christianity and Grace.3 As Kee aptly observes (1970), this "traditional interpretation of the double parable can be summed up in one word: incompatibility. It is supposed to teach that the Old and the New are incompatible, that Judaism is incompatible with Christianity." The old is worn and obsolete. The Church must be a new and separate movement, not a patch attempting to prolong the institutions of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has erased and replaced the Old. This meaning of the double parable seems obvious. Or perhaps not.
Serious Problems

There are serious problems with the incompatibility interpretation. For example, it is anachronistic. Critical scholarship now acknowledges that Yeshua was not trying to start a new religion nor was his intention to dismantle Judaism. At the time that Yeshua gave the double parable there was no Christianity, no Church, no new religion for Judaism to be incompatible with. At the time the Gospel writers were recording the double parable, the Church Fathers' model of Yeshua as an antagonist of the Old Covenant and Judaism had not yet even been conceived. What has, in fact, become worn and obsolete is the very notion that the historical Yeshua was opposed to the Torah and Judaism. Regarding this incompatibility interpretation Kee says, "There is no denying that Jesus radically transformed [and] revolutionized Judaism for his followers, but surely we need not labor the point that it was in fact Judaism which he transformed for them...To attribute the idea of incompatibility to Jesus, as a way of describing his relationship to Judaism, is bad theology and bad history." His point is well taken. The incompatibility interpretation stems from a supersessionist theology of a later century. To place it into the mouth of Yeshua is absurd.4 Another serious problem with the incompatibility interpretation is the closing line of Luke 5:39, "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good.'"5 This troublesome verse is found only in Luke's version of the double parable, and even then the Western version of the text omits it. It creates a serious problem for the incompatibility interpretation because it seems to reverse the value assigned to the new wine. If the Gospel is represented by the new wine, then the statement and even the entire metaphor is ridiculous in Yeshua's mouth. It is "as if Yeshua was comparing Judaism to good claret and the Gospel to cheap plonk."6 Marcion the Heretic was quick to deem the end of 5:39 as a Jewish interpolation into the Gospels.7 No surprise then that the Western text completely omits Luke 5:39. The omission belies an anti-Judaic bias in the scribal transmission. By removing the statement that the Old is good (or even "better"), the editor felt that he had removed "any suggestion that the Jews would reject the teachings of Christianity because they were well satisfied with Judaism."8 If Rice is correct, then the double parable was being read according to the incompatibility interpretation at a very early stage.
Attempts to Salvage

Recognizing that the incompatibility interpretation is flawed, several scholars have made valiant attempts to reinterpret the double parable in a manner consistent with the rest of the Gospels. R. S. Good (1983) and David Flusser (1979), for example both try to force an explanation of the words "the old is better" by reversing the direction of the entire double parable in Luke. According to Good, Luke intentionally reinterpreted the two parables to mean that the Old is better because it is the Old Israel that Yeshua has come to save.9 The New Wine, bursting the skins and tearing the garment, should then be read as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The old skins must be preserved: the old garment must be patched because they represent old Israel. This attractive and highly innovative explanation accounts for 5:39 and gets past the anachronistic problems of the traditional interpretations, but it forces itself against statements like 5:38 and does not fit the context. Even Good points out that it is not in concert with Matthew and Mark's versions. Stern tries to reconcile the parables by going in several directions. He suggests that Yeshua meant for us to patch up Judaism by pre-shrinking the cloth of Messianic faith to fit the old coat of Judaism. Then he suggests that the new wineskins are actually the old wineskins, which have been reconditioned in order to receive the new wine. Hence the "new wineskins" should be read as renewed wineskins. While his interpretations are creative, they continue to operate under the premise of incompatibility and stretch the reader beyond the point of believability. In addition, they certainly don't give answers to the question of Luke 5:39 or to the context in which the parables are given.
Choosing the Twelve

The context in which the double parable occurs is a narrative relating how Yeshua chose his disciples. All of chapter five and the first 16 verses of chapter six string together several stories which deal with the calling and selection of the disciples. Luke 5:1-11 records the story of the first miraculous catch of fish during which Yeshua invites James, John, Peter (and by inference Andrew) to become his disciples. The pericope concludes in Luke 5:11 with the fishermen leaving their boats, their nets and the miraculous catch to follow Yeshua. The narrative then turns aside to relate two short healing stories (Luke 5:17-26), but returns to the calling of the disciples with the call of Levi in Luke 5:27 and 28. Like the fishermen, Levi leaves everything and follows Yeshua. Levi holds a banquet for Yeshua and at this banquet the Pharisees level criticisms aimed at Yeshua's disciples. They asked his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" They asked Yeshua, "Why don't your disciples fast and pray like Yochanan's disciples and like our disciples?" Both questions are criticisms of Yeshua's disciples and his choice of company. Yeshua replies to the question on fasting with the bridegroom statements of Luke 5:34, 35 and then tells the double parable. Following the double parable, Luke six begins with a short pericope that at first seems unrelated to the concerns of choosing disciples. In the story (Luke 6:1-5) the Pharisees challenged Yeshua on Sabbath issues, but it is in fact the disciples' behavior that the Pharisees criticized, not the behavior of Yeshua. They accused the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking the heads of grain and husking them in their hands. Again the criticism is directed toward Yeshua's choice of disciples. Connected with the Sabbath observance conflict raised in Luke 6:1-5, Luke offers a matching pericope in Luke 6:6-11 that echoes and complements the first but is clearly meant as an aside. Returning to the matter at hand, that is the call and selection of Yeshua's disciples, Luke closes the section with the final elimination round in which Yeshua chooses the Twelve (Luke 6:12-16). With the choosing of the Twelve, the disciple issue is settled.
The call and selection of Yeshua's disciples (Luke 5:1 - 6:16)
A. Calling of the first disciples 5:1-11
(Aside to healing of the leper) 5:12-16
(Aside to healing of the paralytic) 5:17-26
B. Calling of Levi 5:27-28
C. Levi's banquet/Pharisee's criticisms of disciples.
Yeshua's response and double parable 5:29-39
D. Pharisees accuse disciples of Sabbath violation 6:1-5
(Aside to a similar Sabbath story) 6:6-11
E. Final selection of the Twelve Disciples 6:12-16
Smudged Paper and Old Wine

We might imagine the Pharisees leaving Levi's banquet and later pondering Yeshua's words saying, "I don't know what he meant by that, but it sounded very profound." Or perhaps not. Unlike us, the Pharisees probably knew exactly what Yeshua meant because they were probably already familiar with the symbolism Yeshua employed in his double parable. By comparing Luke 5:36-39 with the well known Pharisaic proverb of Avot 4.20, a whole new interpretation arises which is a natural complement to the context of the passage and is more satisfactory than those previously suggested.
Luke 5:36-39 Pirkei Avot 4:20
He told them this parable: "No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.'" Elisha ben Avuyah said: "He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh [new] sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged [previously used and erased] sheet of paper. Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, "He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine.
Like the larger Gospel context of Luke chapters five and six, the Avot passage is comparing different types of teachers, disciples and teachings. If we allow the similes of Avot 4 to inform the metaphors of Luke 5, we have surprising results.10 In Avot, the vessels for containing wine are not institutions, religious movements or teachings. The vessels containing the wine are individuals. The wine is the teaching that the individual consumes or contains.11 Applying this symbolism to Luke, we could parse out Luke 5:36-39 as follows:
Symbol Meaning
New garment previously uneducated students
Old garment previously educated students
Patch teaching
New wineskins previously uneducated students
Old wineskins previously educated students
New wine new teaching
Old wine previous teaching
Singular Meaning: New teaching requires previously uneducated students in order to be received.
No one takes a lesson meant for a new student and tries to teach it to an old (already educated) student. If he does, he will fail to teach the new student, and the lesson meant for the new student will be rejected by the old student.
No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students. If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. No. Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, "The old teaching is better."
The Avot interpretation of the double parable offers several advantages. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation is not anachronistic. It does not pit Yeshua against Judaism nor does it imagine a conflict between New Covenant Grace and Old Covenant Law. Instead, it pits Yeshua's choice of disciples against the Pharisees' choice of disciples. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation fits the context in which the parable is found, namely the call and selection of Yeshua's disciples. It addresses the Pharisee's criticism about fasting and it answers the problems raised by Luke 5:39.
Unsmudged Paper

Luke has gone to some pains to demonstrate the unsavory character of Yeshua's choice in disciples. They are fishermen, tax collectors and "sinners." They are feasting and drinking instead of fasting and praying. They are bungling Sabbath observance to feed their stomachs. They are not the pious types. They are not the types to follow in the tradition of the disciples of Hillel and Shammai. They have not been educated with the sages. In this regard, they are like a clean slate, a fresh, unsmudged piece of paper for Yeshua to write on. This is not to suggest that the disciples had no education. A primary education in Yeshua's day involved an extensive memorization of Scripture and knowledge of Torah. Educational standards in the Galilee may have even surpassed those of Judah, so even fishermen and tax collectors had received training in the Scriptures. However, only the very gifted went on to study beyond the age of 12 or 13 and only the truly exceptional (and perhaps wealthy) went on to become disciples of the sages.12 The situation with the disciples reminds me of a celebrated metal welder who was known in northeast Minnesota for his excellent work. He often remarked that he would rather teach welding to a drunk he found in a bar who had never held a welding torch in his hand than hire a welder with previous training and experience. A man who had never been taught to weld was still teachable, but a man who already knew how to weld was not. This was the case with Yeshua's choice of disciples. The Pharisees, up to this point in the Gospel narrative, were not yet opponents of Yeshua but were probably still contemplating whether or not to become his disciples. They could not understand Yeshua's choice of disciples and must have been baffled that he had not yet approached them with the position. At Levi's banquet, they criticized the uncouth character and behavior of Yeshua's choice in disciples. Yeshua responded with the double parable, which in essence explained to the Pharisees why they were not qualified for the job of disciple and why the low-life, which he chose to associate with, were. The double parable is not a polemic against Judaism; it is simply an explanation of his choice of disciples. In essence, Yeshua was saying to the Pharisees, "Look, You can't teach an old dog new tricks." We can now understand how the double parable answers to the question about fasting. They said, "Yochanan's disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees (which is to say, so do we), but yours go on eating and drinking." Yeshua's statements about the bridegroom answered directly to the issue of fasting, but the double parable answered to the broader criticism being raised. That criticism was that Yeshua's disciples were not at all like the disciples of Yochanan or the Pharisees.
The Old is Better

Finally, the Avot interpretation solves the problems raised by Luke 5:39, "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good.'" If the parable is comparing Yeshua's Torah teaching (New Wine) with the Pharisee's Torah teaching (Old Wine) the meaning becomes perfectly clear. Disciples who have already studied Torah under the Pharisaic schools (or under the tutelage of Yochanan) and have learned to interpret according to those traditions and models are unlikely to be interested in a new approach. Those students will be apt to disregard contradictory teaching because they have already formed opinions and made judgments. They will regard the education they have already received as superior. Yeshua has chosen fishermen and tax collectors precisely because of their lack of formal education. Luke returns to the disciples' lack of formal education in Acts chapter 4 when the Sanhedrin questions Peter and John. In Acts 4:13 Luke writes, "Now as [the Sanhedrin] observed the confidence of Peter and Yochanan and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Yeshua." On that day, when two, poorly educated fishermen stood before the Sanhedrin, they demonstrated the full caliber of their education under Yeshua and vindicated his choice of disciples. New garments, new wineskins and new students.

This material can be found on www.bethimmanuel.org...
Happy Chanukkah! Shalom (peace)

reply to post by HeavenWolf

I am not sure if it would be safe to say that the Messiah was a hellinistic, because those beliefs did not exist at his time (rather afterword).

So this is the sum total of your response to my last post?
You aren't even talking about the same thing I was, plus your saying "afterward does not even make any sense, seeing how Hellenism exited from the time of Alexander the Great.
Being Hellenized is not the same thing as being a Hellenist.
Hellenized just means adapting to and fitting in with the dominant culture by doing things like speaking the same language. It does not mean adopting and worshiping the Gods or doing anything against your religion in favor of the practices to the true Hellenists.
Jesus being born in Israel as you say is a fantasy, seeing how he was born in the provincial principality of Judea. There was a nominal "King" in Herod but he served the Romans and was subservient to the Empire.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


There is no agreed upon way to pronounce it. Do you know why?

Hebrew letters are consonants, meaning, they only provide the basic consonantal possibilities of pronunciation. This makes knowledge of actual pronunciation of Hebrew words impossible without recourse to tradition.

All Hebrew Torah Scrolls - the masoretic text - are written only with letters, meaning, the consonants. The Nikudim - the vowel points - are not included.

So, where exactly does this tradition of the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton as Jehova (when the "Yod", the first letter of the tetragrammaton, is a "Y" SOUND!!) come from? I don't know. But clearly, any speaker or reader of Hebrew knows it is the worse possible deformation of the divine name. . Not only is the J in Jehova not the actual sound produced by the letter Yod, but the Vav, is actually a "W" sound, as in the Yemenite tradition (and in Arabic and Aramaic), and not a V. Yahweh, although also wrong, and a baseless speculation, would at least be consistent with the sounds produced by the letters Yod and Vav, than Jehova.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Not many people here know a thing about Kabbalah, so they don't perceive the Gnostic undertone of Jesus' name.

Yah corresponds to the sephira of Hokmah - wisdom. Yod and Heh form the world of the abstract intelligences..For instance, when one reads Psalms, it is generally Yah that is praised when speaking of his creations, as in Psalm 147 and 148. Yah is the wisdom of creation - the symbolical reality which underlies the physical.

YaHShuA, is an archetype personified as the savior of mankind saving them (or the Jews) from the law of the Sinaitic covenant.

It's more or less then same idea as the Hindu Krishna. Just a Hebraized version of it.

To the Jews, who always stood against the pagans in their spiritual obliteration of temporal reality, this new religion was a blasphemous outrage. You can understand why they - the legitimate and authentic Jews - rejected the New Testament. It was a return to the pre-Hebraic revelation. Granted, they, the non-heretics (the Gnostics) took the morality of Judaism, and leveled it by equating God with love. If something didn't conform with love, than it wasn't God. This strict interpretation (in the style of the 'new' revelation) even went so far as saying, love your enemy, which, can be interpreted, as it was interpreted by the Valentinian Gnostics, to love evil as well. To the Jews, loving God meant hating anything which sought to undermine His intentions for this world, which means, its Tikkun Olam - the worlds rectification, namely, from the lower archetypal states which lead to evil. Thus, Love contains within it the power of hate; but hate is the external kernel, properly motivated by love.

YaHShuA was a crass repudiation of that. No wonder he is treated so hardly in the Talmud. Look at what he symbolizes: Rebellion from the divine thought of creation, to correct the world.

This is why, as is known, and indisputably apparent, that Christianity contained within it the seeds of secularism. When God becomes man, man becomes God. And eventually, the traditional, objective 'otherness' of God becomes obviated by man, who has granted himself the power to determine right and wrong by equating judgement and moral criticism as wrong, and loving acceptance and toleration of evil, as right. This is probably due to the Hellenistic basis of Christianity. God is made in the image of man, by saying God became man. Mans inherent tendencies, his selfishness etc, became divinized and embraced as part of the very nature of God.

When the Renaissance came around, the Hellenistic intellectuals did the obvious thing, and began to prune western thinkings of its Judaic bias. The Gnostic antinomian attitude remained, but the beginnings of a complete rejection of God became open. By the time of the "european enlightenment", many a philosopher had come and planted the seeds of secularism, and pragmatism. They all emphasized how the world is - the "real" - verses how it could become, if man simply made the effort to change it. And so, the real, the world of good and evil, and a world without God - who is no longer relevant (hence, the meaning of Nietzsches famous saying "God is dead") - is born. The Hellenistic project, almost complete.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Not many people here know a thing about Kabbalah, so they don't perceive the Gnostic undertone of Jesus' name.

Yah corresponds to the sephira of Hokmah - wisdom. Yod and Heh form the world of the abstract intelligences..For instance, when one reads Psalms, it is generally Yah that is praised when speaking of his creations, as in Psalm 147 and 148. Yah is the wisdom of creation - the symbolical reality which underlies the physical.

YaHShuA, is an archetype personified as the savior of mankind saving them (or the Jews) from the law of the Sinaitic covenant.

Yeah thanks for your info, I am not sure what kabbalah is yet either (as in I have never read the zohar). But anyway thank you for your contribution. Maybe after many more years of study I would be able to even perceive 'the words that trace the spirit.'

reply to post by dontreally

So, where exactly does this tradition of the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton as Jehova (when the "Yod", the first letter of the tetragrammaton, is a "Y" SOUND!!) come from?

I know exactly where it came from, the transliteration from Hebrew/Latin to English.
I keep saying this over and over and again. THIS IS ENGLISH FOR AN ENGLISH BIBLE.

If it wasn't English based names then we would have "YEHOCHANAN (John) the Baptister" or YESHUA(Jesus)
That is why you either do all "Y" or all "J", so what have almost all bibles done?

Different names have different pronunciations in different languages, is God's name any different?

Let me give you a simple example the name "Jack"
JACK

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I know exactly where it came from, the transliteration from Hebrew/Latin to English.

But His divine name wasn't transliterated, I'd be cool with that. Unless you misspoke and meant to say translated?

Transliteration means the word is carried directly over from the other language without translating it.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Have you ever stopped and considered WHY English transliterates the Hebrew Y into the English J?

It's a good question, and it's a question that ultimately lies in an understanding of metaphysics.

The Y is created in the inside of the mouth, while the J is produced with the teeth i.e. a dental. In metaphysical thought, the mouth parallels creation. The lungs - the spirit which breaths into creation life force, and the various parts of the mouth, aspects of creation activated (or articulated) by the mouth, are symbols of the metaphysical powers present in the process of creation (this is what is meant by saying man is made in the divine image). The Y is more internal, and implies an innerness, and hiddeness, whereas the J, which is produced by an outer part of the mouth, corresponds to an EXTERNALIZED, and EXPOSED, part of creation.

This is why Jews don't even pronounced the divine name. To understand what the divine name IS, gives one a complete understanding of why it's completely inappropriate to utter the divine name, which is HIDDEN within the world, within the world of Elohim. The Yod - the source of the divine name, is the only proper way to pronounce it, and it is only to be pronounced, as per tradition, by the Cohen Gadol in the holy of holies on Yom kippur.

reply to post by dontreally

and it is only to be pronounced, as per tradition, by the Cohen Gadol in the holy of holies on Yom kippur.

Tell you what I am going listen to the Bible over Jewish tradition.
Proverbs 18:10 (DNKJB)

The name of Jehovah is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.

Romans 10: 12-15 (Aramaic Bible)

And he makes no distinction in this, not for the Jews, neither for the Aramaeans, for he is The One LORD JEHOVAH to all of them, who is rich with everyone who calls to him. 13“For everyone who will call the name of THE LORD JEHOVAH shall be saved.” 14Therefore, how would they call to This One unless they believed in him, or how would they believe him unless they heard him, or how would they hear without a preacher? 15Or how will they preach, unless they will be sent, as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of The Messengers of peace and of The Messengers of good things!”

Joel 2 30-32 (NSB)

I will show wonders in the sky and on the earth: blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. 31 The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible (awesome) Day of Jehovah comes! 32 It will happen that who ever calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved. There will be those on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem that will escape, even among the survivors whom Jehovah calls.

It's that tradition that got Jesus killed, so I am not too big on "Jewish" tradition. They were once God's chosen people, and I respect that, but they wasted their special status with God, by there actions, and in 70 CE God let them know. After that their status became equal too any gentile from his perspective.
The above bible verses also prove they are wrong to not call on the divine name, according to those verses when the time comes everybody will need to call on God's name to actually be saved. So it is critical too our very lives that we learn what it is right now, in our OWN language, as God will accept that over, the generic "god help me".

This is curious, any spiritually minded person could meditate on this, and figure out the why aspect of this ?



Indeed something to think about.

The "They" refers to translators like this....


God's name Jehovah/Yahowah appears in the original hebrew
text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to mention it even once.
When asked about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D.,
Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote :

"Here is why we did not : You are right - that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh (Jehovah) is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it (or purchased it). Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it- that is how many have bought it to date- and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh(Jehovah) . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you." - The Reason NIV removed Jehovah's Name Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


What about all the other Jehovah's?
Jehovah-Rophe
Jehovah Elohim
Jehovah Tsidkenu
And there are several other name for God in the OT so why not all of them restored?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


OK, I think I see. The proper names of pagan gods, which YHWH said to not pronounce or even remember, are left in, and His name is replaced by the generic "Lord" or somesuch. Just another way of keeping God at a distance and dally with gods...

I'm glad I got rid of my NIV.