Originally Posted by jerry

Brandon posted a link in another thread. Here it is as well:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...hova-YHVH.html

Some people do think it is an alternate spelling of Jehovah - I do not believe it is; therefore I think they are wrong on that particular point. Please read the article, as you will find it informative.

That does look like an interesting article. I thought I could read through it quick and reply, although it looks like I need to print it out to read later. I have never heard of this as an issue and that is why I originally asked the question. I skimmed through and didn't see where it said that Yahweh was a pagan god, but I may need to look at it more closely tonight.

Thanks for posting the article.

I wanted to see if Cloud had articles with more of an explanation. I found a couple. Will read these along with the one Jerry posted.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whois-yahweh.html

Here is a portion of another article

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/myths-masoretic-text.html
MYTH NUMBER 4: THE MASORETIC SCRIBES INVENTED VOWEL POINTS FOR THE INSPIRED CONSONANTAL HEBREW TEXT.

Rejecting the aforementioned Biblical promises for perfect Words preservation, critical scholarship argues that the original Hebrew text was only in consonant form, that the vowels were not inspired, [xxxii] and the pronunciations were passed on by oral tradition until the Masoretic scribes invented a vowel pointing system. For instance, van der Merwe affirms,

Originally BH (Biblical Hebrew) text consisted of consonants only. In order to prevent the eventual complete loss of the correct pronunciations, a group of Jewish scholars began to devise a system of signs (from about 600 CE) to record and standardize the received pronunciation (inasmuch as it was known). [xxxiii]

Ewert posits the same argument for the Masoretic invention of vowels stating "But they made one very important innovation. They developed a system by which the vowels of the Hebrew words could be indicated in writing." [xxxiv]

Consonants without vowels are not words. One cannot distinguish between some nouns and verbs, conjugations or stems without vowel pointing. The other ancient languages of the Samaritans, Syrians, Chaldeans, and Arabs had consonants and vowels. The Hebrew vowels must be aborigine for several reasons.

Linguistically, the very nature of words requires both consonants and vowels since God and man spoke and wrote words from the beginning. Words need to be precise to convey accuracy and this precision comes only with the vowels. Gill cites several arguments for the divine origin of the vowels. 1) The perfection of language requires vowels. 2) The nature and genius of the Hebrew language require points. 3) The vowel points are necessary and useful to easier learning, reading, and pronouncing of the Hebrew language. 4) The vowel points and accents are useful and necessary. 5) It will be difficult to assert and maintain the clarity of the Scriptures if the vowel points and accents are removed. 6) One would be unable to support the infallibility of the Scripture. 7) The inspiration of Scripture is affected by the points and accents. [xxxv]

Historically, the main fallacy with positing the invention of the Hebrew vowel points with the Masoretes is the lack of recorded testimony. [xxxvi] Furthermore, this historical assumption makes the Masoretes the final authority with regard to the Words of Scripture. Moncrief gives a list of five Hebrew words, as select examples, whose meanings vary depending on the vowel pointing. [xxxvii] The final meaning of a Word of Scripture cannot be dependent on man in light of the promises for the authoritative inspired and preserved Words of Scripture. The preacher of Scripture must declare "thus saith the Lord," not "thus saith the Masoretes."

Scripturally, Christ recognized the preserved Words of the Hebrew OT (Mt. 4:4) and affirmed the inspiration and preservation of the consonants (jot) and vowel points (keraia) in Mt. 5:18. The Gospel writers consistently followed a pattern for the vowel pointings of the proper Hebrew nouns to which they alluded. For example, they recognized the inspired dagesh forte (a small dot to indicate doubling) in words like Immanuel (Mt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 7:14), Anna/Hannah (Lk. 2:36; cf. I Sam. 1:2), Abaddon (Rev. 9:11; Ps. 1:6), Armageddon (Rev. 16:16; cf. Zech. 12:11), and Sabbaton (Mt. 12:5; Ex. 20:11). Paul knew the pointing of the inspired Hebrew word behind the inspired Greek arrabon ("earnest") in Eph. 1:14 because he doubled the "r" (rho) in his inspired transliterated spelling of the Hebrew word (`errabon) from Gen. 38:17. The authority of the inspired NT text demands that the vowel pointings were part of the inspired OT text.

Bible critics assume that man invented the pointing and that consequently the proper pronunciation for the divine name of the tetragrammaton JHWH (hwhy) is unknown. This view alleges that the Jews refused to pronounce the name of the Lord because of a faulty interpretation of Lev. 24:16, which states, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death..." [xxxviii] After many centuries of not pronouncing the divine name the Jews claimed the proper pronunciation was lost. The Masoretes interjected the so-called Qere perpetuum reading into the text and produced the impossible name Jehovah. [xxxix] Based on extra-biblical authorities, critics assume the best rendering for the tetragrammaton should be Yahweh. [xl]

The popular position that the Masoretes invented the vowel pointing of the OT Hebrew text denies the Bible claims of perfect Words preservation. Furthermore, this view posits the inspired source and final authority for the Words of Scripture upon man and not God. Since the Masoretes merely passed on the divine vowel points with the consonants, the falsely assumed Masoretic-invention position must be rejected along with the fallacious tradition that the divine name of the tetragrammaton must be pronounced Yahweh. According to the Masoretic Hebrew text behind the KJV the proper pronunciation for the OT name of the LORD is Jehovah.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Beth

Does Brandon agree with this?

I am not sure exactly what you meant by "this." The statement that "he does not endorse or agree with every statement made in these commentaries, books, etc." is accurate.

As for the name Yahweh, I do believe it is a pronunciation based on a faulty premise. But what I object to is people insisting that Jehovah is a corruption of God's true name. If anything fits that bill, it's Yahweh, not Jehovah.

Originally Posted by Diligent

I am not sure exactly what you meant by "this."

Does Brandon agree with this?

Originally Posted by Jerry

P.S. I don't believe in Yahweh, which is a pagan god.

I was only questioning this statement made by Jerry.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Beth

I was only questioning this statement made by Jerry.

Ah.

I'm not sure I'd use the term "pagan god" since I am unaware of there being a culture in history that has worshiped a false god named "Yahweh," but if I understand Jerry correctly, he means that "Yahweh" is an invention of scholars based on false premises and is therefor a false god. I agree that the name is an invention, not a restoration, and someone who assigns the name "Yahweh" to God and then assumes others who do not do so are not worshiping God are indeed creating a pagan idol.

However, I am aware many Christians, in error, believe that Yahweh is the "correct" pronunciation of YHVH. I don't think they are worshiping a pagan god, but they are in error. The proper name is as it is given in our Bible: Jehovah.

Yes, Brandon, I realize many Christians use that name ignorantly - but because I know that is not His name historically, I refuse to use it. I think I read somewhere that it was originally the name of a pagan god, but perhaps I may have mixed something up in my research (it has been awhile), and if so, I am sorry. I agree with you that Jehovah is the name of God that we find preserved in our KJV and in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Actually, John Hinton does cover some of the claims that Yahweh was a pagan storm god in his article above, in the section: Yahweh the Storm God.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by jerry

Actually, John Hinton does cover some of the claims that Yahweh was a pagan storm god in his article above, in the section: Yahweh the Storm God.

Aha. I don't know how I missed that reference when I last skimmed the article. It must have skipped my mind since I read it in its entirety.

And doing a search for Yahweh storm god on Google brings up some good hits. Worthy of further study.

Seems like a lot of people are unaware of the problems with using "Yahweh." I've been reading Kerby Fannin's book While Men Slept... A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianity and he uses "Yahweh" repeatedly, apparently ignorant of the false premise the pronunciation is based on.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Aha. I don't know how I missed that reference when I last skimmed the article. It must have skipped my mind since I read it in its entirety.

And doing a search for Yahweh storm god on Google brings up some good hits. Worthy of further study.

Seems like a lot of people are unaware of the problems with using "Yahweh." I've been reading Kerby Fannin's book While Men Slept... A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianity and he uses "Yahweh" repeatedly, apparently ignorant of the false premise the pronunciation is based on.

Thanks Jerry and Brandon. I have definitely learned a bunch on this topic. What you are saying is starting to make some sense to me.

Thanks Beth for those links. I am still reading through the second article, but have been blessed by the points that have been brought up so far.