Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: the historical understanding of the tetragram as future, present and past tense

  1. Default the historical understanding of the tetragram as future, present and past tense

    Facebook The Creator's Name
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheC...2%3A%22R%22%7D

    Sami, this proper understanding of three tenses was historically clearly understood from the Reformation era to toady.
    Nehemia is simply in the true lane!
    And has some evidences on the Jewish side, I believe.

    Here are some names, I will add some information, and it would make a good study project.

    The Secrets of Hebrew Words (1991)
    Benjamin Blech
    https://books.google.com/books?id=aUPCk8a2YhwC&pg=PA17

    Pure Bible
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1323124964446056/?comment_id=1702106889881193&comment_tracking=%7B% 22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

    Jehovah - future, present and past "to be" - David Paul Drach
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...g=%7Btn%3AR%7D
    Jehovah - future, present and past "to be" - Paul Drach

    ==================

    Gerard Gertoux points out that:

    Paul Louis Bernard Drach (1791-1868)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paul_Drach

    really understood well the Tetragram issues and properly and strongly defended Jehova as correct. The section is in the Gertoux simplified edition:

    The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah (2015)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=2rVfCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA68
    also here with some corrections, so read below:
    http://www.lifespurpose.net/divinename/NameofGod1.htm

    Paul Drach, a rabbi converted to Catholicism, explained in his work De l'harmonie entre l'église et la synagogue (Of the harmony between the church and the synagogue) published in 1842, why it was logical that the pronunciation Yehova, which was in agreement with the beginning of all the theophoric names, was the authentic pronunciation, contrary to the form Yahvé of Samaritan origin. He disproved the foolish criticisms against the form Yehova, like the charge of erroneous reading attributed to Galatino, quoting Raymond Martin and Porchetus de Salvaticis to reject this assertion. Then he demonstrated the unreasonableness of the transmutation of the vowels a, o, a of the word Adonay into e, o, a, since this hypothetical grammatical rule (one contrary to the nature of the qere / kethib) was already demolished in the word Èlohim which keeps its three vowels è, o, i without needing to change them to e, o, i.

    ====================

    "Yehova, which was in agreement with the beginning of all the theophoric names"

    This is a key evidence that basically shuts down all the yahweh type of nonsense.

    ====================

    So I looked up Drach and he agrees on the understanding of Jehovah being future, present and past in one word.

    De l'Harmonie entre I'Eglise et la Synagogue ou Perpétuité et catholicité de la religion chrétienne (1844)
    https://archive.org/stream/delharmonieentr00unkngoog...

    Here is the page, in French:

    Name:  Drach  on tenses.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  58.9 KB





    Edward Leigh

    Adam Clarke

    Alexander Tilloch

    Thomas Goyder



    Adolph Saphir

    ====================

    I will try to build on this and place it at:

    Pure Bible Forum
    the historical understanding of the tetragram as future, present and past tense
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=5192#post5192

  2. Default

    Notes on Hengstenberg

    https://archive.org/stream/dissertat...e/256/mode/1up

    Switching to the 1800s, I found this from Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869) interesting.
    By German standards Hengstenberg is conservative.


    Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch Vol 1 1847
    https://books.google.com/books?id=mBIPAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA243

    Hengstenberg
    "The derivation of Jehovah from Jovis is more ridiculous; for the similarity of sound is less, and the connection between the people to whom the words belong far more distant."

    Here he really means the Tetragram, and he says that the etymology (or alternately the letter transcription) can not really connect the Latin pagan JOVIS with the Hebrew word JHVH.
    However, unlike most today, Hengstenberg was at least willing to consider the sound.

    Hengstenberg
    "And were the similarity in sound ever so great, yet it must be considered as entirely accidental, as long as no trace of JEHOVAH could be proved who formed the connecting link between the Romans and the Hebrews"

    Here Hengstenberg shows the lack of spiritual discernment, even among the more conservative German scholarship. Calling on the same sound does mean the same entity. You do not have to be able to make etymological connections (which are generally ultra-conjectural and fluid, and often just wild speculation.)

    By sound, vocalization --

    JOVE == Yahweh

    JOVE does NOT == Jehovah


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •