logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Yada  
#1 Posted : Friday, February 8, 2008 6:14:26 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

This past week, I sat down with the Pastor of a local non-denominational Protestant church to discuss the possibility of starting a "Torah for Christians" class. The discussion very quickly expanded and lasted almost 3 hours. The primary topics were various alleged "corruptions" within the Christianity and the validity of the scholarship of Yada Yahweh.

After my initial response to the Pastor and, in turn, his to me - I forwarded the exchange to Yada for his comments. I have tried to piece together the several e-mail exchanges that Yada and I exchanged below. Hopefully, Pastor 'D' will also respond here on the thread.

Quote:
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Yada'
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:21 PM
To: 'D'
Subject: References and Sources


Hello Pastor 'D,'

Just to follow-up on our earlier conversation and the question you posed to me - the following extract is taken from the prologue to "Yada Yahweh:"

"At their best, translations are a compromise between attempts at word-for-word literalism and loose thought-for-thought interpolations. Either way, much of the intended message is lost or misrepresented for the sake of readability, brevity, or familiarity. So we will dig for truth the hard way. We’re going to work for it. The key words in most passages will be amplified from the original languages. Amplification is a process whereby many words are used to properly convey the full meaning and nuances of the original term as it was known and used in its time, context, and culture. If a Hebrew or Greek word requires a paragraph to adequately communicate its meaning, as histemi does for example, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings. In other words, we are going to scratch well below the surface. This will require you to read most Scripture passages several times to fully appreciate what Yahweh is saying. To understand God’s perspective, you are going to have to want to know it.
Therefore, we will not rely upon the KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, or any other popular Scriptural rendition. All English translations vary from poor to horrible. There isn’t any worth recommending.

The reason they are all errant and inadequate is that they all come from the same polluted well and familiarity sells. The Textus Receptus serves as the foundation of all English translations of the Renewed Covenant and yet it was an intellectual fraud and financial hoax. In October of 1515 CE a Dutch secular humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, and Johann Froben, a publisher of low repute, took five months to mark up, adding and taking away from, a highly flawed 12th century Medieval Greek manuscript and set type directly from those arbitrary scribbles. Then in the places where they didn’t have possession of a Greek text, they filled in the blanks by translating the Latin Vulgate. Worse, when Roman Catholics protested that some of their pet passages weren’t included, Erasmus and Froben added them without any Scriptural basis to quiet their critics.

In the absence of a viable competitor, the highly errant rendering was said to be “a text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted.” Rubbish was thus rendered “the Textus Receptus.” And from this trash, the King James was printed in 1609 CE for purely political reasons. The KJV in turn became so popular, no English translation has yet been offered which dares to correct its familiar phrasing.

It wasn’t until 1707 that the Textus Receptus was challenged—effectively undermining the basis of the Reformation and Protestantism. John Mill, a fellow of Queens College in Oxford, invested 30 years comparing the Textus Receptus to some one hundred Greek manuscripts in his possession. In so doing, he discovered and documented 30,000 variations between them. And even this was just the tip of the iceberg. Known variations between the oldest manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant, and that which serves as the basis for every English translation, exceed 300,000. While Christian pastors hold up their favorite English translation of the Bible and proclaim that it is “the inerrant word of God,” factually, the book they are touting isn’t even remotely consistent with the earliest witnesses.

This same issue exists with the “Old Covenant.” All English translations claim to be based upon the Masoretic, an 11th century vocalization of Babylonian Hebrew composed by politically and religiously minded, and very misguided, rabbis. Their copyedits of Yahweh’s Word are now legend, revealed for all to see courtesy of the 3rd century BCE Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, in the Great Isaiah Scroll in which the entire text has been preserved, we find that the oldest witness and the Masoretic differ by 14% with regard to the consonant root of the words alone. To this we must add errant vocalization which significantly alters the meaning of the words God chose.

As with the 69 first-, second-, and third-century manuscripts which have been discovered of the Renewed Covenant, translators have universally ignored what the Qumran Scrolls reveal because they are bad for business. As every good marketing person knows, profits are a function of familiarity. And truth has seldom been popular. You wouldn’t be able to get a publisher to print an accurate rendering of Scripture because, as businessmen, they recognize something this unfamiliar wouldn’t sell.

While God’s words were inspired, while most of them have been preserved and are known, translations are strictly human affairs. As such, I do not claim that my Scriptural presentations are perfect, only that they are as accurate and complete as I can render them using the oldest manuscripts and best research tools. For this purpose I have relied upon:

The Dead Seas Scrolls Bible
Enhanced Brown-Drive-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament
A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
Englishman’s Concordance
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
The Complete Word Study Guide of the Old Testament
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Morphology
Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear
Logos Scholar’s Edition Software
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
The Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition
The New American Standard Greek Dictionary
The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
The Complete Word Study Guide of the New Testament
Synonyms of the New Testament
Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament
The New International Greek Testament Commentary
Word Studies in the New Testament
The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, with McReynolds English Interlinear
Marshall’s Parallel New Testament in Greek and English
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Therefore, in Yada Yahweh, you will find an accurate and complete translation of each Hebrew and Greek word, all rendered in accordance with the definitions and synonyms provided by the world’s most distinguished linguistic scholars. I most always have a dozen or more scholastic tomes open, surrounding me on revolving Jeffersonian carousels, and another score of research tools electronically linked to the text via Logos interactive software. It’s a lot of information, so recognize that in the quest to be thorough and accurate, fluidity will suffer. Scripture will not roll off the tongue in familiar word patterns. But you will know the truth—as God revealed it.

The complete web site is at www.yadayahweh.com


The following is Pastor 'D's" response to me:

Quote:
-----Original Message-----
From: 'D'
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:07 AM
To: 'Yada'
Subject: RE: References and Sources

Dear 'Yada,'

Thank you for taking the trouble to meet with me today and for a lively discussion. As I continue to study the Word and grow in my relationship with the Lord, I will keep in mind your comments about the use of the Name YHWH and about the issue of the Sabbath. These issues have been widely discussed in the church for centuries, but they remain real issues of discussion and have never been fully resolved. These are good issues for further study. However, I feel that such study has to include an effort to understand the reasons why the church as a whole has arrived where it is today. To make blanket accusations of wrongdoing against hundreds of scholars and church leaders without knowing why they made the decisions they made is simply wrong.

As for the extract from "Yada Yahweh" that you sent, I am sorry, but it is full of inaccurate statements and lacks any credibility at all. In Missouri we would say, it is simply hogwash. The author mixes a few true statements in with a lot of nonsense and comes to the self-serving conclusion that his personal efforts to translate the Scriptures are superior to the efforts of dozens of experts from many different branches and denominations of the church. Pride and arrogance - that is what it is. Of course, it is entirely possible that he means well and that he actually believes the stuff that he is saying, so I would not want to judge him as a person or his heart, but I will say that his statements about Bible translations are hogwash. Yes, he does give a long list of resources that he says he studies, but it is easy to make a long list of references, that by itself doesn't count for much.

His whole argument starts with his assertion that,"The Textus Receptus serves as the foundation of all English translations of the Renewed Covenant ..." But this is incorrect. Newer translations do not use the Textus Receptus as their source. For example, the NIV New Testament translation is based primarily on the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament - the same Greek New Testament that he lists in his references. As for the Old Testament source documents, the NIV uses, "the Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. " as sources. Do you see that, "Biblia Hebraica" listed first? The "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia." listed in the Yada Yahweh resource list is simply the newest edition of the Biblia Hebraica.

But the Yada Yahweh author ignores the facts and states, "All English translations claim to be based upon the Masoretic, an 11th century vocalization of Babylonian Hebrew ..." Wrong! It is likely that all modern translations list the Masoretic as one of their sources, but I am not aware of any modern translation that relies on the Masoretic as a sole source. He continues and says, " As with the 69 first-, second-, and third-century manuscripts which have been discovered of the Renewed Covenant, translators have universally ignored what the Qumran Scrolls reveal because they are bad for business" Once again, this is simply wrong. The Qumran Scrolls are the same Dead Sea Scrolls that the NIV translators include in their list of source documents and they are definitely not ignored by modern translators. The, "first- second, and third-century" New Testament manuscripts are not ignored either. Far from being ignored, all such manuscripts are carefully evaluated and any useful information from them is included in updates to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. This is a continuous process because new manuscripts are found quite often, and this is why the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is now in its 27th edition.

For both the Old and New Testaments, the Yada Yahweh author is claiming to use superior source documents than other translators. But in fact, he is using a subset of the source documents the NIV translators used. Actually, if you take a closer look at his reference list, you see that his reference list is dependent on the same Bible translation teams that he slams as being, "poor to horrible."

He lists:
New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries - that is the people who did the NAS Bible.
The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament - the people who did the English Standard Version(ESV) Bible
Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear - Zondervan - that is the main NIV publisher
The New American Standard Greek Dictionary - that is the people who did the NAS Bible, again.
The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - English Standard Version (ESV) Bible people, again
The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible people.

These are examples that are obvious from the titles, but chances are a lot more of his references are also coming from the very same scholars and Bible translators that he slams as being incompetent. What does this mean? It means his translation is based on the same Greek and Hebrew sources and the same pool of translation scholarship that all modern translations are based on. So he relies on all of their resources and then claims that he is a better translator than the guys who wrote the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he is using. He stands on their shoulders for his work and then calls them incompetent. Hogwash.

He also says, "If a Hebrew or Greek word requires a paragraph to adequately communicate its meaning, as histemi does for example, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings..." Okay, but when you do that, it is called a Bible commentary, not a Bible translation. And there are lots of excellent commentaries available.

Bottom line, Yada Yahweh definitely has a gift of gab and a knack for turning out impressive-sounding phrases. But I see no signs of any actual credible scholarship. Instead, I see a sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit hundreds of excellent Greek and Hebrew scholars by slamming their Bible translations, while at the very same time relying on the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries they wrote for his own translation attempt.

That is my opinion. What do you think?

In Jesus' love,

'D'


Below is Yada's response to the e-mail I forwarded him:

Quote:
'Yada,'

I read the few to paragraphs of this and had more than my fill. This guy represents the established church position. He is convinced what he was taught is right, and that’s all he can handle. The first paragraph is more than sufficient to understand where he is coming form. Contrary to his position, it doesn’t matter how or why the church went wrong with regard to the Sabbath or Yahweh’s name, only that the issue is fully resolved in favor of God and in conflict with religion.

Fundamentalist Christian pastors are all taught, and all proclaim, their Bible is the inerrant word of God because it’s good for business. The history of translations, and the basis of them, isn’t something they study, or are comfortable dealing with. They can’t even deal with the fact that it is impossible for Jesus to be the Savior’s name.

There is no significant difference between the TR and the NAGNT, and despite what some translations claim, there is no evidence with any of them that they actually made ANY changes based upon the 70 pre-Constantine RC MSS or the DSS. They make the claim because it adds to their credibility, but that’s the end of it. As for the OC, the Masoretic still provides the overwhelming preponderance of the textual basis of today’s translations. This fellow would do well to read a half dozen books on the history of translations and the errors inherent in the most relied upon MSS.

Yada


I responded to Yada, quoting from pastor 'D's' email (my text appears in black type, pastor 'D's' in green, with Yada's responses in red. I inserted the closing paragraph of Yada's response here from another short e-mail in the interest of readability):

Quote:
From: Yada
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:53 AM
To: 'Yada'
Subject: "Pretending to be Paul"

Hello Yada - thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Yes, when we talked about the origins of the name "Jesus," I actually quoted directly from YY about how it was changed in 1629. He was obviously uncomfortable with this and just said something to the effect, "it doesn't really matter because of what the word (name) means NOW!"

This is the kind of justification and lack of judgment and reason which permeates the minds of those who continue to promote the pagan aspects of Christianity. His entire letter to you demonstrated a reluctance to deal with evidence contrary to his religion. And like all religious clerics, he relies upon half truths. This is how counterfeits are built and are sold.

Obviously, I think this is, to borrow the word he chose, "hogwash,"but there is one portion of his response and the claim that he made that I'd like to understand better. Your e-mail response does address it, but hoping to get a more detailed direct response to the specific assertion he made: "he is using a subset of the source documents the NIV translators used." What does this mean? It means his translation is based on the same Greek and Hebrew sources and the same pool of translation scholarship that all modern translations are based on. So he relies on all of their resources and then claims that he is a better translator than the guys who wrote the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he is using. He stands on their shoulders for his work and then calls them incompetent."

I answered this question. Like all current English translations, the NIV claims something which isn’t actually true—not at least in any meaningful way. They do so because it enhances sales. But when you read the NIV you’ll notice that other than modernizing the English, there are very few if any substantive changes based upon older manuscript evidence or based upon more accurate renderings of the words. Not once, for example, do they deal with the fact that the seven most used names and titles aren’t written out in any of the pre-Constantine MSS. If you are going to claim that you relied upon these texts, then you have to convey what they convey to be truthful. They don’t.

The second part of this is addressed in the book. I don’t claim to be a better translator, only that I provide a more comprehensive and complete rendering of each word. Doing so is amplification, not a commentary as this fellow alleges. Then I provide the Greek or Hebrew basis for each word so that you can look it up for yourself.

There are many Hebrew and Greek lexicons, interlinears, and old manuscripts, and I use scores of them. So, it is true, and I readily admit that I am able to do this because of what they have done. That’s why I list them and credit them, encouraging others to buy them and use them. But here’s the rub: since familiar sells, following in the footsteps of the KJV, most all popular English translations choose the same English word to represent the Greek or Hebrew, even if it is inconsistent with Yahweh’s message, and even if other choices are consistent.

If you want to understand why the amplified translations I use are different that the group think of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV, you’ll need to buy and read a half dozen books on the history of bible translations. And then to see for yourself how much of what they say is wrong, and to learn for yourself why what I’ve presented is usually more accurate, you’ll have to follow my advice: buy and use the same tools.

This is what the pastor is missing. There is no scholarly dispute, by way of example, that the basis of cross isn’t in any of the Greek manuscripts, or that the Greek word errantly changed to cross, actually means “upright pole.” There is no scholarly dispute that ekklesia means “called out,” not church. So, since every modern translation says otherwise, you have to deal with the issue this man doesn’t want to address. Why is there so much consistency in error when the evidence is universally inconsistent with the universal choices? When you know this answer, you’ll understand the justifications for Sunday worship, Christmas and Easter.

Lexicons and dictionaries bear the names of the most popular translations or publishers because it gets them distributed and sold, nothing more. But, here is what the pastor is missing. When you look up most words in these tools you will quickly see that they differ from the translations which bear their name. That’s the problem.


Quoting from his e-mail:

For both the Old and New Testaments, the Yada Yahweh author is claiming to use superior source documents than other translators. But in fact, he is using a subset of the source documents the NIV translators used. Actually, if you take a closer look at his reference list, you see that his reference list is dependent on the same Bible translation teams that he slams as being, "poor to horrible."

He lists: New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries - that is the people who did the NAS Bible.
The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament - the people who did the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible
Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear - Zondervan - that is the main NIV publisher
The New American Standard Greek Dictionary - that is the people who did the NAS Bible, again.
The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - English Standard Version (ESV) Bible people, again
The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible people.

These are examples that are obvious from the titles, but chances are a lot more of his references are also coming from the very same scholars and Bible translators that he slams as being incompetent. What does this mean? It means his translation is based on the same Greek and Hebrew sources and the same pool of translation scholarship that all modern translations are based on. So he relies on all of their resources and then claims that he is a better translator than the guys who wrote the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he is using. He stands on their shoulders for his work and then calls them incompetent. Hogwash.

I am sure that there are others out there who have had or will have the same conversation with those representing "the established church." I plan to start a thread under "Translations & Resources" but wanted to include your input.

The reason I provide the Greek and Hebrew words and the full list of sources, is so that you can look them up for yourself. I don’t claim to have everything right, but I claim that Yahweh does and that far too often, most translators don’t. All I have done is to provide a more complete and accurate rendering of each word based on the best tools and then have brought things together so that the big picture is in perspective and is better focused. When this is done, the pagan corruptions of Christianity and those who promote it and profit from it, are exposed.

Thanks Yada.
-Yada
(By the way, at one point during our conversation, he accussed me of trying to act like Paul - to which I replied, "there are two of us sitting at this table, but only one of us has pinned a religious title to themselves." There was dead silence.)

Since he couldn’t refute your position, he attacked you. But, there is no shame in “trying to act like Paul.”

The reason people like this pastor can get way with dubious arguments is that they are usually presented to an uninformed audience. For example, very few people know that the lexicons published by the bible translation corporations define a high percentage of the words found in Scripture differently in their dictionaries than they do in their translations. So it’s not an issue of knowing what the correct definition of a word is, but instead, choosing to use it. And thus the conflict isn’t between me and the scholars who composed the lexicons, but instead between the lexicons and the translations.

Yada


Yada then followed-up with:

Quote:
'Yada'

When you talk to the pastor, focus on two things. First, ask him how it is possible for the definitions found in the Hebrew and Greek lexicons published by his favorite bible versions to differ so substantially from the words selected in these same translations? Doesn’t that imply that the linguistic scholars were errant in one of the two places? And since it does, especially with words like church, holy, cross, and gospel, which one is right?

Second, since none of the 70 pre-Constantine MSS write out Yahweh’s names and titles, why isn’t this reflected in the translations which claim to be based upon them? Since the DSS has Yahweh’s name 7000, how can the NIV honestly say that it relied upon the DSS since it doesn’t include it a single time? And since the NIV, NASB, and NKJV didn’t alter their text to reflect many of the differences between the Masoretic and the DSS, isn’t is disingenuous to infer reliance on older sources?

Third, say my amplified translations which were based entirely upon the most respected linguistic sources were errant, would that not mean that the most respected linguistic sources are unreliable? And if that is the case, how can the most respected translations be accurate?

Fourth, if my amplified translations were inaccurate, how does that effect the realization that pastors preach Lord instead of Yahweh, Jesus as a replacement for Yahushua, Christ, not Messiyah or Anointed Implement of Yah, Holy and Saint rather than Set-Apart, Church rather than Called Out, Cross instead of Upright Pole, a call to Sunday worship rather than reflecting on the Sabbath, celebrating Easter Sunday instead of answering Yahweh’s call to observe Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, why Pentecost, not Sevens, and Christmas rather than Reconciliations and Tabernacles? Who gave man the authority to contradict God?

Yada


Finally, this is an excerpt from an e-mail I just received from Yada. I have underlined the portion that I think is central:

Quote:
'Yada,'

It’s possible, and even likely, that I have erred with some of the amplified translations. And I don’t have access to any original autographs. So, all I can claim is that my translations are as accurate as the oldest MSS and best lexicons allow. But thankfully, Yah’s revelation is presented so many different ways, all of which are consistent, it’s pretty easy to know who He is and what He wants when you make the effort. And as you have said, all you have to do is read His words and you know that the Scriptures are inspired. The story God has presented is far too magnificent and majestic to be human.

Yada






Edited by user Monday, February 11, 2008 12:17:37 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline FF  
#2 Posted : Friday, February 8, 2008 9:19:07 PM(UTC)
FF
Joined: 6/7/2007(UTC)
Posts: 150
Man
Location: The Other Washington

Yada,

This excerpt from NIV's The Making of a Contemporary Translation supports Yada’s statements about English Translations being a compromise. Also in the Preface to my Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible New International Version the committee on Bible Translations state "In regard to the divine name YHWH, [3378] commonly referred to as the TETRAGRAMMATON, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering the name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai" Another quote "Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead." They also state "Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself." What more evidence do we need than the translators themselves stating they only consulted earlier text?

Whitewash is something like Hogwash.

FF

the link to this information is http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/9.php

The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
CHAPTER 9: YHWH Sabaoth: “The Lord Almighty”
Kenneth L. Barker

The translators of the NIV faced two major problems with respect to the Hebrew phrase YHWH sebā’ôth (Sabaoth): (1) how to render YHWH when standing alone, (2) how to translate the words when combined. These problems will be dealt with separately.

YHWH1

There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh.2 Probably the name means literally “He is.” Some argue, somewhat philosophically or metaphysically, that it presents God as the eternal self-existent One—the absolute, unchanging God (the eternal I AM—Exod. 3:13–15; cf. John 8:58). To them the name connotes the underived and independent existence of God.

Others correctly maintain that such an understanding does not go far enough. They point out that in the Old Testament Yahweh is used as the personal, covenant name of God, and that name is a perpetual testimony to his faithfulness to his promises. Thus in usage it conveys the thought that God is present to save, help, deliver, redeem, bless, and keep covenant. In other words, God’s active existence and presence are primarily in view, not his mere state of being or passive presence. He is the God who personally reveals himself in authoritative word and mighty act.

God himself identifies his name as Yahweh in Exodus 3:15; 6:3. Strictly speaking, all other “names” are either generic terms (e.g., Elohîm, “God”) or apellative titles or epithets (e.g., Adonai, “Lord”). But it is not sufficient to stop with the statement that Yahweh is his name, for the word “name” itself possesses far-reaching implications in Semitic usage. When God speaks of his “name” as Yahweh, he means that Yahweh is his self-disclosure—his revealed character, nature, essence, or being.

In the Hebrew Bible the Jews wrote the consonants of the Tetragrammaton as YHWH, but out of reverence for the sacred name of God (or out of fear of violating Exod. 20:7; Lev. 24:16), they vocalized and pronounced it as Adonai or occasionally as Elohim. It is unfortunate, then, that the name was transliterated into German and ultimately into English as Jehovah (which is the way the name is represented in the American Standard Version of 1901), for this conflate form represents the vowels of Adonai superimposed on the consonants of Yahweh, and it was never intended by the Jews to be read as Yehowah (or Jehovah).

The meaning assigned to Yahweh above (literally “He is”) reflects an understanding of the name as an earlier form of the Qal imperfect of the Hebrew verb hāyāh, sometimes written hāwāh (the actual original root was hwy). However the form has also been analyzed3 as the Hiphil imperfect of the same verb, meaning “He (who) causes to be,” i.e., “He (who) creates” or “He (who) brings into existence.” Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”) may be of some assistance in deciding between these two views. In my opinion this verse is a divine commentary on—or exposition of—the meaning of the name Yahweh (v.15). If this is true, it obviously favors the former view, for when God speaks of himself, he says, “I AM,” and when we speak of him, we say, “He is.”4

A problem has been imagined in Exodus 6:3 because of the words “by my name the Lord [Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them [i.e., the patriarchs].” Yet there are several references to Yahweh in the patriarchal narratives and earlier (e.g., Gen. 2:4; 4:26; 13:4; 15:7) and in names like Jochebed (Exod. 6:20), apparently meaning “The Lord [Yahweh] is glory.” Kidner points the way to one solution: “In Ex 3:14 the divine exposition, ‘I am … ’ introduces and illuminates the name given in 3:15, and this remains the context for 6:3 as well.… The name, in short, was first known, in any full sense of the word, at its first expounding.”5

Another approach is to let the emphasis fall on the personal, intimate, experiential sense in which the Hebrew verb for “know” is often used (see, e.g., in Exod. 6:7; 7:17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 8, 12; 18:11). (The point being made here is valid whether the verb is to be translated “I did not make myself known” or “I was not known.”) In effect God would be saying: “By my name Yawheh I was not intimately and experientially known to the patriarchs. Their experience of me was largely as El Shaddai (‘God Almighty’). But now, beginning with the Exodus and deliverance from Egypt, I am about to reveal myself fully and personally in the experience of my covenant people Israel in that aspect of my character signified by Yahweh, i.e., as the God who is ever present with his people to help and redeem them and to keep covenant with them.”6 This view seems to be supported by Exodus 6:4–8. In particular, the verbs in Exodus 6:6—“bring out,” “free,” “redeem”—stress the true significance of the name Yahweh, who is the Redeemer of his people.7

Exodus 6:3, then,

does not necessarily mean that the patriarchs were totally ignorant of the name Yahweh (“the Lord”) but it indicates that they did not understand its full implications as the name of the One who would redeem his people.… That fact could be comprehended only by the Israelites who were to experience the exodus, and by their descendants.8

Although Motyer’s interpretation of Exodus 6:3 is somewhat different, his conclusion is similar:

The place of the verse in the scheme of revelation, as we see it, is this: not that now for the first time the name as a sound is declared, but that now for the first time the essential significance of the name is to be made known. The patriarchs called God Yahweh, but knew Him as El Shaddai; their descendants will both call him and know him by His name Yahweh. This is certainly the burden of Exodus vi. 6ff.9

To understand how “Lord” came to be used as a translation of YHWH (Yahweh), we must give some attention to the Greek word kyrios. The latter is properly a Greek adjective meaning “having power or authority”; used as a noun, it means “lord, sovereign, master, owner.” This is the standard word for “Lord” in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) and in the New Testament. Essentially it was the semantic equivalent of the Hebrew Adonai (and to some extent also of the Hebrew ba ‘al) and was used in the Septuagint to translate Yahweh because the rabbis read Adonai in place of the personal, divine name. (New Testament writers applied kyrios to Jesus as a divine title.) English Bible translators have traditionally followed the convention of rendering YHWH (Yahweh) as “Lord” in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, for which small letters are used (“Lord”). The NIV translators adopted the same device.

Finally it is instructive to observe that an abbreviated form of Yahweh is preserved in the Hebrew name Joshua and in the Greek name Jesus, both meaning “The Lord [Yahweh] saves.”

YHWH Sabaoth

Another problem faced by the NIV translators was how to render the title “Sabaoth” when applied to Yahweh (“the Lord”).

The Preface to the NIV explains:

Because for most readers today the phrases “the Lord of hosts” and “God of hosts” have little meaning, this version renders them “the Lord Almighty” and “God Almighty.” These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, “he who is sovereign over all the ‘hosts’ (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the ‘hosts’ (armies) of Israel.” For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth (“hosts” or “Almighty”) and Shaddai (which can also be translated “Almighty”), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted.

Similarly, Eichrodt concludes that Sabaoth “does not refer to any particular ‘hosts,’ but to all bodies, multitudes, masses in general, the content of all that exists in heaven and in earth … [a] name expressive of the divine sovereignty.”10 As “the Lord Almighty,” Yahweh is the controller of history who musters all the powers of heaven and earth to accomplish his will.11

Miller considers this epithet as part of the Old Testament divine warrior motif.12 He isolates the activities of the divine warrior as salvation, judgment, and kingship.13 The messianic King was also to be a divine warrior or strong ruler (“Mighty God” in Isa. 9:6; cf. 10:21).

In the same vein, The NIV Study Bible comments on the first occurrence of “Yahweh Sabaoth” in Scripture (1 Sam. 1:3):

This is the first time in the Bible that God is designated by this title. The Hebrew for “hosts(s)” can refer to (1) human armies (Ex 7:4; Ps 44:9); (2) the celestial bodies such as the sun, moon and stars (Ge 2:1; Dt 4:19; Isa 40:26); or (3) the heavenly creatures such as angels (Jos 5:14; 1Ki 22:19; Ps 148:2). The title, “the Lord of hosts,” is perhaps best understood as a general reference to the sovereignty of God over all powers in the universe (hence the NIV rendering “the Lord Almighty”). In the account of the establishment of kingship in Israel it became particularly appropriate as a reference to God as the God of armies—both of the heavenly army (Dt 33:2; Jos 5:14; Ps 68:17; Hab 3:8) and of the army of Israel (1Sa 17:45).14

Kišš, however, maintains that “the idea of God as the God of war is secondary in the understanding of God in Israel. The primary idea of God in Israel is that God is Lord and King of the whole universe.”15 He continues:

According to the Old Testament view, there are different powers in the world—angels, hosts of stars, cosmic and natural powers—which are organized like an army. Above them all reigns the Lord. He is the God of gods. Thus “Yahweh sebaoth” is, on the one hand, literally “Lord of army hosts” but also, if we look for the abstract meaning of this formula, the “almighty Lord” … a “royal” concept stressing the kingship of Yahweh.16

Hartley concurs with this analysis of the epithet:

It affirms his universal rulership that encompasses every force or army, heavenly, cosmic and earthly … [Ps 24:10] clearly shows that Yahweh of hosts conveys the concept of glorious king. Yahweh is King of the world (cf. Zech 14:16) and over all the kingdoms of the earth (Isa 37:16).… Although the title has military overtones, it points directly to Yahweh’s rulership over the entire universe.… Special attention is given to the majestic splendor of Yahweh’s rule in this title.17

Some illumination is gained by noting that the Greek term pantokratōr is commonly used in the Septuagint as the semantic equivalent of Sabaoth (and of Shaddai). Michaelis defines this Greek equivalent as “the almighty,” “the ruler of all things.”18 The term likewise occurs in the following New Testament phrases (in each case “Almighty” translates pantokratōr): (1) “the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:18), (2) “(the) Lord God Almighty” (Rev. 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 19:6; 2l:22), and (3) “God Almighty” (Rev. 16:14; 19:15)—all obviously echoing “the Lord Almighty,” “(the) Lord God Almighty,” and “God Almighty” in the Old Testament. Michaelis summarizes: “The reference is not so much to God’s activity in creation as to His supremacy over all things.”19

Kišš reminds us that when Reginald Heber, bishop of Calcutta, wrote the familiar English hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty,” the words “Lord … Almighty” were a translation of the phrase “Yahweh Sabaoth.”20
FF
Offline FF  
#3 Posted : Friday, February 8, 2008 9:37:28 PM(UTC)
FF
Joined: 6/7/2007(UTC)
Posts: 150
Man
Location: The Other Washington

Yada,

Here is the NIV Preface I quoted from in above comments.

You can delete these if you like.

FF

Link to this information http://www.hissheep.org/...ce_to_the_niv_bible.html

PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE


(BOLD TYPE EMPHASIS ADDED)

The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.

Responsibility for the new version was delegated by the Palos Heights group to a self-governing body of fifteen, the Committee on Bible Translation, composed for the most part of biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries. In 1967 the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship for the project - sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.

How it was made helps to give the New International Version its distinctiveness. The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Their work then went on to one of the General Editorial committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough version. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire Bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for its faithfulness to the original languages and for its English style.

All of this involved many thousands of hours of research and discussion regarding the meaning of the texts and the precise way of putting them into English. It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one.

From the beginning of the project, the Committee on Bible Translation held to certain goals for the New International Version: that it would be an accurate translation and one that would have clarity and literary quality and so prove suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing and liturgical use. The Committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the Scriptures into English.

In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They believe that it contains the divine answer to the deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds unique light on our path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to our eternal well-being.

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.

A sensitive feeling for the style does not always accompany scholarship. Accordingly, the Committee on Bible Translation submitted the developing version to a number of stylistic consultants. Two of them read every book of both Old and New Testaments twice - once before and once after the last major revision - and made invaluable suggestions. Samples of the translations were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people - young and old, highly educated and less well educated, ministers and laymen.

Concern for clear and natural English - that the New International Version should be idiomatic but not idiosyncratic, contemporary but not dated - motivated the translators and consultants. At the same time, they tried to reflect the differing styles of the biblical writer. In view of the international use of English, the translators sought to avoid obvious Americanisms on the one hand and obvious Anglicisms on the other. A British edition reflects the comparatively few differences of significant idiom and of spelling.

As for the traditional pronouns "thou," "thee" and "thine" in references to the Deity, the translators judged that to use the archaisms (along with old verb forms such as "doest," "wouldest" and "hadst") would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of Hebrew text. They were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes a varient Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variant within the Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions - the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes.

The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testaments textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testaments were used.

There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible. In 1973 the New Testament in the New International Version was published. Since then, suggestions for corrections and revisions have been received from various sources. The Committee on Bible Translation carefully considered the suggestions and adopted a number of them. These are incorporated in the first printing of the entire Bible.

As in other ancient documents, the precise meaning of the biblical texts is something uncertain. This is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts than with the Greek text. Although archaeological and linguistic discoveries in this century aid in understanding difficult passages, some uncertainties remain. The more significant of these have been called to the reader's attention in the footnotes.

In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "Lord" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered "Sovereign Lord."

Because for most readers today the phrase "the Lord of hosts" and "God of hosts" have little meaning, this version renders them "the Lord Almighty" and "God Almighty." These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, "he who is sovereign over all the 'hosts' (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the 'hosts' (armies) of Israel." For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth ("hosts" or "Almighty") and Shaddai (which can also be translated "Almighty"), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered "the Lord, the Lord Almighty."

As for other proper nouns, the familiar spellings of the King James Version are generally retained. Names traditionally spelled with "ch," except where it is final, are usually spelled in this translation with "k" or "c," since the biblical languages do not have the sound that "ch" frequently indicates in English - for example, in chant. For well-known name such as Zechariah, however, the traditional spelling has been retained. Variation in the spelling of names in the original languages has usually not been indicated. Where a person or place has two or more different names in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts, the more familiar one has generally been used, with footnotes where needed.

To achieve clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context. If there was uncertainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets. Also for the sake of clarity or style, nouns, including some proper nouns, are sometimes substituted for pronouns, and vice versa. And though the Hebrew writers often shifted back and forth between first, second and third personal pronouns without change of antecedent, this translation often makes them uniform, in accordance with English style and without the use of footnotes.

Poetical passages are printed as poetry, that is, with indentation of lines and with separate stanzas. These are generally designed to reflect the structure of Hebrew poetry. The poetry is normally characterized by parallelism in balanced lines. Most of the poetry in the Bible is in the Old Testament, and scholars differ regarding the scansion of Hebrew lines. The translators determined the stanza divisions for the most part by analysis of the subject matter. The stanzas therefore serve as poetic paragraphs.

As an aid to the reader, italicized sectional headings are inserted in most of the books. They are not to be regarded as part of the NIV text, are not for oral reading, and are not intended to dictate the interpretation of the sections they head.

The footnotes in this version are of several kinds, most of which need no explanation. Those giving alternative translations begin with "Or" and generally introduce the alternative with the last word preceding it in the text, except when it is a single-word alternative; in poetry quoted in a footnote a slant mark indicates a line division. Footnotes introduced by "Or" do not have uniform significance. In some cases two possible translations were considered to have about equal validity. In other cases, though the translators were convinced that the translation in the text was correct, they judged that another interpretation was possible and of sufficient importance to be represented in a footnote.

In the New Testament, footnotes that refer to uncertainty regarding the original text are introduced by "Some manuscripts" or similar expressions. In the Old Testament, evidence for the reading chosen is given first and evidence for the alternative is added after a semicolon (for example: Septuagint; Hebrew father). In such notes the term "Hebrew" refers to the Masoretic Text.

It should be noted that minerals, flora and fauna, architectural details, articles of clothing and jewelry, musical instruments and other articles cannot always be identified with precision. Also measures of capacity in the biblical period are particularly uncertain (see the table of weights and measures following the text).

Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our colleagues to complete our task. We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that it will lead many into a better understanding of the Holy Scriptures and fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures so faithfully testify.

The Committee on Bible Translation

June 1978

Revised August 1983
FF
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#4 Posted : Saturday, February 9, 2008 4:01:56 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
its sad... and "hogwash" is such a cool word too! Keep going Yada, you are an inspiration :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline bitnet  
#5 Posted : Saturday, February 9, 2008 6:40:01 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Yada,

Academic discourses are an incredible challenge and it is courageous of you and FF to pursue this line of discussion. Personally, I neither have the time nor stomach for it, as I am too inclined to move on to other matters that are closer to the heart, which is a focus on working with what I have. That said, this thread gives greater weight to the credence that we, as believers of The Word, do check every word that has come by, as we shall not let anything cast doubt on The Word. We shall discuss in every way that is possible for Scripture to be understood without relying on wrong interpretations. We let Scripture explain itself, and when we do, we get a better insight into our Father's Plan rather than simply erring in convenience.

As Yada said, the pastor has no interest in seeking out the Truth for it is obvious that the simple call to observe the Sabbath, which is uncontested, has fallen on his spiritually deaf ears. No amount of translation error can excuse this one single point, and this is the fulcrum of belief: observing Yahweh's Sabbaths. Yahushua left us an example and we do as He said, just as His apostles and followers did. If we do not do this simple thing, no amount of academic discussion will change anything. Yahweh has called the weak and the poor, many of whom have no idea about intellectual debates, so it cannot be a complicated thing to seek and find Yahweh. Only those foolish enough to think themselves smart shall find themselves thwarted. Should you continue this with the pastor? It's up to you but if you do need support, you'll find it in Yada ...and FF ...and KP ...and Swalchy ...and Robski ...and ...

Shalom Aleichem
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline shalom82  
#6 Posted : Saturday, February 9, 2008 9:17:04 AM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
That is exactly what I was thinking, bitnet. What do any of these academic and scholarly disputes mean in light of the Pastor's stiffnecked stubborn holding onto nicolaitin Christian doctrine? The hundreds of scholars...mere men...who decided to replace YHWH's appointed times, change his sabbath, and break the 3rd commandment by making His name insignificant...and spit on His Torah...therefore the Messiah they claimed to love...did these things...who cares about the reasons why. I would rather trust the one true Elohim of this earth, than a billion scholars.

As if numbers give credence in the scriptures. 2 billion people saying that the sky is neon yellow at noon doesn't make it true just because there are 2 billion people saying it. Eliyahu may have been the only prophet that went up to Mount Carmel...but refresh my memory...what happened?

Aleichem Shalom,
Jacob
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline FF  
#7 Posted : Monday, February 11, 2008 9:31:22 PM(UTC)
FF
Joined: 6/7/2007(UTC)
Posts: 150
Man
Location: The Other Washington

I love a good debate...

One of the best is when their bible's preface tells more than a thousand academic and scholarly arguments can explain away.

Working for Yah gives great advantage. Just look at each consonant in His Name and see what it says about Him and what He will do.

FF

PS I know a young man on the East Coast of USA who needs a few Yahhuwdym to pray for him. Would any of you like to join me in the PalTalk chat room to meet Richard and pray for a Miracle restoration??? PM me back if you would consider helping out.
FF
Offline Yada  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:18:17 AM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

I sent an e-mail to pastor "D" inviting him to paricipate in this thread.
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline bitnet  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:50:57 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Hello Yada and Everybody,

How nice of you to invite pastor "D" to come and chat with us! I'm sure that we would appreciate it very much as we learn from him how he baptises people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when he does not even use the revealed names! Baptism in water is what most Christians believe in, and baptism in the names is practiced without using the names... quite queer, I would think. It took me some while to realise that although I was baptised in water in a Catholic church when I was a baby, and then baptised again in water when I attended another Christian fellowship that observed the Sabbaths, I was not really fully baptised in the names of the Father, Son and Set-Apart Spirit as I was not using their real and proper names! Only recently after reading YY did I realise being baptised in these names means exactly that: being immersed in the names of Yahweh, Yahushua and the Ruach Qodesh. When one is baptised in these names, there is nothing quite like it as one is totally immersed in the Set-Apart Spirit of Yahweh through the Sacrifice of Yahushua!

So let's see if pastor "D" can explain how one begins the walk in The Way without using the proper names that Christianity has discarded so deliberately and which Judaism has skipped around so skilfully. I'm keen on finding out if I have been misled into following another "God" by obeying what is clearly stated in Scripture, the very "same" that he professes to read and obey, but which is now in contention because of "dubious scholarly research" and which is "concocted of pride and arrogance." I am no scholar and I do not have the time but if pastor "D" wishes to engage then I would like to hear him out, and I'd like to see what it means to understand grace, justification and sanctification without a reliance on the Set-Apart Spirit and the knowledge of Yahweh's Laws as observed by our beloved Yahushua.

Shalom Aleichem
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline FF  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:30:31 PM(UTC)
FF
Joined: 6/7/2007(UTC)
Posts: 150
Man
Location: The Other Washington

bitnet, what great wisdom, grace, mercy and love you have.

FF
FF
Offline Heretic Steve  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:26:44 AM(UTC)
Heretic Steve
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 258
Location: ohio

I've experienced this exact same mindset on the "christian" forums. Quite frankly, I've found them to be a lost cause. The responses are not dissimilar to the responses I receive from the atheist religionists. Being unable to logically and rationally refute scripture provided to support my assertions, they attack, making me the focus of the issue/discussion instead of what I'd posted.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Pastor D to join this discussion as it's likely he's to cowardly to do so. As such, it's most likely he's the type who'd snitch out the repentant Laodiceans during the Trib.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Offline Icy  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:46:43 AM(UTC)
Icy
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 641
Man
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
This reminds me of a blog I wrote a couple years ago. At the time, I hadn't found the YY site yet (or was just starting to read POD) and I was often on Yahoo! Answers trying to give serious, thought provoking answers, especially to religious and scientific questions. Below is my blog and the answer to why people are like that:

Quote:
I've spent a decent amount of time on Answers, in the last few weeks, but lately I have not. Most of the questions on there seem to be rather meaningless and pointless, so I don't waste my time. Sometimes I put a bit of wit in an answer, but for the most part I try to be serious and answer serious questions. Well, now it seems that most of the serious questions have just turned into people bashing each other.

These "serious" questions have a theme and I could not figure out what the underlying theme was. Oh, sure it is obvious that you have two sides that attack each other. Well, I got to thinking, why are there two sides and no one seems to listen to anything the other side is saying? It seemed to me that everyone already had an idea and only wanted to listen to evidence to support that idea. Anything that goes against the idea gets mocked and ridiculed. That would happen on both sides. It seems that no one considers what the others are saying. Why? There is even talk of using the "scientific method" and requests for the other group to "prove" what they believe.

After searching around I found my answer (and I didn't ask the question on Answers): Confirmation Bias and Disconfirmation Bias. "What do those terms mean?" you may ask. Well, I am about to tell you.

Confirmation Bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. In other words, a person's brain confuses and deludes them to cause them to see things in such a way that what they already believe is confirmed.

Disconfirmation Bias is the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs. In other words, people tend to over scrutinize and evaluate information that does not support what they agree with and they tend to simply accept information that supports what they agree with.

These two things tell us that people will actively search for any information to support any preexisting believes that they have, often easily accepting false or inaccurate information without question. It also tells us that people will actively search for information to discredit or disprove what they do not believe, often easily accepting false or inaccurate information without question.

This is exactly what happens on Answers all the time. No one ever seems to provide proof for what they believe, they are always supplying "proof" for what they do not believe. This in turn gets some people that agree saying they are right, and several people that disagree saying it is completely wrong.

So, how in the world do we keep ourselves from showing this bias? Well, a solution has already been formed, and it is called the "scientific method." What is really ironic though, is that people will claim the use of the scientific method all the while that they are showing these bias'. What they do is say they are using the scientific method when they find proof to support their believe and proof to disprove what they do not believe. This is not actually the scientific method. The scientific method is constructed to disprove our hypotheses rather than confirm them. This means that people should be trying to prove themselves wrong.

If people go about attempting to prove themselves wrong with the drive that they are currently using to prove themselves right, they will better come to the truth and actually start getting their opponents to agree with them. You are much more credible when you attempt to prove yourself wrong, because no one wants to be wrong. Still, one must attempt to be constantly objectionable, because typically the initial results that prove oneself wrong are often regarded as an error. So, one must continue looking to prove oneself wrong until it becomes obvious that one is wrong. If one can never prove oneself wrong, that does not mean that one is right, it only means that one has not yet proved anything. Consequently, this is the reason that there really is no real fact in science. All science is theory, just some things have never been proved wrong yet, so the general consensus is that those things are fact, but they still remain open and should be debated.
Offline Yada  
#13 Posted : Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:12:30 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

I just got this e-mail from Yada. I've underlined the portion that I think provides a succinct response for anyone on the forum who finds themselves confronting a similar situation.

Quote:
Yada,

I thought of something the other day that I failed to mention. You may want to add it to the thread.

The pastor was eager to attack me, correctly suggesting that I’m not qualified, something I readily admit. But yet he didn’t support his criticism of the amplified translations in Yada Yahweh with a single example of an errant passage. If what I’ve presented isn’t accurate, then prove it. Show either that the Greek and Hebrew words I’ve identified aren’t in the text, or that the amplified translation I’ve provided of those words isn’t consistent with the best lexicons.

However, if he can’t do this with the preponderance of the passages cited in the seven volumes, then he has a big problem. That would mean that Yah’s Word isn’t consistent with his religion or his translations.

Moreover, how does Mr. Religion justify replacing Yahweh’s Sabbath with man and Satan’s Sunday, replacing Yahweh’s Tabernacles with man and Satan’s Christmas, substituting Yahweh’s Passover with man and Satan’s Easter, changing Yahweh’s name 7,000 times to Lord—Satan’s desire and title, substituting Yahushua’s real name with the 17th century manmade “Jesus,” replacing the consistent and compelling concept of Upright Pole with the sungod cross, eliminating Yah’s six plus one symbol, the menorah, in favor of man’s graven images, substituting Yahweh’s called out with man’s church, replacing God’s set apart with the religious holy, …? What does he have to say about the Miqra’ or the Yowbel? Was his god’s word only relevant to Yahuwdym a few thousand years ago? Are religious men and traditions more truthful and reliable today than Yah’s revelation? When conflicts such as those listed above arise between God and man, who is right and who is wrong?

Yada
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.