hebrewgospels.com - Peter and Justin van Regensburg

Steven Avery

Last edited:

Steven Avery

David Compton discussion in private area, check his final try to defend.

The Creator's Name
Has review, is it the same as below?

Steven Avery

“Did Nehemia Gordon discover the ‘real’ name of God?”. The title is a really, really bad start.

· Totally confused at the beginning - thinking that Yehovah was a “new discovery of truth” rather than new evidences that support the traditional pre-Gesenius consensus. The point is that it is put forth as being new truth. Also at 9:45 there is a clip where Nehemiah clearly claims to have "discovered the name".

· Then “missing vowel”. Red herring - hard to listen to because the presumptions are false. Not sure what is being referred to here.

· Ugh - they add (previously) - faux scholarship Not sure what you are referring to here.

· They use a (stupid) quote from Michael Rood - who stayed with Yahweh for almost a decade! Now I do not trust their snippets. I thought that the snippet was fair enough - but I'm not sure that it really necessarily reflects badly on Nehemiah. I'm not a big supporter of Michael Rood. I could never really understand why Nehemiah wanted to join his "brand" with Roods. Rood seems to get the facts messed up frequently during his videos with Nehemiah - to Nehemiah's credit he usually gently sets the record straight.

· The secret was only in rabbinical Jewish circles — except the 15+ evidences found mostly by Nehemia. Isn't the point of this video that it really wasn't a secret because it was there "in black and white" in the manuscripts, and other places, all along?

· Now he claims the hey should have no vowel “for several reasons” and the right form is without the cholam — even the AV1611 has the cholam! And various additions I think that you've confused what he says here. Justin says that the final hey is a "vowel letter" (mater lectionis) and that it should have no vowel.

· Last year I discussed with Nehemia the year of the seminar at Rood’s house - he said 2002, I think that is right

· Stupid comment that without the cholam the pronunciation is “grammatically impossible” I don't think Justin is very clear in what he is saying here. He seems to actually be referring back to the first video and the fact that Nehemiah uses the order of the three words to support the pronunciation Yehovah. And if the order is changed then the pronunciation doesn't work. I wouldn't call the comment stupid - unclear and not really necessary in the flow of the video, fair enough, but I think "stupid" is a bit harsh.

· Now he switches to printed editions - as if that was a secret. This confusion (Justin?) is painful. As I have discussed the historical debate (including Reland, Drach, etc.) with Nehemia, this fellow is looking more and more as a worthless deceptive deceiver, allowing the worth of the first question. Of course we knew Ben Hayim has the full vowels and the Complutensian Polyglot is no surprise, since the Christian Hebraist movement was strong, the contras called it a Christian error. I think that you may be just looking at things from your view point here. Your studies have clearly shown you the existence of the cholam in these various places. Anyone who has done any sort of half decent in depth study would also know this. But Nehemiah, and Michael Rood, do not present it this way. They present it as some sort of new discovery that has been made. So the uneducated are going to get the wrong impression. That seems to be the very point that Justin is trying to make. So while this may all seem unnecessary and superfluous to you - to others it may well be eye opening.

· What a liar, or ignoramus — “long before Nehemia discovered the cholam” 18:45, maybe 17:45. (might actually be 16:45). I don't see the problem with this comment. Unfortunately this is the way that Nehemiah and Michael present Nehemiah's research. I actually mentioned this to a friend the other day who has watched Nehemiah's "The Gentiles Shall No My Name" series. He thought that it was definitely put forward as a new discovery.

· ‘“Does it seem to you that this cholam was a secret for 1,000 years?” 18:30

· 18:15: Now he is pretending that the ms. access online was the same in 2005 as 2020, and is confirming that most mss. have the cholam, which was written by nobody till Nehemia’s studies

· The 5 mss. was not the “giant discovery” the 1,000 to 2,000 to 2,300 is (and many have 0)

· He should have a zero count, rather than an estimate.

· All this did not become a major search till around 2015, When I was in Israel in 2016 I tried some checking at Hebrew U for Nehemia in Texas. I mean 2017. That was about rabbinical writing

· More lies - “why should we think it is impossible..?” Again I think you are being too harsh here. I think this is no more than a bad choice of words. I think he just means "why should we think it is a big task" (to find extra manuscripts).

· Now he is totally confused, thinking fragments should be combined to 100-200 pages. I'm not really sure why this combining is all about - that will be a point that I ask Justin to clarify.

· A 5-page ms. with 25 tetra counts as a ms. - only if there are close to zero tetra would they not count

· He may not be surprised, looking backwards is easy, but not one scholar had described or predicted this phenomenon — 20-20 hindsight at play. A typical fallacy approach

· Also he wrongly quotes 4,000 something “fragments” never hear those words from Nehemia

· He keeps going with the red herring stuff - that Nehemia claims Jehovah was a historic secret. He owes his people an apology With respect, I still think that this is how it would come across to the average listener.

· Terrible editing at 33:30

· Where Nehemia says everyone used Jehovah before Gesenius (a bit of an exaggeration, there were some contras in the 1600s-1700s )

· This child seems to know zero of the actual scholarship debate and pseudo-consensus.

· Based on his misrepresentation that Nehemia claimed to discover the secret cholam —he accuses Nehemia of “ignorance or dishonesty”

· Just wanted to summarize:

o The great deception in video 2 has a subtle component

o Drastically misrepresent the claims, and then smugly attack your misrepresentation

o Again and again

o Nehemia never claims that either the cholam or the name Yehovah has been secret

o That is why this pair do tricky editing

o To deform rather than inform

o Nehemia writes in the context of the modern faux pseudo-consensus that sort of begins with Gesenius. Isn't part of the problem that this video is trying to address the fact that many (most) of the listeners to Nehemiah will not be aware of this history. So they will think that Nehemiah has discovered this stuff. When in fact it has been known and widely available at pretty much any point in history.

o And now can easily be overturned - by any solid thinkers
Last edited:

Steven Avery

From Facebook, compare to above.

Two HebrewGospels.com Vids
The post with vids from:
https://www.hebrewgospels.com/yhwh Also at https://archive.org/search.php…
Justin J van Rensburg - son
Peter van Rensburg - father
sort of fell into a Facebook vortext on this forum.
And I listened to both vids, and some notes may make it to the dad and son. (Apparently they have or plan five vids.)
And here is a summary for the forum..
Vid 1 (24 minutes)
This vid raises a reasonable word order question as to Nehemia's presentation of the three tense theory (e.g. look around min 13.).
They call it an "abbreviation" theory, however I think that is only their word (placing their words in the mouth of others occurs in both vids.).
Note that the three tenses idea has a long history among strong Hebraists (which they do not mention.)
None of this is especially consequential in view of all the evidences for Yehovah. The three tense idea is an auxiliary component.
However the word order question is definitely legit for Nehemia. And can be reasonably understood.
They weaken the presentation at the end with a silly analogy.
And then the segue to Vid 2 which has the absurd title:
“Did Nehemia Gordon discover the ‘real’ name of God?”
"Did Nehemia Gordon discover the 'real' name Yehova?"
is how it is worded in the end of Vid 1.
All sorts of strawman fallacies in the vids.
Vid 2 (47 minutes)
This vid is a total disaster. Nehemia is grossly misrepresented, and than attacked from the basis of the faux misrepresentations (e.g. that Nehemia claimed to find the missing cholam.)
There is an ugly smugness and arrogance which is really a disaster. (This would be true right or wrong.)
Actually the whole vid is a disaster, beginning to end, combining a group of fallacies and scholarly problems.
(Strawman, misrepresentation, anachronism, omitting salient historical information, word-parsing, vid editing to give a false impression, and numerical mish-a-mosh.) Also a type of "looking back" fallacy that assumes that everything that is known today could easily be found, based on our tools and understanding today.
The misrepresentation is key.
As a point of fact, as far as we know nobody historically has made solid points about YHVH in the Masoretic text mss. -- until Nehemia and friends.
Does Justin's youth supply a point of explanation? I don't think so, since his dad is actively involved.
It does give us another example of very poor scholarship on the contra-Nehemia train.
However, to be fair, one good point is raised in the first vid.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
In biblical thinking, name equals authority and fame. By obscuring the Creator’s name (spelled ‘Yod-Hey-Waw-Hey’ in Hebrew), Satan attempts to interfere with the Creator’s authority and his fame. Help us to declare the true name of the Creator.

Steven Avery

What are their names and why?
Each of these has a picture.


Video One
1. Is YHWH an abbreviation of 'Hayah, Hoveh, Yihyeh'?

Video Two
2. Did Nehemia Gordon discover the 'real' name of God?

Video Three
3. Was Ketiv-Qere applied to YHWH?

Video Four
4. Would Scribes change a Composite Shewa into a Simple Shewa for Ketiv-Qere Perpetuum?

Video Five
5. Why is the Cholem often Missing on the Name YHWH?

Video Six
6. Eight proofs from the Masoretic Text that Adonai's vowels were placed on YHWH (Part A)

Video Seven
7. Eight proofs from the Masoretic Text that Adonai's vowels were placed on YHWH (Part B)

Video Eight
8. Is Nehemia Gordon Trustworthy, Honest and a Searcher of Truth?
Last edited: