Jehova vs. Yahweh

A brother in the faith once said to me: “It’s not fair!” He was referring to the staggering advantage the BORN AGAIN have over the unsaved.  I commented that it would be true, were it not for the fact that God has offered salvation to all who would call upon the name of Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son. Yes, God made a very good offer, and yet the vast majority reject it.  John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

The unsaved are spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb—spiritually dead—yet they delude themselves into believing they can see, hear, and speak.  The unsaved condition prior to redemption is described in Ephesians 2:1:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

The BORN AGAIN understand this carnal dilemma because we were once in that very dead state. I was once debating with a young man about this very situation and told him: “I can see you, but you cannot see me.  I can understand your thoughts for I once thought them, too; but you can’t think my thoughts for they are only spiritually discerned—and you are dead.”

The emptiness of the carnal condition drives them to false fulfillments and foolish and hurtful vanities.  As a whole, they don’t know where they came from, why they are here, or where they are going.  Their entire being is one of uncertainty and confusion of face, but it doesn’t have to remain that way! Not by a long shot!  

Dear visitor, have you yet to be BORN AGAIN—born a literal second time, this time of the Spirit of God—as Jesus declares in John 3:3:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

In just a few moments, I will invite you to follow me in a simple prompt, and if you follow from your heart, everything changes for you today.  Today, all of your sins and their shame will be washed away by Christ’s cleansing blood.  You will be clean and white as the driven snow.  Today, all of Satan’s bondages in your life will be broken—the bigger, the better! You will be free indeed!  Today, you will even begin to participate in the staggering difference.  It is all true.  Here is the prompt I promised: Click onto Further with Jesus for childlike instructions and immediate entry into the Kingdom of God. NOW FOR TODAY’S SUBJECT.

GOD SAID, Exodus 6:2-3:

2  And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

GOD SAID, Deuteronomy 4:2:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

GOD SAID, Revelation 22:18-19:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

MAN SAID: All translations and paraphrases of the Bible are the Word of God.  Everyone knows that!  It makes no difference as long as it’s a Bible.

Now THE RECORD: Welcome to GodSaidManSaid feature 1215 that will once again contend for the glorious, inerrant, and supernaturally perfect Word of God.  All of these Word-centric features are archived here in text and streaming audio for your edification and to be used as bait by the fishers of men. Every Thursday eve, God willing, they grow by one.

Thank you for visiting. May God’s face shine upon you with Light and Truth.

Satan is constantly picking away at the Word of God from inside the church and, woefully, few are paying attention.  This is the devil’s not-so-veiled effort to destroy the solid Rock.  Unless my absolutes are absolutely absolute, the mountain won’t move.

Satan’s opening salvo, which robbed Adam and Eve of their immortality and saw them booted out of Paradise, consisted of an attack on the veracity of God’s Word.  It all began with one word and a question mark.  Genesis 3:1:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

If you remove the added word “hath” and the question mark, the statement correctly becomes: “Yea, God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden.”  Note that the serpent was described as more subtle.  Additions to the Word of God are absolutely the MO (modus operadi) of the devil. 

Several important points concerning Bible translations follow below before we address an emailer’s concern over the JEHOVAH/YAWEH controversy.

In 1604, a colossal literary undertaking began that was commissioned by the King of the English-speaking world, King James I of England, to translate the original tongues and manuscripts of the Holy Bible into English.  Fifty-three of the English-speaking world’s leading scholars in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the original tongues of the Bible, were selected.  These scholars were pulled from the three scholastic centers of England of the time, Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster.  These men were the authority on what the English rendering of each and every Word that makes up the Bible would be.  Every word was translated, and all 53 scholars agreed on its final outcome.  Keep in mind that these men were the source of this knowledge; they went on to teach their students, who taught their students, and so on until this present day. 

The next time someone attempts the infamous, “Well, in the original Hebrew it says…,” stop them and ask if they are going to read or speak in Hebrew.  Of course, they won’t be doing this; they are going to give you an English rendering of what they want a word or phrase to mean.  At this point, you can confidently inform them that you actually already know what it means in English, because you do.  In many cases, what one supposes to gain by the “original Hebrew or Greek” maneuver can quickly be accomplished by looking up the full meaning of the English word in a good dictionary, like the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary. 

Several foundational excerpts follow from previous GodSaidManSaid features.

⯈ “(Every Chapter, Verse, Sentence, Word, and Punctuation Mark) A Piece of God:”    

According to author G. Ripplinger, in her 1,200-page book In Awe of Thy Word, of the existing 5,200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, 99% agree with and make up what is known as the Majority Text, which is the root of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. The remaining 44 Greek manuscripts make up 0.008% of the existing manuscripts, and are the root of most of today’s modern English translations.  Is your copy of the Word of God important to you? 

There is nothing more important than our copy of the Word of God, and the translations are certainly not all the same!  In Luke 20:46, Jesus warns us, “beware of the scribes…”  Today, the scribes would be considered modern book publishers. 

Consider the following verses:

✞ John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

✞Revelation 19:13, which speaks of Christ:
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Chaste virgins of the faith know no other Word.  One’s love for the Word of God reveals one’s love for God. 

Nothing should be more important than the believer’s copy of the Word of God.  For the English-speaking, that copy is the Authorized King James Version. On the grounds of age, manuscripts, and scholarship, it has no equal. 

The Authorized King James Version of the Bible was:

📜 Translated by the world’s greatest scholars.

📜 Supported by the vast, vast majority of the original-Greek, handwritten manuscripts (thus the term “majority-text”). 

📜 Supported by the oldest manuscripts.

📜 Supported by manuscripts discovered in Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Alexandria, Africa, Gaul, Southern Italy, Sicily, England, and Ireland [earning the title Textus Receptus]—versus the new translations, which are derived from a reading found only in one limited area. 

📜 Translated from the Textus Receptus (which means “received text”), and this Textus Receptus has been the authority among the redeemed for nearly 2,000 years! 

But Satan is hell-bent on changing the words.

Riplinger cites Harvard University’s summary on the King James Version:

To summarize the findings demonstrated in this book, I will cite similar conclusions set forth by Harvard University in their 1987 book The Literacy Guide to the Bible.  The chapter entitled “English Translations of the Bible” concludes that the modern versions are sorely inferior to the KJV in both theology and style.  Some of their comments mirror those made in this book:

📖 We have as a rule used the King James Version in translations, and our reason for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most readers associate with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages. 

📖 As a rule, whenever we encounter a syntactic oddness or aberration in the Authorized Version [KJV]—the kind of thing the word “archaic” is used unthinkingly to describe—we ought to assume that it reflects an attempt to reproduce the original’s word or phrase order. 

📖 The Authorized Version translators have taken care to reproduce the syntactic details [word order and sentence structure]  of the original.

📖 Its overall effect is still much more Hebraic than English.

📖 The Greek, as we would expect, is a fairly exact model of the Renaissance [KJV] rendering.

📖 The Authorized Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original clearly.  It lacks the narrow interpretive bias of modern version, and is stronger for it.

📖 Through its transparency the reader of the Authorized Version not only sees the original but learns how to read it.  Patterns of repetition, the way one clause is linked to another, the effect of unexpected inversions of word order, the readiness of Biblical writers to vary tone and register from the highly formal to the scatological, and the different kinds and uses of imagery are all, like so much else, open to any reader of the Renaissance versions, and the best open to them in the Authorized Version.

Of the NIV, they comment:

📖 And the New International Version… Here we can see the diminishments consequent upon tinkering with the original syntax. 

📖 Robert Alter, in showing how vital a part of Biblical narrative technique is the repetition of key words, has warned that “most modern English translations go to the opposite extreme, constantly translating the same word with different English equivalents…the repetition of key-words is so prominent in many Biblical narratives that one can still follow it fairly well in translation, especially if one uses the King James Version.

📖 Tyndale and the Calvinist translators of the Geneva Bible took little care to maintain verbal equivalence.

After citing sixteen larges pages of errors in the new versions and demonstrating examples of how the KJV is translated “powerfully” with “verbal dexterity…extraordinary economy…[and] rhythmic patterning,” the author says:

All of these examples can be seen to have doctrinal or theological implications…in the modern versions…The loss is measurable, not only in terms of aesthetics but also in terms of meaning. 

They add that new versions might be “more attractive…to those who prefer an abstract God:”

The Authorized Version [KJV] emerges from comparison with twentieth-century versions as more attractive and more accurate.

Only “scribes questioning” will pretend otherwise (Mark 9:14).  The professors at Harvard join Pilate in saying, “I find no fault…” in this King (Luke 23:4). [End of quotes]

True religion is the truth and it is a living Book.  We are cautioned at the peril of our eternal souls not to add to or take away from original spoken Scripture. 

🕇 Deuteronomy 4:2:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

🕇 Proverbs 30:6:

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

🕇 Revelation 22:18-19:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The website WordCounter published the word count of various Bible translations:

⯌ The King James Bible: 783,137 words

⯌ New King James Bible: 770,430 words

⯌ The New International Bible (NIV): 727,969 words

⯌ English Standard Version (ESV): 757,439 words

⯌ New American Standard Bible (NASB): 782,815 words

Why does the word count vary among different version of the Bible? The King James Version was released in 1611 and is the oldest version of the Bible still being used today.  The New International Bible and the English Standard Bible are modern version that, according to a few sources, have removed verses and words found in the King James Bible.  [End of quote]

The NIV (New International Version) was originally published in 1973 and revised several times, and is currently the most popular of today’s modern versions.  It has 55,168 less words than the AKJV.  The New King James version has 12,707 less words; the English Standard Version has 25,698 less words; and the New American Standard Bible has 322 less words than the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible.  That should be eye-opening. 

The modern translations have omitted entire verses of the Holy Bible, and partially truncated others.  Yes, all the above appear to be grievous offences, but they are, in fact, secondary issues. The primary issue is the manuscripts from which these Bibles were translated. [End of quotes]

In the last decade, I have noticed a marked increase amongst theological circles to replace the Old Testament name JEHOVAH with YAHWEH.  This is a serious issue when you consider Exodus 6:3:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

GodSaidManSaid recently received the following email:

I know that you are strong proponents of the King James Version only.  I have read your articles and understand that you prefer the traditional version (KJB) and traditional texts (MSS & TR) over all other versions.  However, I have encountered a dilemma, and I hope you can assist me in understanding. 

In the King James Version that you prefer, the tetragrammaton is translated as “Jehovah.”  But modern scholars and Christians now believe that the correct pronunciation of God’s name is “Yahweh.” 

This is my problem: If you believe that the tetragrammaton (YHWH) should be translated as “Yahweh,” they you are implying that the King James Version was wrong in its translation.  But if you believe it should be translated as “Jehovah,” then modern scholars are wrong.  How do you defend your stance?  The arguments made by these Christians are strong and seemingly irrefutable, as they are Hebrew experts.

The Jehovah/Yahweh issue is an Old Testament issue.  The following foundational information will be necessary:

GodSaidManSaid feature “Ancient Discovery Confirms Masoretic Text—Skeptics Scramble” delves into recent headline news concerning the Old Testament:

The Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text is making big news.  One should know that skeptics have challenged the reliability of Biblical texts, claiming that the original writings have morphed over the years and what we are reading has been altered, or that the original intent was lost in translation.  It is interesting to note that Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and disciples never questioned ancient Old Testament writings that had been handed down, the oldest of them penned 1,500 years earlier.   Keep in mind that the Old Testament portion of the AKJV is the Masoretic Text.

Concerning the Hebrew Masoretic Text, Dr. J. Moorman writes in his book Forever Settled:

These Masoretes took extraordinary pains to transmit without error the O.T. text.  Many complicated safeguards against scribal slips were devised.  W.J. Martin states the number of letters in a book was counted and its middle letter was given.  Similarly, with the words, and again the middle word of the book was noted.  They collected any peculiarities in spelling.  They recorded the number of times a particular word or phrase occurred.  God working in Jewish scribes to preserve the purity of the text can be summed up in the words of Rabbi Akiba, who died in approximately AD 135: “The accurate transmission is a fence for the Torah.”  He also stressed the importance of preserving even the smallest letter. Thus the promise of Christ in Matthew 5:18 is fulfilled. 

In the words of the learned Professor E.C. Bissell:

“There ought to be no doubt that, in the text which we inherit from the Masoretes, and they from the Talmudists, and the same text being transmitted to this period from the time of Ezra under the peculiarly sacred seal of the Jewish canon—we have a correct copy of the original documents, and one worthy of all confidence.”  [End of quotes]

The headline on the September 22, 2016, release of BreakingIsraelNews.com reads, “Burned Mystery Scroll Digitally Unraveled Reveals Bible Unchanged for 2,000 Years.” 

On September 21, 2016, the headline of NationalGeographic.com read, “Computers Decipher Burnt Scroll Found in Ancient Holy Ark.”  Two paragraphs follow:

Emmanuel Tov, a fellow co-author and Biblical scholar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says that the Ein Gedi Scroll specifically helps by refining the timeline of how the authoritative Hebrew Bible—also known as the Masoretic Text—came to be. 

“There are clear signs of continuity of tradition,” he says.  “It can’t be coincidental that the synagogue in Ein Gedi that was burned in the sixth century housed an early scroll whose text was completely identical with medieval texts.  The same central stream of Judaism that used this Levitical scroll in one of the early centuries of our era was to continue using it until the late Middle Ages when printing was invented.” [End of quotes]

Again, note: The Masoretic text is what’s in the King James Bible. 

Regent University’s Corné Bekker said this latest discovery is yet another score for Biblical accuracy through the centuries. 

“Every new discovery in Biblical archaeology has served to underscore the trustworthiness of the Bible,” Bekker told me.  “Science and faith are not enemies, but friends.”  [End of quotes]

Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the world-renowned Institute for Creation Research, writes:

Even many King James Bibles have footnotes referring to what are said to be "better manuscripts" which indicate that certain changes should be made in the King James text. But what are these manuscripts, and are they really better? It is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott-Hort Greek text, whereas the King James is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus. As far as the Hebrew text is concerned (the Old Testament), the King James is based on the Masoretic (meaning, handed down) text, while the modern versions rely heavily on Kittel’s revised Masoretic text.

The Masoretic text was compiled from the ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament by the Hebrew scholars dedicated to guarding and standardizing the traditional Hebrew text "handed down" from the earlier Hebrew scribes, who had in turn meticulously copied the ancient Hebrew manuscripts, scrupulously guarding against error. As far as the Hebrew text developed by Rudolf Kittel is concerned, it is worth noting that Kittel was a German rationalistic higher critic, rejecting Biblical inerrancy and firmly devoted to evolutionism.

The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort both denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted Spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological skeptics.

Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers.

Furthermore, the Westcott-Hort text was mainly based on two early Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts, which were rediscovered and rescued from long (and well-deserved) obscurity in the 19th century.

Dr. Morris concluded with this thought:

So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His Word? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?" [End of quote]

 Who is a rock like our Rock? [End of quotes]

Way of Life Literature published the following under the title, “Jehovah and Yahweh?”

The vowels of the Tetragrammaton, that is Yahowah or Jehovah (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2, 26:4) are not a late addition, but represent the original and true pronunciation of the profoundly significant Divine Name.  The commonly repeated modern idea that the pronunciation Jehovah is a late and incorrect invention, while Yahweh is the true pronunciation of the Name, is false.  No known Hebrew manuscript on earth contains the vocalization Yahweh.  On the other hand, the form Jehovah is found in a variety of locations in the oldest Hebrew copies, such as the Aleppo codex and a variety of Biblical fragments dated between 700 and 900, as well as being the universal pointing in the Old Testament Textus Receptus.  Jewish scholars such as Maimonides (1138-1204) affirmed that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced according to its letters as YeHoWah. 

In contrast to the strong evidence in favor of the pronunciation Jehovah, very little favors the pronunciation Yahweh.  Since this latter pronunciation is not favored by any evidence in the Hebrew of the Bible, nor in other ancient Jewish documents, its advocates must look outside of Scripture and Jewish texts for evidence in its favor.  This they find in the late patristic writers Theodoret and Epiphanius, who give Iabe as the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, although the former distinguishes this vocalization as the pronunciation of the Samaritans.

These statements constitute the most substantive and strongest argument in favor of the pronunciation Yahweh. Also, papyri involving pagan magic, and in which every possible and impossible designation of deities, Greek, Egyptian, and Semitic, is found in profuse variety, contain invocations that sound like the word Yahweh.

To use the speculations of two patristic writers—one of whom even specifies that Yahweh was a Samaritan pronunciation, and that the Jews used something else—to overthrow the vocalization of the Name in the Old Testament Textus Receptus, Jehovah, is entirely unjustifiable.

To use a name found in some pagan papyri that are invoking numberless idols and demons to reject Jehovah is even worse.

The evidence for the pronunciation Yahweh is very poor and totally insufficient to overthrow the powerful and numerous evidences in favor of the pronunciation Jehovah.

Thus it is evident that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation of the Name of God.  Jehovah has not allowed the pronunciation of His Name to be lost. [End of quotes]

The following excerpts were written by John Hinton, PhD (of Harvard), under the heading “Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections: Who is Yahweh?,” published at AV1611.com:

Many modern day heretics and apostates also attack the title LORD as applied to God.  Their reasoning is based on the fact that the word Baal means lord, so they posit that the Biblical title of God as LORD comes from Baal worship.  This convoluted argument ignores the fact that baal is only used for petty lords and husbands in Hebrew when it is applied to men.  Only Adonai is used for LORD in the Bible, while Baal is used as a name for the false god of the Canaanites, who is always denounced.  The actual word Adonai appears frequently in the Bible and is represented by the spelling Lord with lowercase letters in the KJV and other translations.  Removing the word LORD from the Bible is blasphemy of the worst order.  What the Yahweh cult is doing in essence is proclaiming that God is not their God, nor is He their LORD, but a storm god whom they address on equal terms as their master.

It troubles me how very few people realize that the god that they now worship, named Yahweh, is derived from a storm god created by atheist scholars following in the steps of the late 19^th century skeptics, and that these atheists are feeding them much of their theology (although this was the last thing that any of them intended).  Some may wonder why I know so much about these Bible-scoffing atheists of the scholarly community.  It is because I used to be one of them.  This familiarity is a byproduct of years of intense comparative religion study without the Holy Spirit to guide me.

I will end this essay with three questions addressed to those Christians who abuse God’s Word by perverting the name of God:

(1) Why would you allow yourself to be influenced by Bible-scoffers who treat the Bible as a book of mythology instead of as Scripture?;

(2) Where did you get the authority to change both the English and Hebrew texts of the Bible when neither one of them is ambiguous in the least?; and

(3) Do you think that God is going to honor you for doing so? [End of quotes]

In Awe of Thy Word, author GA Ripplinger addresses the Jehovah/Yahweh issue thoroughly.  A few excerpts follow:

The name of God is spelled with the Hebrew letters yod, heh, vav, and heh, read from right to left and that transliterated in to English as JHVH (called the Tetragrammaton).  In the KJV Old Testament, it is translated JEHOVAH.

In the 19^th century, as unbelieving German critics of the Bible were hammering away at the Word of God, they tried to refashion God’s name, JEHOVAH.  They asserted that the God of Israel’s name should be pronounced Yahweh because, to them, he was nothing more than an offshoot of the pagan deity Yaho. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Jews, who generally did not utter the Name of God, had used, but ceased using, the name JEHOVAH “centuries before the Christian era” notes the classic scholar’s edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It affirms that, “…reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia admits that in the “older system of transliteration, Jehovah is the pronunciation.”  It states:

In the Masoretic text the usual form would give the pronunciation Yehowah [pronounced JEHOVAH].

Thousands of years ago, perhaps 3,600, the name JEHOVAH was given by God to Moses.  It is seen first in Genesis 2:4 in the Hebrew Old Testament and translated in Exodus 6:3 in the KJV.  In his scholarly book, A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents, John Gill (1697-1771), eminent theologian and writer, documents the use of the very name JEHOVAH from before 200 BC and throughout the centuries of the early church and the following millennium.  The Hebrew’s Mishna allowed the name as a salutation; according to Thamid, the priests in the temple could use the true name, but those in the country could only use Adonai.  Maimonides said the name was used by the priests in the sanctuary and on the Day of Atonement.  Even commentators such as Nicholas of Lyra, Tostatus, Cajeta, and Bonfrere defended the pronunciation JEHOVAH as received by Moses on Mt. Horeb. The name is found in the writings of Raymund Martin in the 1200s and Porchetus in the 1300s.  Theodore Beza, Galatinus, and Cajetan, among many others, use it in the 1500s.  Scholars such as Michaelis, Drach, and Stier proved the name as the original.  The 1602 Spanish Bible uses the name Iehova and gave a lengthy defense of the pronunciation JEHOVAH in its preface.  In “the 17^th century the pronunciation JEHOVAH was zealously defended by Fuller, Gataker, Leusden, and others, against the criticisms.”

“Genebrardus seems to have been the first to suggest the pronunciation Iahue [pronounced Yahweh], but it was not until the 19^th century that it became generally accepted.”  Antisemitic German liberals, like Driver and Delitzch, eagerly grasped the new pronunciation, Yahweh. They and other unsaved “higher critics” denied that the Old Testament was actually given by God. They grasped at any straw to shelter their unbelief, asserting that the Old Testament was the creation of men who adopted and adapted stories, words, and names from neighboring pagan religions and languages. The higher critics used the new pronunciation, Yahweh, as so-called proof that the God of Israel was nothing more than a tribal god, whose name had evolved from pagan gods like Yaho or Ya-ve, worshipped by the Babylonians and Canaanites, the Hebrews’ captors and neighbors. They said, Yahweh “meant Destroyer.”  The German critics said, “Yahweh is not a Hebrew name;” such a pronunciation would prove the Hebrews borrowed it.  Critic Rudolf Kittel asserts, “yahu … does not lead back to a pronunciation represented by Yehovah (or Jehovah).”  The critics cited ancient documents, like the “magical texts,” Aramaic papyri, and Babylonian tablets that tell of pagan gods named Yaho, Yahu, or Ya-ve. 

The NIV, TNIV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, and all new versions are based on this corrupt Hebrew text.  The New American Standard Bible, updated edition, admits in its forward:

In the present translation, the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has been employed.”

The NKJV and all new versions have translated their Old Testament from a text edited by Kittel, a man who believed the Hebrew religion was a “cult,” whose followers worshipped a primitive “weather god.”  Kittel said:

The origins of Yahweh worship… it appears that this cult was established before Deborah. … Thus Yahweh appears as an old deity of Sinai, revered in untold antiquity as a weather god. …

The connection [email protected] is not even virtual reality.  The connection between JESUS and JEHOVAH is salvation can be seen and heard in both English and Hebrew.  When God’s name is pronounced JEHOVAH, unbelievers have no etymological basis to claim that the God of Israel is simply another tribal god.  We trust:

Not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. (I Corinthians 2:13)

What does the Holy Bible say? It says JEHOVAH.

Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)  [End of quotes]

Israel fell from their God, whose name is JEHOVAH, and began to worship Baal and Ashtaroth.  Judges 2:13:

And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

Biblical Archaeology Society reports the following under the title, “Yahweh and His Asherah: The Debate Continues:”

Over the last two decades, scholars have argued about the meaning of three roughly-drawn figures and an inscription (“I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah”) reconstructed from the fragments of a storage jar excavated at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in the Sinai desert.  Might the inscription imply that some ancient worshippers believed the God of the Israelites had a female consort? If Yahweh is the large figure on the left, which of the other two figures represents his Asherah?  Or perhaps the Asherah is shown elsewhere on the jar and not in this drawing at all (see the stylized tree over the lion’s back, reconstructed from other fragments of the same jar).  Or could “Asherah” in this context mean Yahweh’s holy place and not even pertain to a consort? [End of quote]

A few excerpts from Biblical Archaeology Review’s Fall 2022 issue, from the feature “Yahweh’s Desert Origins” follow.  In the paragraphs that follow, take note of the archaeological root of the name Yahweh.  You'll notice that root is not good.

The earliest evidence for the name Yahweh comes from the temple at Soleb in Sudan and dates to the 14^th century BCE.  This view presents the temple’s remains with a column in the foreground that shows two cartouche inscriptions, including one noting the “Shasu-land of Yahu” on the left.  At the nearby Amara West temple, a slightly later set of inscriptions lists this same land alongside the “Shasu-land of Seir,” a region associated with biblical Seir and closely linked with the land of Edom in southern Jordan.

Wherever one locates Mt. Sinai, however, it is clear that the biblical writers understood Yahweh to be a “mountain god,” similar to the Canaanite gods known from the Ugaritic texts.  At Ugarit, along Syria’s northern coast, the gods are depicted as having their own residences, often atop mountain peaks, from where they moved freely to do their businesses.  Most famous was Baal, who built his palace at Sapan, biblical Mt. Zaphon.  It is likely that the biblical authors adapted the Canaanite tradition of the march of the divine warrior Baal, in the midst of storms from his palace, to depict Yahweh’s march from his southern sanctuary (Judges 5).

Additional evidence for the worship of Yahweh among the Israelites comes from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, a lonely hilltop site in northeastern Sinai that is dated to the late ninth and early eighth centuries and variously interpreted as an Israelite fort, a caravanserai, or a cultic center.  Whatever its purpose, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud was visited by passing travelers who left votive offerings, often inscribed with names and blessings.  Several of the site’s now famous inscriptions mention “Yahweh of Samaria,” and “Yahweh of Teman.”  In these texts, Yahweh appears as the patron deity of the Northern Kingdom (Samaria) but is also associated with Teman, which was a generic term used for the south. [End of quotes]

If you have yet to do so, purchase yourself an Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible.  For the English-speaking world, it is the authority.  You can find the official, free, online copy here.

GOD SAID, Exodus 6:2-3:

2  And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

GOD SAID, Deuteronomy 4:2:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

GOD SAID, Revelation 22:18-19:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

MAN SAID: All translations and paraphrases of the Bible are the Word of God.  Everyone knows that!  It makes no difference as long as it’s a Bible.

 

Now you have THE RECORD.

 

 

References:

Authorized King James Version

Biblical Archaeology Society, “Yahweh and His Asherah: The Debate Continues,” May/June 2001

GodSaidManSaid, “(Every Chapter, Verse, Sentence, Word, & Punctuation Mark) A Piece of God”

GodSaidManSaid, “Which Religion is the Truth? (Part 3: True Religion is a Book, but Which?)”

Hinton, J., “Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections: Who is Yahweh?,” AV1611.com

Ross, T., “Jehovah and Yahweh?,” Way of Life Literature, September 2010

• Go Further With Christ
• Email To a Friend
• Comments or Questions?