June 2015 TV Broadcast on tv.jw.org

Comment by miken on 2015-06-03 16:44:08

How Is God’s Name Pronounced?
The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants—not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God’s name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants...........
Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word ’Adho·nai′ (“Sovereign Lord”). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in everyday conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God’s name was eventually forgotten.
In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible.
The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, 1984 pp7-8
We know the history of how the man made name Jehovah evolved. Rather than
propagating a false name, Jehovah's Witnesses would do better by imitating Jesus Christ who addressed "his God" as Father and spend more of their time witnessing about Jesus Christ Acts 1:8; 4:12; John 14:6.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-03 18:21:28

  Thank you miken, I agree with your conclusion.

• Reply by Mailman on 2015-06-04 01:17:09

  I just thought that JWs try not to use Jesus Christ much in their meetings in order to appear different from mainstream Christian denominations and not be associated with Christendom. But what kind of argument is this if it sacrifices the very core of Jesus teachings?

  • Reply by miken on 2015-06-04 06:22:50

    Jesus is gradually being squeezed out of JW theology in some ways subtly in others not so subtly. I don't think it is insignificant that Jesus is missing from the Watchtower April 15, 2013 p29 organization picture. In the recent booklet Return To Jehovah on page 13, 1 Peter 2:25 is cited in support of returning to Jehovah. To Quote:-
    "Your situation will be similar to that of some first-century
    Christians, to whom the apostle Peter wrote:
    “You were like sheep going astray, but now you
    have returned to the shepherd and overseer of
    your souls.”—1 Peter 2:25. Returning to Jehovah is absolutely the best
    thing you can do".
    For Christians Jesus Christ is the shepherd and overseer of our souls, we are his sheep and have been placed in his hand by the Father. John 6:37, 44, 45, 65; 17:6,9,10,12; 10:9 11, 14, 15, 27-29; Hebrews 13:20.
    In the NWT printings before 2006 the cross references for shepherd in 1 Peter 2:25 were John 10:11; Hebrews 13:20 and 1 Peter 5:4 all clear and correct references to Jesus Christ. However in the 2006 printing and the 2013 RNWT the cross references were changed to Psalm 23:1 and Isaiah 40:11 clearly referring to Jehovah.
    Of course, if like JW's, one has never "come" to Jesus Christ, (John 6:37, 65) in the first place, then returning to him is not an option.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-06-04 11:22:23

      The changes references are telling evidence of the trend away from Jesus. Thank you for sharing those with us, Miken.

    • Reply by Clark on 2015-06-05 15:56:51

      You're absolutely right. I actually got called into the back room by the elders with murmurs of apostasy on my part simply because I pointed out that picture in the April 15, 2013 Watchtower about Jesus not being in the picture. True story. And attributing 1 Peter 2:25 to jehovah instead of Christ has been the case for years now. I pointed this out to my mother back when it popped up in the Jeremiah book.

    • Reply by qspf on 2015-06-05 16:36:46

      Amazing ... the verse at 1 Peter 2:25 has 3 cross-references to NT verses showing Christ to be the shepherd, but the 2013 rNWT has 2 cross-references to OT verses showing Jehovah to be the shepherd. It does seem like they are systematically trying to erase Christ every chance they get.

  • Reply by qspf on 2015-06-04 18:04:03

    You might find it informative to see how this trend has changed over time. Go to the WT Library CD, and look up all references for Jehovah and God. Since the Watchtower magazine is published every year and has everything to say about everything, it's a good place to look, so limit your search there. Now, do the same searches for Jesus and Christ. If you add up the God/Jehovah references and the Jesus/Christ references, you will see that over time that there have been fewer and fewer references to Jesus. Like all statistics, things vary, but if you were to plot a graph of God vs. Jesus references over the last 65 years (the period covered by the library) you will see that the line for Christ is definitively going downward, while the line for God is roughly stable or slightly increasing over time.
    There is a copy of the new "Return to Jehovah" brochure released at the 20105 convention that you can find online. If you check this (a PDF) almost every single reference to "Christ" or "Jesus" simply pertains to us as Christians and following the example of Jesus - but that's as far as it goes, and there are precious few of those. The lion's share of "divine" references refer to God, not to Christ. Any mention of Christ's actual teachings, his words, are a no-show.
    I could be cynical and say that the GB has put itself in place of Christ, but I will leave for others to determine motive. But suffice it to say, your perception that the WT is removing references to Jesus is not in your imagination. The stats from the Library CD show it to be a fact.

    • Reply by Skye on 2015-06-05 18:33:20

      John 14:6 "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
      Rom 5:10,11 "For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
      Eph 2:12,13 "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

Comment by qspf on 2015-06-03 16:50:03

I consider it noteworthy the number of words that have been expended over the centuries by so many over the precise way that Hebrew letter YHWH ought to be pronounced, if at all. We are led to believe, by some, that unless we utter this word exactly the same as native speakers of ancient Hebrew did, we will not have God's approval. No matter that there ARE no native speakers of ancient Hebrew alive (modern Hebrew doesn't count), nor did the writers of the scrolls correctly vowel-point these letters to help us, nor did they provide any other explanation how to do it. No matter that, for whatever reason, YHWH does not appear in the NT, and seeing how many thousands of ancient copies of it exist, that does seem to be a glaring oversight if it were not intentional.
We must wonder, if the OWNER of said name felt that this was a matter of some import, would He not have seen to it that we were not left in the dark about what to do? Could it be that He himself is not overly distraught over the matter?
After all, YHWH is rendered many different ways, in different languages. It does seem, sometimes, that the various debaters of this issue forget that, and focus only on how the word is dealt with in English, as though only English speakers need to ask the question.
The word YHWH is unquestionably important, but it is not (despite what some adherents of the Cabala might believe) magical. It conveys an idea, that God is the one who can Cause to Become. If we respect that idea, and the God behind it, hasn't the purpose been served, regardless of the minutia about how it is actually pronounced?
Further, we have the Model Prayer of Jesus. He told us to pray, "Our Father, ...". If the name YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah, or any international variation of that, were required, should we not suppose God's Son would have told us so? What, did he just forget to mention it? Was it an evil conspiracy that blotted out YHWH from the NT?
We ought to consider closely what Jesus DID say: He said FATHER. We hear that word so much in religious contexts that, for some us, we might not realize the import of what Jesus said when he uttered those words. That is because, in the OT, God is just not referred as Father. Yes, there are a tiny handful of references here and there that include the word "father" in the verse, but as a general rule, God is not referred to as Father until Jesus shows up. How come?
Well, consider how the account of Moses goes. He was told by God, "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew me as God Almighty, but as Jehovah they did not know me." Those patriarchs did in fact know the name Jehovah, but what they did NOT know was that He could turn water into blood, split the Red Sea, rain down burning hail, kill all the first born of Egypt, form pillars of fire, and so on. They may have known Jehovah was "God" and "Creator", but they NEVER knew He could do all THAT. It was an ASPECT of Him that they didn't know.
Now, here is Jesus coming along and saying, "Our Father ...". Again, it is an ASPECT of God they didn't know. Because of that, this Jehovah was no longer just a powerful Creator, a Man of War, the Leader of Israel, etc. He was now our Father. Not just an awe-inspiring authority figure, but someone we could really know and feel close to. THAT was DIFFERENT.
And, because that was SO different, it could explain why YHWH didn't get rendered in the NT. Not that YHWH is trivialized or unimportant or unworthy of respect. Rather, the magnitude of the very idea that this Almighty God could also be our loving Father is one of staggering proportions. It means that mere imperfect, sinful man could come to be on good terms, even friendly terms, with Him. That is a concept and a prospect that the OT does not really hold out for us. But it's something that Jesus DID hold out for us, when he gave us the Model Prayer.
We ought to have faith that our Father had His Bible written exactly the way He wanted it to be written.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-03 18:18:04

  Thank you for your comment qspf.
  I don't agree with what you wrote toward the end: "It means that mere imperfect, sinful man could come to be on good terms, even friendly terms, with Him. That is a concept and a prospect that the OT does not really hold out for us."
  Israel knew Jehovah as a Father, AS A GROUP (Israel was called Jehovah's son), not as individuals. I agree with that. But they could definitely come to good terms with God. The Law was perfect, and Israel knew that even though they couldn't keep the law perfectly, they required God's loving forgiveness through sacrifice.
  Today also we cannot perfectly keep God's commandments, so we need Jesus' sacrifice.

  • Reply by qspf on 2015-06-03 18:51:57

    I don't think we really disagree. Consider that where I live, I have a mayor, a governor and a president above me. If I obey the laws I am subject to, I would be on good terms with these leaders, but I'd never be on a first name basis, nor would they be as close to me as a real father would be. Same here. The Jews could try to be faithful and obedient, as far as possible, and if they did, they would be on good terms with Jehovah as the God and King above them. But would they ever view Him with the closeness of a real father? The OT does not portray that as a possibility for them. Only when Jesus arrived did we have held out to us the hope of viewing that God, that authority figure, with the intimacy and closeness of a Father. The fact that is even a possibility for us is simply amazing and should never be taken for granted. That is something that surpasses and supersedes debates about how YHWH should be pronounced and used.

  • Reply by alskadedotter2@gmail.com on 2015-06-04 07:58:36

    Might I suggest that the use of acronyms be identified. I believe there are many readers of this forum that are not JWs and therefore might not understand what you are referring to.. Or perhaps provide an acronym listing that someone can refer to so they better understand what is being said. Just a thought.

    • Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-04 09:16:03

      YHWH is not an acronym but the 4 consonants in hebrew for God's name. They did not write vowels down.
      JW stands for Jehovah's Witness
      JW.ORG stands for Jehovah's Witness Organization embodied by the website with that domain name
      those three should be by large the only ones I used in the article. Sometimes you might see GB for Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
      NT stands for New Testament
      OT stands for Old Testament
      NWT stands for New World Translation
      other Bible Translation Acronyms can be found online and are common,
      like NKJV New King James Version, etc.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-06-04 11:31:39

      Hi alskadedotter2,
      Welcome to the forum!
      Meleti

Comment by kev on 2015-06-03 16:51:41

Looking at the verses at acts 15 v 14 to 17 i would not be suprised if far to much has been made of this phrase for his name . I think its could mean just a people belonging to him . Even at isaiah 43 v10 his servants are not directly called jehovahs wirtnesses . Even in the NWT . IT just says you are my WITNESSES . says jehovah. Or YHWH in reality . as far as i am aware gods people were called israelites or jews in the bible . Members of the new covenant were called christians . . James seems to be applying amos prophecy to his day at Acts 15 v 17 . Not some distant point almost 1900 years later where people would be called by the name jehovah .... . . Personaly from what i read online the other week it may just be better to stick just to YHWH . thats to say the least . Kev

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-03 18:19:59

  I agree with you Kev.
  The other day I was thinking that if I translated the Bible I would not substitute YHWH for Jehovah or Lord or Yahweh. I would just leave it as YHWH. Who can take exception to that? Then everyone can pronounce it as they please.

Comment by Anointed1 on 2015-06-03 17:52:32

You agree with G Jackson that the tetragrammaton can be accurately translated JHWH? Surely this is not true! YHWH is i believe the only true translation. The so called divine name 'Jehovah' originates with a catholic benedictine monk of the 12th century named Martini.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-03 18:08:52

  Hi Anointed1,
  I wrote "trans-li-terated" not "translated". The definition of transliteration is:
  write or print (a letter or word) using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language.
  1. He said the name of God is represented by the tetragrammaton. This is correct.
  2. He said it can be transliterated as Jehovah or Yahweh. This is correct too.
  What is peculiar is he called YHWH the representation of the name of God in that statement, he didn't say Jehovah is. I thought that's peculiar coming from the Governing Body, albeit correct!
  Also a reference to the catholic monk is can be found in the article's subheading "Jehovah’s Witnesses = JW.ORG?".

• Reply by qspf on 2015-06-04 11:25:31

  It is fairly well known that "Jehovah" was first used by the Spanish monk Raymundus Martini in his book Pugeo Fidei in the year 1270, although the word appears to have existed for some time earlier than that. (There is a nice Wiki article about the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah ).
  What I have never understood is the great anger and disdain that the ex-JW and dissenter community often display when this subject comes up. The people who seem the most irritated by this never seem to actually come out and say what's on their mind. But, based on the general tone of such articles, the implied message seems to be something like this:
  The name 'Jehovah' was invented by a Catholic monk
  The Catholic church is 'evil'
  Therefore, the name 'Jehovah' is 'evil' by association
  or
  The name 'Jehovah' was invented by a Catholic monk
  The word 'Jehovah' is "invented" and is neither a translation nor transliteration
  We are supposed to honor the name of God
  Therefore the name 'Jehovah' is a false name that dishonors God
  What I find intellectually dishonest is for persons to object to the spelling of 'Jehovah', and do so because of an implied argument like one of the above or something similar to it, without saying in plain English exactly what their objection really is. I believe the reason that such objections are implied but never stated is that they would likely not hold up to scrutiny.
  Let's take the first one, that 'Jehovah' as a named is tainted because a Catholic monk thought it up, and this for the one and only reason that the monk was Catholic (a religion that has been condemned and reviled in the harshest of terms in WT publications), and therefore anything they ever did is invalid and is something we should avoid like the plague.
  If we were to accept that, then where do we stop? Many people are aware that our system of numbers of 0 to 9 were invented by Arabs, and these symbols are thus called Arabic numerals. Should we avoid using numbers because they were "invented" by persons who also happened to be adherents of Islam? Should Christians avoid using arithmetic because it was "invented" by "pagans", a group of people that the Bible reviles and condemns?
  As for the second argument, it carries a little more weight, but only a little. Let us say that Yahweh is more accurate. Personally, I think the real pronunciation would have emphasized all four letters; otherwise, why have them? In "Yahweh", you can't here the H's, and so the original Hebrew might as well have been YW, not YHWH. To me, it's more likely they said something like "Yehowahe". But, that's just me.
  The problem is, invented or not, or exhaustively researched or not, we will never know how to say it "right". No matter what word or spelling we use, the only thing we can be certain of is that it will be wrong. The question remaining is, "what degree of 'wrongness' in pronouncing this word is acceptable"? But, acceptable to whom?
  The Bible says that we should honor God, and honor His Son, and that we should not take up His name in an unworthy way. But no where in the Bible does it say, "unless you pronounce the name of God exactly as native speakers of ancient Hebrew did, you will not have God's approval". However, that is exactly what opponents of the 'Jehovah' spelling are implying to us - along with the 'guilt trip' such an implication brings with it. Yet such a stringent requirement - one that is no longer possible since the knowledge of how to do it was lost - is not a requirement of God, or else He would have had that recorded as a commandment for us to follow. And, He would have seen to it that the correct way to pronounce His name was not lost in the dust of history.
  People who go around pontificating about the precisely exact and correct way to say God's name put a burden on people, but they themselves do nothing to lift that burden, since "Yahweh" cannot be conclusively proven to be God's name either. It is merely a "guess" - whether that is an informed opinion or otherwise - and as such is scarcely any less "artificial" than 'Jehovah' is. It is, as the saying goes, a distinction without a difference.
  I contend that if a person truly views and believes that 'Jehovah' (or Yahweh or any other variant) is God's name, approaches God with awe, respect and reverence using that name, our Father will accept that name as His own. After all, such names are only human terms for our Creator, who doubtless has His own personal name that we do not know (and probably couldn't pronounce). Names like "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" are utterances made by human beings with tongues and vocal chords and lungs - things our Creator gave US but that He himself does not have.
  Is it really necessary to argue and bicker about matters of such minutiae, at the cost of diverting the attention of our minds and hearts from the weightier matters of love for God, obeying the example of Christ, and showing love to our neighbor?
  I have no problem with using Yahweh as God's name, nor do I have a problem with Jehovah as God's name. Where I have a problem is when these arguments overshadow and infringe upon the law of love that Christ set down for us.

Comment by Alex Rover on 2015-06-03 18:23:32

One more consideration is that Jesus is Jehovah's Witness, since he is the one who witnesses or testifies about the Father.
Jesus is also Israel, God's Son, the root of the Olive Tree.

Comment by bjfox1 on 2015-06-03 20:14:44

I began to struggle with the pronunciation thing a while back. I felt uncomfortable calling God by a name that might not be the correct way of saying it . .and an English pronunciation of a name that might not be correct, at that. When I've talked with people from other countries: Polish, French, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, Indiana. . they all called me by my name. though maybe with an accent. They didn't translate it into their own language the way the Society does with 'Jehovah' for the foreign literature. I mean, goodness.. even Coca Cola is pronounced Coca Cola all around the world (I think).
I used to have a set of Watchtowers in all the languages that they printed it. And Jehovah was spelled differently in some .. maybe a lot, of the other languages. This was almost 30 years ago, so I don't remember for sure.
A couple years a ago I heard a lecture where the man talked about Jesus' model prayer. Jesus gave us the privilege to call his father OUR Father. And like one of the people above said, Jesus always called him Father. Now, whenever I talk to Him or pray to him I say 'Father'. Just like I say "Mom" when I talk to my mother. Of course I know her name and when I introduce her I say this is my Mom, Mary such-in-such.
Most of my family are still Witnesses and I have my mother and aunt over fairly regularly. A year or so ago I said the prayer before we ate and I said "Father' .. .blah blah blah. Later my mother called me and asked me if I still believed in Jehovah. I told her of course, why did she asked. SHe said she asked because I'd called him Father. I told her I did that because that's what Jesus told us to say when we prayed to him. . Our Father. LIke Duh!!! But it seems after that, for the most part they pray separately before I get to the table. . . .we all say our own prays. It's actually kinda sad.
Oh and I've been tempted to ask them, what's up with "Jehovah's Witnesses' name anyway since yeah.. Jesus said his followers would be witnesses of his . .

Comment by FutureMan on 2015-06-04 01:36:07

What's in a name.
Speaking about names: why was Jacob renamed "Is-ra-el"?

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-04 09:16:49

  perhaps this may be of interest to you:
  https://www.edx.org/course/jesus-scripture-tradition-notredamex-th120-1x

Comment by Skye on 2015-06-04 05:14:37

Hi Alex, Your section: Witnesses of Jehovah = Witnesses of Jesus?
Isa 43:10 - I thought this scripture was along the lines as at Deut 6:4.
With regard to scriptures in the OT where YHWH may refer to Christ - could this not just be in relation to the principle of agency?

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-04 09:18:58

  Hi Skye,
  possibly. Do you have any reference material where we can see the agent using the name of the one who he represents?

  • Reply by Skye on 2015-06-04 14:23:22

    Hi Alex, the principle of agency is used extensively in scripture, as you know. eg Matt 8:5-13 (Luke 7:1-10), Ex 4:16; Ex 7:17-21; Gen 16:7-14.
    What about Jesus Christ? In the OT Christ had not appeared on the scene (earth) to take up the role of Messiah, and it appears that titles were not given to him until that time; and so in the OT these titles were held by God. However, in the NT these titles are now given to God's beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. This would be appropriate because Jesus and God work in perfect harmony and purpose.
    With regard to Rev 17:14, Jesus here is not LORD in the literal sense, but he stands as God's ultimate agent and, of course, above in status of Moses, Aaron or any of the angels. All the second coming passages in the OT are referred to God, but in the NT to Jesus. God acts through His beloved Son.
    From scriptural reasoning, as far as I can tell, this understanding would appear to have been in harmony with Biblical culture, and therefore would have been the understanding of that time; and if that is the case, then that would still stand today of course.

Comment by Vox Ratio on 2015-06-04 07:47:31

Hi Alex,
Although I wasn’t able to agree with your entire monograph, you made your case well and backed it up with references. Nicely done!
We know that the Tetragram has not been found in any extant NT manuscript, and as you pointed out, it seems quite reasonable to draw conclusions from this. Nevertheless, I’d like to highlight a few interesting facts regarding the divine name and its omission from the NT.
Today, it is common knowledge that most translations have introduced a surrogate where the Tetragram appears – in most cases rendering it as either GOD or LORD (hO QEOS, hO KURIOS). Yet, this same practice had not been codified at the time of writing of the NT autographs. Since the earliest extant copies of the NT do not use the surrogate that we see in most translations today (hO QEOS, hO KURIOS), but instead substitute in abbreviations in the form of the nomina sacra (QS, KS), it appears that redactors suppressed the divine name by permitting the text to be tampered with.
Corroborating the above is the fact that no copy of the Septuagint (LXX) earlier than the mid second century actually used the nomina sacra as a surrogate for God’s name. Rather, what can be shown is that the Tetragram endured in Paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, or in the Greek IAW – it was only after this period that the nomina sacra were introduced into further copies of the LXX. Incredibly, it seems that despite having the Tetragram available in older copies of the LXX, the NT copyists deliberately followed the same practice of textual substitution as that which had been formed in the second century.
However, that the early church was indeed familiar with God’s name can be evinced by the fact that the book of Revelation appears to have escaped the same systematic emendation, for it preserves the abbreviated form of God’s name four times (Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6). As a result, all of this goes to show that while we cannot prove that the NT once contained the Tetragram, we can make a reasonable inductive case for its inclusion within the autographs.
At any rate, I do agree with you and others here that what appears to be most important in terms of God’s revelation of himself within the NT is that he has become a father to individual Christians, and that he intends to properly relate them to himself by means of their elder brother, Jesus Christ.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-06-04 09:33:35

  Hi Vox Ratio,
  thank you for your input as always. Now that you mention these things, I do appreciate your comment because things are not always 100% sure, and in that case we need to temper our claims to certainty.
  I was recently also reminded of this when I was reviewing the Khabouris Codex and Peshitta. Here they replace YHWH by MarYa in the Peshitta Tanakh. Mar is Aramaic for Lord and Ya represents Yah or Yahweh, so MarYa means Lord Yahweh or Lord Jehovah.
  In other words, the Peshitta continues to use the name of Jehovah. In case of Aramaic primacy, then we can make a reasonable case that God's name was continued in the New Testament.
  Reasonably speaking, it appears likely that when Jesus said: "Let you name be sanctified", that the audience knew what name he was referencing. So I find it plausible that they did know YHWH as a name.
  Nevertheless, Jesus always addressed 'YHWH' as Father.
  But why is the New World Translation quoting only Greek manuscripts as sources, where YHWH is not found in the NT? Perhaps they would be better served to add the Peshitta as one of the source texts for their translation.
  In that case, the original of verse 5 in Psalm 110:1-5 says (in the Peshitta) that Yahweh is at Yahweh's right hand. (Instead of Lord/Lord)
  See https://books.google.com/books?id=fm34eWniYH0C&pg=PA21&dq=peshitta+yahweh+at+yahweh%27s+hand&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M1NwVa_iJ5KvyQTWwYGwDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=peshitta%20yahweh%20at%20yahweh's%20hand&f=false
  This is another argument for the observation I made in the article about YHWH as a name used by Christ to manifest the Father.

Comment by peter on 2015-06-04 12:37:27

Not all occurrences of God’s name were transcribed accurately. Gnosticism was a pagan syncretistic religion that idolized a demigod named Iao, pronounced Yao. In approximately 200BC, this appears in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible as an inaccurate version of God’s name, perhaps being confused with God’s poetic shortened name, Yah (Bethge, 1990). Clement of Alexandria seems to have received this version of God’s name from the Greek translation of the Hebrew. He wrote out God’s name as Iaou, which in English is pronounced Yao (Koltz, 1832, p. 26). In subsequent copies of Clement’s manuscripts, the name is further corrupted and mis-transcribed as Iaoue, which is pronounced Yahweh. This transcription error is one of the few if not the only conclusive evidence of the pronunciation Yahweh – from a corrupted third hand. The English translations of Clement’s writing have retained the incorrect transcription Iaoue, and transliterated it as Jave, which in modern English is Yahweh (Clement of Alexandria). The question is, what proof is there that the name YHVH is Yahweh in the first place? The only real proof is the Samaritan witness cited by Theodoret and we know they named their anonymous Temple after Jupiter of the Greeks hundreds of years earlier. Incidently, if you had to figure out the vowels of ADNY from Adonis, you’d be in trouble. In Hebrew, there is a fundamental difference between Adonai (Great Lord refers only to YHVH) and Adoni (My Lord, refers to kings, angels, free-men). Thankfully, we have the vowels in the Hebrew manuscripts to avoid this Greek confusion. The pronunciation Yahweh is based on (in order of importance for those who claim this is the name: 1) Samaritan witness quoted by Theodoret. 2) the hifil form of the verb HYH 3) the similarity to YOWE (Jove). #2 is based on a verb form that does not actually exist in Biblical Hebrew, not every verb exists in all 7 conjugations; HYH does not exist in Hifil form in Biblical Hebrew; therefore Yahweh is a fictitious Hebrew form). Yeho'vah is a combination of three forms, although, I readily admit this is not the proof for the pronunciation, only an explanation of it. The primary proof is the Hebrew Bible manuscripts like the aleppo codex and four others by the Hebrew scribes who knew the name..but which modern scholars choose to ignore.But instead follow non Hebrew sources as there evidence.The funny thing is if you say the word Yahweh to the average Orthodox rabbi he will not blink an eye. If you say Yeho'vah he will freak out and shout “Blasphemy! He said it again!” By the way, here’s the page in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which begins the part on Yahweh with “If the explanation of the form above given be the true one”. This is in reference to the made-up Hifil form of HYH “Yahweh” and contrary to the explanation God gives of His own name in Exodus 3:14 (using a Qal form of the verb). Then they bring evidence from the Samaritans who named their Temple after Jupiter. Jump to the next paragraph where the pagan sources are more explicit.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god
The claim that YHVH has the vowels of Adonai is quite simply that it does not! The vowels of Adonai אֲדׁנָי are A-O-A (hataf patach - cholam - kamats). In contrast, the name YHVH is written יְהוָה with the vowels e---A (sheva - no vowel - kamats). But the vowels of YHVH are clearly different from the vowels of Adonai! YHVH is written YeHVaH יְהוָה but with the vowels of Adonai it should have been Yahovah יֲהוָֹה! Up until recently printers of the text of Scripture have freely modified the name YHVH. In many printings of the Hebrew Scriptures YHVH is written with no vowels at all while in other printings it is in fact written as Yahovah with the vowels of Adonai. However, when we check the earliest complete manuscripts of Scripture we find that YHVH is written YeHVaH. This is how YHVH is written in the Ben Asher manuscripts (Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex3) which preserve the most accurate complete text of Scripture. Modern printings which accurately reproduce the ancient manuscripts, such as Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (BHS), and Hebrew University Bible Edition (HUB) also contain the form YeHVaH. Today we do not need to rely on these printing since the important Bible manuscripts have been published as lithographic editions with photographs reproducing the actual pages of the manuscripts themselves. In these photographs it is clear that the name YHVH is written repeatedly as YeHVaH and not with the vowels of Adonai as YaHoVaH. As already mentioned, scholars disregarded the vowels of YHVH in the biblical manuscripts and look to outside sources to try and recover the original pronunciation of the name. The primary source for this reconstruction is the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus, a so-called Church Father who lived in the 5th Century CE. This means that the Masoretic scribes knew the name to be Yeho'vah and suppressed its pronunciation by omitting the “o”. This is confirmed by the fact that the scribes actually forgot to suppress the vowel “o” in a number of instances. The way scribes copied ancient writings was to read the words either out loud or under their breath. The scribe sometimes made a mistake and wrote what he heard from his own lips, even if this differed from what he read with his eyes. This is a common mistake in modern English as well. When English speakers are writing quickly or typing they often write down “know” instead of “no” or “their” instead of “there”. This is not due to ignorance since most people who make this mistake know full well the difference between these homonyms. Instead this is an error stemming from how the words sound. In the case of the divine name the scribe knew that the word YHVH sounded like Yeho'vah and even though he was supposed to suppress the vowel “o” he left it in, in a few dozen instances. In the LenB19a Masoretic manuscript, the earliest complete Masoretic manuscript and the basis of renowned BHS edition,8 the name is written Yeho'vah 50 times out of a total of 6828. It is significant that no other vowel besides “o” was “accidentally” inserted into the divine name. So those who say we don't know the pronunciation, is simply not true ? how can God not only preserve his name written would not also preserve the pronunciation of it. The problem is we have to much misinformation about the name and we are not looking at the Hebrew manuscripts and sources. But instead choose to follow outside sources for our information.

• Reply by qspf on 2015-06-04 18:27:05

  Peter,
  Allow me to commend you for this very comprehensive (and deep) insight to the Tetragramaton. It seems like tracking down the right way to say this is like the plot of a mystery novel. I personally would not have figured out 1/10 of the details you wrote about.
  And, unfortunately is much of the problem in all this. Suppose I wanted to independently verify your account. It would be very difficult for me to track down all these sources, confirm that they are all correct and that your conclusion is properly drawn, And supposing I wanted to refute any of it, where would I go for even yet further research materials? And if I found them, what would I do with them.
  Perhaps the more learned among us are undaunted by the prospect of such efforts, but I am more than willing to call myself "daunted". I mean no disrespect to your laudable efforts on this matter. But, truly, how many people in the world are capable of this level of scholarly research? Very, very few, I would venture.
  That is the problem I have. Would our Father really make it so difficult to find out this information, if He really wanted us to know? After all, Jesus said that his Father hid the truth from wise and intellectual ones, and gave it to persons who were "babes" to such things. In comparison, the doctrine of the Trinity argues against itself for the very reason that it is extremely hard to understand, in direct conflict with Jesus's words that the truth would be accessible to the common man of average abilities.
  If we have to be like a world-renounced religious historian or theologian to figure out how to say God's name properly, isn't God taking away the truth from "babes" and "giving it back" to the wise and intellectual ones?
  Surely, it doesn't have to be this hard, and I cannot come up with a good reason to justify why it apparently is. My only conclusion is that God is not as fussy as people are about this matter.
  To make a small illustration, when I was young, I went by a nickname, because other people my age group did the same. But when I was older and got married, my wife didn't like it, nor did my parents, so I dropped it. But if people from my past used my nickname, I didn't get overly offended; I just told them to use my "real" or "official" name.
  I am sure when our Father and his Son come to restore all things, He will lovingly correct our minor spelling errors, and give us an A on our "paper".

  • Reply by peter on 2015-06-05 22:47:09

    qspf i would direct you to a book by a Hebrew scholar by the name of Nehemia gordon the book is called ...Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence: The Hebrew Power of the Priestly Blessing Unleashed. he addresses the whole name issues and quotes all hebrew sources.

• Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-06-04 20:23:18

  Hi Peter,
  Thanks for your research.
  It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the best external attestation for the pronunciation of God’s name as being YaHWeH is taken from the Samaritan IABE – a religious order that was founded upon the intentional efforts to be different to, and separate from, their Jewish brothers. Yet, it seems quite evident that within the form of Jewish theophoric names – where there is little dispute as to pronunciation – the Samaritan expression is shown to be a barbarism.
  Many years ago I was in correspondence with a Semitic scholar working on the formative history of the divine name. His conclusions were that the best evidence points to the vocalisation of the Tetragram as something very close to YeHoWaH. When I asked him what his colleagues thought of his work, his response was a real eye-opener... He said that within his department and field most scholars agreed with his research, but they did not want to promote it publicly for fear of being associated with, or in support of, the Jehovah’s Witness movement.

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2015-06-04 21:09:06

  Hi Peter
  It seems you copy pasted an entry from this blogpost: http://www.sabbathreformation.com/article-the-pronunciation-of-the-name-by-nehemia-gordon-99715544.html
  Are you it's author?
  I do have a few objections against what they claim. They use typical straw man arguments.
  One example is this:
  "The second problem with the claim that YHVH has the vowels of Adonai is quite simply that it does not! The vowels of Adonai אֲדׁנָי are A-O-A (hataf patach - cholam - kamats). In contrast, the name YHVH is written יְהוָה with the vowels e---A (sheva - no vowel - kamats). Now in every other instance of Qere-Ketiv, the Ketiv, written in the body of Scripture, has precisely the vowels of the Qere, while the Qere itself is written without vowels in the margin of the biblical manuscript. But the vowels of YHVH are clearly different from the vowels of Adonai! YHVH is written YeHVaH יְהוָה but with the vowels of Adonai it should have been Yahovah יֲהוָֹה!
  How is it that the scholarly consensus missed this factual evidence?"
  (source above)
  Does the scholarly consensus claim that YHVH has the vowels of Adonai?
  The scholarly consensus on the topic is not that at all. To quote one scholar, Carl Raschke:
  "The original pronunciation of YHVH is now unknown...The combination in the Hebrew bible of the consonants - yod, hey, vav, hey and the vocalization of Adonai resulted in the pronunciation of YHVH as Jehovah."
  (source: "http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8265-8_769#page-1")
  Notice how the scholar doesn't say that the vowels for YHVH contains the same vowels as ADONAI. Yet that is exactly what the author's straw man presupposes.
  They haven't missed anything, rather the writer has misunderstood what they wrote.

  • Reply by peter on 2015-06-05 22:30:12

    Really? you think this guy is a consensus scholar? Carl A. Raschke is the Chair and Professor of Religious Studies Department at the University of Denver, specializing in continental philosophy, the philosophy of religion and the theory of religion.. I don't think having a degree in philosophy and theory of religion makes him a true consensus scholar of biblical Hebrew, much less he may have any true understanding of the linguistic and textual issues. The evidence is on the Hebrew manuscripts themselves, and what makes it even more propelling is that the main two Manuscripts the aleppo codex which was copied by karaite scribes and the Leningrad Codex (or Codex Leningradensis) which is the oldest complete manuscript was done by rabbinate scribes two different Jewish traditions the scribes both of them, vocalize the name the same as YEHO'VAH. other Hebrew Manuscripts also like The Codex Cairensis which is called Cairo Codex of the Prophets, also have the vocalization recorded as YEHO'VAH. so I hate to say it the name is there for all to see...the problem is like i said people choose to follow false information. here is a qoute as an example from From Wikipedia...Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).[5][6] The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh, however there is disagreement. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). again this information is false and very misleading, but this is what is popular around the world.

    • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2015-06-08 12:17:56

      Peter
      You made the claim that scholars say that YHVH has the vowels of adonai.
      Produce me a couple of consensus scholars which fit the requirements you deem worthy who claim this. The burden of proof is at your end there.
      Also, your argument from authority against Carl Raschke is a logical fallacy again.
      http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
      Can I ask where his argument fall short in your opinion?

• Reply by kev on 2015-06-05 01:44:13

  thanks peter . i have read things like that about the name yahweh as well., it seems to me theres so many different viewpoints on these things that its very difficult to be sure . it seems to me one of the problems we may have in translation from hebrew into other languages greek , latin, english . is that these words are translated to according to the equivalent in the said culture and language . eg petit dejeuner .small dinnner = breakfast . thats the way we see and describe things in english . . Innocent enough in most cases . However what is the equivalent of the name of the true god in pagan culture . ? How bad it would be if we were calling out the name of a pagan god believing it to be the name of the true god . . Our culture still seems to be steeped in paganism . from the days of the week the months of the year the holidays or shall we say holy days we have . . I cant say for sure , but some of these names that have been translated for us from greek . hebrew .into latin , and english sound a bit too close for comfort for me . Perhaps we may be better just addressing god just simply as Our Father who art in heaven . . just as his son ( the messiah ) said . Thats my conclusion anyway but i dont know for sure . kev

Comment by menrov on 2015-06-05 06:04:10

QSPF said: My only conclusion is that God is not as fussy as people are about this matter
And also said: If we have to be like a world-renounced religious historian or theologian to figure out how to say God’s name properly, isn’t God taking away the truth from “babes” and “giving it back” to the wise and intellectual ones?
I agree.
Only the Father knows His Name and how it should be pronounced. All us on earth an guess as for every option proposed, there seems to be another option possible as well.
If I would go sailing with people, I would make sure I know how to pronounce their names. Because in case of emergency, i.e. man overboard, I want to call the person by his / her name in order to help that person. If the person is Spanish and says his name is Juan (pronounced as "gwan") I guess it would create a problem if I would shout his name say in Dutch, which would be Jan.
Faith is what leads to eternal life. Faith in Jesus and faith in His Father.
My view is this: If one feels comfortable to address God as Jehova(h) or Yahweh or just as Lord, I cannot find a scriptural reason that this would be wrong. I guess what is wrong is to impose or mandate people to use a specific Name because they believe it is the only correct name. Nor would it be correct to use a name for God as a means to differentiate from other believers or even to create the impression that they are better because they named God.
Thanks Alex for this good review.

• Reply by qspf on 2015-06-05 16:39:50

  Speaking of needing our spelling mistakes corrected, I wrote "world-renounced" instead of "world-renowned". oops...
  Ah, to have the ability to post-edit our posts ...

Comment by john amos on 2015-06-05 16:55:55

Quote- The truth of this matter is that God’s name does not occur in the New Testament at all. Not even once! So it could not have been removed. – end quote
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
[In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Adonai
Septuagint and other Greek translations
[The oldest complete Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) versions, from around the 2nd century CE, consistently use Κυριος ("Lord"),[65] or Θεος ("God"),[66][67]where the Hebrew has YHWH, corresponding to substituting Adonay for YHWH in reading the original.The use of Κυριος for translating YHWH was not common in LXX mss before that time.[68] In books written in Greek in this period (e.g., Wisdom, 2 and 3 Maccabees), as in the New Testament, Κυριοςtakes the place of the name of God. However, the oldest fragments had the tetragrammaton in Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew characters,[69] with the exception of P. Ryl. 458 (perhaps the oldest extant Septuagint manuscript) where there are blank spaces, leading some scholars such as C. H. Roberts to believe that it contained letters.[70] According to Paul E. Kahle, the tetragrammaton must have been written in the manuscript where these breaks or blank spaces appear.[71] ]
Quote - Then a most revealing statement is made by the Governing Body:
“So it wasn’t the Jewish people who removed God’s name from the Hebrew Scriptures, rather it was the Apostate Christians who took the tradition one step further and actually removed the name of God from the translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.” – (5:50 minutes into the program) – end quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Adonai
[Sidney Jellicoe concluded that "Kahle is right in holding that LXX [Septuagint] texts, written by Jews for Jews, retained the Divine Name in Hebrew Letters (palaeo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek-letters imitative form ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κύριος was a Christian innovation".[79] Jellicoe draws together evidence from a great many scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C. H. Roberts) and various segments of the Septuagint to draw the conclusions that the absence of "Adonai" from the text suggests that the insertion of the term Kyrios was a later practice; in the SeptuagintKyrios is used to substitute YHWH; and the tetragrammaton appeared in the original text, but Christian copyists removed it.]

Comment by john amos on 2015-06-05 17:33:40

Yehoshafat - Jehovah Is Judge
Jehoshaphat -Jehovah Is Judge
Yehoram - Jehovah Is Exalted
Jehoram - Jehovah Is Exalted
Yehoshua - Jehovah Is Salvation
Jehoshua - Jehovah Is Salvation
In Yeho/Jeho you find vowels e and o.
Isaiah - Salvation of Jehovah
Jeremiah - Jehovah Exalts
Zephaniah - Jehovah Has Concealed
Obadiah - Servant of Jehovah
In iah you find vowel a. (In Hebrew the I’s were Y’s so shouldn’t be used as a vowel here. The main point is that Yeho/Jeho and yah/iah are the parts in these names that represent God’s name and the rest represents the said meaning.)
JHVH + vowels E O A = Jehovah
YHWH + vowels E O A = Yehowah
YHVH + vowels E O A = Yehovah
JHWH + vowels E O A = Jehowah
Jesus said that he came in the name of his father and because Yehoshua is said to mean ‘Jehovah is salvation’ (as well as the other Hebrew names said meanings) then you should expect that God’s name should be reflected in Jesus’ and in other Hebrew names and vice versa.

Comment by Katrina on 2015-06-06 03:19:39

Faithful prophets were often outcasts.
God’s prophets—faithful individuals—often found themselves outcasts, reproved and disfellowshipped by the governmental and priestly organizations.
Jeremiah, for example, was accused of disloyalty when he urged fellow Jews to leave the ‘organization’ of his day, telling them “that everyone remaining in Jerusalem would die…but anyone surrendering to the Babylonians would live”.(Jer. 38:2 LB)
Those loyal to the organization viewed Jeremiah as an apostate rebel and turned a deaf ear to his advice. Rather than join with the Babylonians as God commanded, they felt safer staying within Jerusalem, the headquarters of Jehovah’s organization where His king and His high priest were. But the prophet told them,“Do not put trust in lying phrases,‘Jehovah’s temple, Jehovah’s temple, Jehovah’s temple they are.’”(Jer. 7:4 Byington)
The fulfillment of Jeremiah’s words proved that there are times when men must chose between loyalty to an organization and loyalty to God Himself. That unfaithful organization was dissolved when the Jews were carried captive to Babylon. Hundreds of years later, when Jesus Christ came to earth, worshipers of Jehovah were found to have re-assembled an organization centering on the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. But Jesus applied to them Isaiah’s words,“These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”(Matthew 15:8-9 NIV)
The leaders of God’s organized people “decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue”—i.e., disfellowshipped.(John 9:22 NIV)
As soon as the followers of Messiah had formed their own congregations, there appeared “weeds among the wheat”– a condition Jesus said would continue until “the end”.(Matt. 13:25,40 NIV) Already in John’s day some congregations were in the hands of men like Diotrephes:“he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.”(3 John 10 NIV)
So, while God has always had faithful individuals on earth, the organizations claiming to represent Him have often failed to live up to their names. In fact, such self-serving power structures have often become the persecutors of individuals faithful to God.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-06-06 09:35:59

  Thanks, Katrina. A good review of the history of Jehovah's dealings with faithless organizations purporting to honor his name. I've often heard the comeback from conflicted brothers and sisters not wanting to abandon the crutch which is their belief that the JW organization is Jehovah's one true people, that Jehovah will fix it in his own time, or we have to wait on Jehovah to fix the organization. The fact is that all Christian churches are his organization and as with Israel, he tries to fix them by sending his prophets. However, when they fail to listen to them, when the persecute and kill them, when they fail to apply the counsel and fix themselves, he doesn't step in and force the fix on them. Instead, he destroys them.

Comment by BN on 2015-06-06 06:15:31

Thank you Katrina.
I see it like this too. The 'woman' in Rev 12:6, 14, 17 is fed outside, in the wilderness. So I am absolutely convinced that Jesus now is harvesting, calling on / out faithfull ones!
The last two years has been like a roller coast in revelations. It's like reading an entire new bible, and my journey has always been about the scriptures..
My eyes are finally wide opened!

• Reply by on 2015-06-06 08:18:45

  yes thanks as well katrina i also see things like that as well , i think it could well be true of all organised religion . a consistant pattern seems to be in place right through the ages . kwv

Comment by john amos on 2015-06-06 08:27:11

I am wondering why my Yeho/yah reply has not gone through yet, but anyway while reading Kat’s and BN’s reply it made me think of the new brochure Tony Morris was speaking about, ‘Return to Jehovah’. In his presentation of it he cites Ezekiel 34:11, but what I thought was note worthy is when reading Ezekiel 34 1-16 we see why it is in verse 11 that Jehovah must search for his sheep, we see who caused the sheep to become lost, dispersed, scattered, sickened, ailing and broken.

Comment by Wild Olive on 2015-06-06 09:13:04

I have a few Jewish friends who I speak to occasionally, their consensus on the divine name is that it should have 4 syllables and not just include the vowels.
The other problem for me personally is that the name Jehovah doesn't have a Jewish origin, it's Latin as has been pointed out in the previous comments .
Of course if you accept the premise that Jehovah has used other religions then the Latin transliteration is no big deal,but you won't read that in a watchtower will you?

• Reply by john amos on 2015-06-06 10:09:56

  Jehovah does have a Jewish origin it is Yehowah. What origin to you think you are using when you use the name Jesus?
  Hebrew - Yehoshua > Greek – Iesous > Latin - Iesus > English – Jesus

  • Reply by Wild Olive on 2015-06-06 22:28:45

    That's the whole point,the word you describe only has 3 syllables,a true Hebrew rendering would have 4,you deceive yourself, if what you say is true it would have been published by now and would be openly acknowledged as correct,I suggest you contact the writing dept at bethel and tell them, they would be on to it like a seagull on a potato chip.

    • Reply by john amos on 2015-06-07 00:38:09

      I don’t know in what way you say that I am deceiving myself but feel free to scroll through these names and tell me if you come across any that are not 4 syllables and if so then does that mean it is not a true Jewish name???
      http://www.behindthename.com/names/usage/hebrew

    • Reply by Vox Ratio on 2015-06-07 05:59:10

      Hi Wild Olive,
      I have found your experiences very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
      The question about there being four vowels in the divine name can be better understood in light of Joshephus' testimony. Although in his antiquities he refused to reveal God's name, he did state that it contained four vowels when he wrote about the Jewish war. In this work he described the relief inscription on the crown of the high priest as having four vowels (cf. The Jewish War v:235).
      However, just as we know today, Josephus also knew that there were no vowels in Biblical Hebrew. What he was referring to was the fact that the consonants, Y H W, may serve as vowels when using them as “matres lectionis” (mothers of reading). When serving as a vowel, Y made the sound I and E, W the sound O and U, and a terminal H made the sound A (H was apparently not read as a vowel in the middle of a word, but could be vocalised as a simple “e” when between two vowels).
      I would like to point out that the best attested and least controversial pronunciation of the divine name has been hidden in plain sight all along, and it is one that is astonishing in its simplicity. When we examine theophoric names, that is to say names containing part of the divine name, we can verify – without exception – that when a name begins with YHW it is vocalised as Yeho, and when it ends with YHW it is vocalised as Yahu. Since the consonant H when terminating a word was almost always pronounced as an “a” in Biblical Hebrew, a theophoric derived vocalisation of God's name would be Yeho-a.
      God has at no time and in no place allowed the Devil's real name to be made known, despite the names of pagan deities being mentioned in Scripture. It is my opinion, and yes this is merely an opinion, that the Devil has attempted to systematically enact revenge against God by both hiding his name and confusing his identity (if YOU will not allow anyone to know MY name, then neither will I allow anyone to know YOURS!!).

Comment by Katrina on 2015-06-06 10:17:23

Ezek 34:15-31
15 'I’ll graze My sheep and give them rest, says Jehovah the Lord.
16 I’ll search for those who are wandering and lost, and I’ll return all those that are broken; I will bind and strengthen those that are weak; I’ll guard the strong and graze them in fairness.
17 And from among you, My sheep, says Jehovah the Lord, {Look!} I’ll separate sheep from the sheep among you, and the rams from the goats.
18 ‘Weren’t the pastures you fed on enough, that you trampled on them with your feet; or enough places where you drank the water, that you muddied them with your feet?
19 For, My sheep have trampled their food with their feet, and muddied the waters they drank from.
20 Because of this, says Jehovah the Lord, {Look!} I’ll separate the strong from the weak.
21 For, you pushed them away with your shoulders and sides, and the weak you gored with your horns… you squeezed them out and pushed them aside!
22 So, I will rescue My sheep, and no more will they serve as [your] plunder, for I will judge between ram and ram.
23 ‘I will raise a shepherd for them, and he (David, My servant) will tend them… he’ll care and be a shepherd for them;
24 I Jehovah will be their God, and My servant David will rule in their midst… for I Jehovah have spoken.
25 Then I’ll make an Agreement of peace among them, and wipe the fierce beasts from their land. For, they will dwell in the deserts, and in the forests they’ll sleep.
26 ‘Then around My [Holy] Mountain they will be scattered, and I’ll give them rain when it’s due… and it will be a rain of great blessings.
27 The trees in the plains will then yield their fruit; the ground will yield all her strength; and in the hope of peace they’ll dwell on their land.
‘Then they will know that I am Jehovah, when I break the chains of their yoke, and save them out of the hands, of those who are making them slaves.
28 No more will they be the plunder of nations, or be eaten by wild beasts. In hope, they will then dwell, and no one will make them afraid anymore.
29 ‘I’ll raise for them plants of peace, and they won’t hunger or starve anymore, nor will they bear the scorn of the nations.
30 Then they’ll know that I am Jehovah their God, and they’ll know that I will be with them. For you are My people, O house of Israel, says Jehovah the Lord.
31 You men are the sheep of my pasture, and I am Jehovah your God, says the Jehovah the Lord.’

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2015-06-08 12:29:20

This is a good resource for the above discussion. I recommend reading it to get a good scholarly analysis of the topic.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k9JEAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=YHWH+pronunciation&ots=WPKnDF3omf&sig=tGr5Mx5Ym0rv4b_V54WncDJWFrY#v=onepage&q=YHWH%20pronunciation&f=false

Comment by truthseeker on 2015-06-09 02:11:43

There is no J sound in Hebrew, so Jehovah is probably not correct, in Hebrew. Many names change somewhat when translated. Personally I still like to use the name Jehovah because it is the name I first learned when I first came to know the heavenly Father as a someone, rather than as a something. It has become a name I love, just as I love the Father. I can't say I know what he thinks, but I've prayed about this and I feel as if he understands my personal intentions in continuing to use it. I think the God of love is more interested in what is in our hearts than he is in the precise pronunciation of his personal name. I can't prove it, of course, so rather than just assume I think correctly I've prayed about it with pleas for correction, if that's his desire. As someone said above, if it was really important to him he could have made his correct name known to us. Kudos to all the fine scholarship above, much of which is beyond me.

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2015-06-09 11:10:32

  Truthseeker, read the book I linked above. It actually argues that the original pronunciation was lost and that there is much debate, but no conclusive answer to how it's supposed to be pronounced (though advocates from either side would want to do so).
  What's interesting is that the scholar makes a survey of how the name was supposedly pronounced over different time periods. There is no doubt that the Devine name was pronounced differently by different groups of people over history. At one point for instance Jah-Jah/Jeh-Jeh was used.
  While linguistically ultimately there was one true pronunciation, factually peoples have pronounced it differently, so there is nothing bad in calling onto him as Jehovah.

Comment by Wild Olive on 2015-06-09 05:41:40

I should make it clear that Ime no hater of Jehovah , but I use that name in the recognition that at best it's a representation of a name, not a real name, just as Jesus is also.

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-06-09 11:40:16

One thing that is apparent from this month's broadcast is that for Jehovah's Witnesses, what counts is using the name. It seems that if we can help people understand that God has a name, we've done our job and can move on. It is a very superficial view. The focus on the name rather than what it represents comes too close to elevating it to the level of sacred talisman, a thought reinforced by the often-misapplied JW pet text of Pr. 18:10.
On the other side of the coin are those who obsess about getting the correct pronunciation of the name as if mispronouncing it might bring reproach upon God or themselves. I am not being critical of the many fine comments above which have been very illuminating. I don't think any of you are obsessing, but there are those who do, to the point of arguing against the use of the divine name because we don't know its precise original pronunciation.
We must remember that a name is nothing. A name, or any word for that matter, is just a symbol. Sounds that leave the mouth and are lost in the wind. Spoken, it is vibrations in the air that when heard by an understanding brain, translates into an image or representation of something real. Written, it is marks on a pages. Again, a meaningless symbol without a brain to translate it into something real.
I remember when I first learned Spanish as a young man, I was curious about Spanish curse words. I found out something remarkable to me at the time. Learning a word as offensive in Spanish as the F-word is in English, I felt no compunction about using it. I didn't because I knew it would be wrong, but that was an intellectual, not an emotional one. The word had no meaning for me, no emotional subtext. We were on a bus at the time and if I'd stood up and shouted the word, I would have felt no different than I would have staying to everyone, "Have a nice day".
Whatever pronunciation we use, what counts is that the name saves its purpose as a symbol of what it represents. If the listener and speaker both agree that when they hear that sound or read that spelling, they perceive the same reality, feel the same emotion, then the name has served its purpose. There is no magic in the pronunciation. The magic is in the meaning.

Comment by Spike on 2016-01-01 00:47:40

In his statements under oath, during the Australian Royal Commision's inquiry into child sexual abuse within religious organizations, Geoffrey Jackson stated that it would be presumptuous to say that the Governing Body is God's sole channel on Earth.
Just let that sink in for a moment....
For the Bible itself to have any validity, God must have used the Early Church Father's ( false religion/apostates ) to choose the Bible Canon. I suppose that God also used a Catholic monk to restore the divine name! LOL!
Poor Governing Body..... you can't have it both ways. LOL!!

Comment by Arpit Rana on 2018-08-25 15:12:44

wow nice post

Comment by Researcher on 2018-12-01 07:05:39

How does one explain the verse that says "[...] who calls on the NAME of [the Lord, God, Jehovah] will be saved." ?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-12-16 09:56:56

  Let's start by asking, How does one call on the name of Jehovah. Peter tells us:
  let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, whom you executed on a stake but whom God raised up from the dead, by means of him this man stands here healthy in front of you. 11 This is ‘the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”
  Is the Bible giving us a mixed message? Hardly.
  11 “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.
  Twice Jesus tells us that the Father had given his divine name to Jesus, so calling on Jesus' name is calling on Jehovah's name, because Jesus is the doorway to the Father.