From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: I am that I am
	<1992Sep14.163931.27036@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:42:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.191909.4387@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<YHWH actually means something like "He who creates"

In article <fSwTEfg@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<No, it doesn't mean anything,

In article <1992Sep13.054345.9321@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<Ratshit. Go read a textbook on Hebrew Bible. You clearly don't understand
<anything about this issue.

In article <fSAc5IX@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<Right away, oh great source of BUSHit. I should have known all along that
<YHWH actually is the *secret* Hebrew word for "He who creates" and that
<those crafty chosen people would not allow just anyone to know this. But
<are you sure it isn't Yahweh or Jehovah? And what are the Hebrew
<meanings for those words?

In article <1992Sep14.163931.27036@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<You really are a genuine imbecile.
<Let me give you a clue. Early written Hebrew is a consonantal language.
<It is written without vowels. Therefore the Name of God is written
<Yod He Vau He--in English YHVH or YHWH. It is pronounced approximately
<like the English Yahweh. Jehovah is a mistake. It's what happens
<when you attach the vowel marks that belong to Adonai(used to
<indicate that YHWH was to be pronounced Adonai, rather than saying the
<Name) to the vowels YHWH.(JHVH). The problem is in mapping the Name
<from Hebrew to English.

Yes, now you are catching on, and did you say vowels in the word YHWH, I
was unaware that there were any vowels there. Perhaps your Yahweh is just as
much a mistake as Jehovah? Have you ever considered that it may be intended
to have NO vowels at all? What makes you think that your vowels that produce
Yahweh from YHWH are any better than the vowels that produce Jehovah from
YHWH? Now I ask you what is the PROPER mapping of the word from Hebrew to
English, is it not YHWH? And you don't claim that YHWH is the Hebrew word
for "He who creates", do you?

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<it is a marker for He whose name is not
<to be pronounced, He who said, "I am that I am".

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<Yes, that's right, but it is most certainly a name.
<"I am that I am" is a pun, you dolt. In Hebrew, it's something like
<"eh yeh aser eh yeh".
<The entire exchange goes something like:
<"Who are you? I am that I am. But who shall I say has sent me. Tell
<them I am (eh yeh) has sent you. ..." eh yeh is a pun on Yahweh.
<In fact, the source is linking it to the verb to be.
<The J source is quite clear that YHWH is a name. 

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<I assure you that "I am that I am" is more than just a pun. Even you
<yourself have been clever enough to detect that it is the conjugation of
<the verb "to be", how observant. Now, please follow your observations.

In article <1992Sep14.163931.27036@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<Yes. it is more than just a pun. It's also connecting YHWH with
<the verb "to be". That's part of why it's commonly thought that that's
<what YHWH means.

Hint1: YHWH is a symbol for "I am that I am". Not a name!

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<This is a much later development. The early Yahwists do not appear to have
<had any qualms about pronouncing the name. Later on, vowel marks are
<added to indicate that it is to be pronounced Adonai(Lord) or Elohim
<(God). YHWH is no less a name than Baal or Marduk.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<Pronounce the name? Do you mean YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah? And this
<verbalization by the early Yahwehists, I assume you have tape, audio or
<video proof? Or is this some more divine inspiration?

In article <1992Sep14.163931.27036@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<As I stated before, YHWH is simply the consonantal form of the
<divine name. Jehovah is a mistake. Yahweh is an approximate English
<rendering of the pronunciation. To be honest, I'm not quite sure
<why it's generally thought that it was pronounced Yahweh. Probably
<in part from this punning.

Ah, or possibly yet another mistake? Perhaps the Jews really do know their 
own Bible after all? Ever consider that?
Hint2: YHWH is a symbol for "I am that I am". Not a name!

In article <1992Sep14.163931.27036@cs.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<But this is kinda irrelevant.
<Several things are clear:
<1) The divine name was written YHWH in Hebrew.

Hint3: YHWH is a symbol for "I am that I am". Not a name!

<2) Modern scholars have attempted at various times to determine a
<vocalization for the name. Yahweh and Jehovah are two such attempts.
<Jehovah is almost certainly wrong, because we now know how it
<was derived.

And perhaps also Yahweh is wrong by the same logic? Why this drive to attempt
to vocalize YHWH? Why this need for a divine name? Is a symbol not enough, is
"I am that I am" not comprehensible? Not enough? Why do you doubt that the
Jews do not know their own Bible?

<In fact, if you'd taken the time to check even the most minimal
<of references, you would have known this. It's explained quite
<clearly in the introduction to the RSV and NRSV, and in almost
<any text on the Hebrew Bible.

Yes, that's because RSV and NRSV are Christian texts. I assure you that
Jehovah's Witnesses have equally valid explainations for why the divine name is
Jehovah. Again, who do you think has the best knowledge of the books of
Judaism?

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<The whole YHWH, Yahweh, JHWH, Jahweh, Jehovah
<is one gigantic misunderstanding of Judaism.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<In a word, bullshit.
 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<You said it, not I.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<It is a symbol, not a
<word. The transcendent is transcendent of name.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<Mystical bullshit. You clearly have no clue of what you speak, sir.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
<Yes, and you of course do. As always.

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
<I do this time, sir. And quite clearly, you do not.

Yes, of course. I don't mean to be didactic, but perhaps neither of use have
a clue? After all, isn't that what transcendent means?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc