Listening .. is there a transcript?
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
2:13
good morning guys and welcome out to Revolution we have a special guest with
2:19
us today nemia Gordon and we're going to be chatting about um Revelation 165
2:25
we're going to be talking about Jehovah we're going to be talking about I am and these are some topics that nemia has
2:35
some expertise on because nehemia knows the Hebrew language quite well he
2:40
studied these issues and he seems to have come out against mainstream
2:46
scholarship uh with some interesting information about
2:51
Yahweh and uh some other names and so uh I'm just going to introduce nemia so
2:58
nemia how are you doing I'm doing well thanks shalom shalom from Australia um so nemir
3:06
is you're in Texas is that correct I'm currently in Dallas Texas okay excellent
3:12
and so um maybe you can start off nemia telling us a little bit about yourself
3:18
uh your scholarship and your language skills that would be different to some
3:23
just average person like me an average Aussie or the average American maybe you can explain the difference between
3:30
yourself and um and People Like Us oh well I I don't want to I don't I don't
3:36
know enough about you to speak about any differences but so I have a PhD in biblical studies from Baran University
3:44
which is in ramakan Israel I did my undergrad and my masters at Hebrew
3:49
University of Jerusalem undergrad was a double major uh biblical studies and
3:55
archaeology found out archaeology was kind of boring I I wanted to be a consumer of archa ology not a producer
4:01
and so I did my masters in biblical studies at Hebrew University and I've done a whole bunch of stuff over the
4:06
years uh worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls what I focus on now is what's behind me here in the background which is Medieval
4:13
Hebrew Bible manuscripts so in the case of the New Testament you actually have some really
4:19
fascinating pieces of evidence you have manuscripts for with that are generally dated to within a hundred years of the
4:25
authorship of the books in the case of the Tanakh we don't have that our earliest surviving fragment is from 650
4:32
BCE uh which if you believe the biblical accounts which I do the no it's a book
4:38
of numbers so it was written about uh it's a copy from about I'm so bad at math but let's put the the book of
4:45
numbers being written around 1400 BCE which you know secular Scholars don't believe that but I do um so that's an
4:52
800 year difference and that's only a few verses from number six and one verse from Deuteronomy our earliest complete
5:00
copy of the entire Hebrew Bible is from the year 2008 it's the Leningrad codex
5:06
now we have fragments in most we have pieces of biblical books pretty much whole biblical books from before that
5:13
but from beginning to end our first complete Bible is from8 uh which is kind of shocking so
5:19
2 400 years 500 years no 400 years after at least well I mean parts of it were
5:25
written later right the um Ezra was written in let's say 450 BC so even that
5:31
our earliest copy of Ezra is 1400 years later right well that's that's not exactly accurate because we have earlier
5:36
copies from before 108 our earliest complete Bible that includes Ezra from 1400 years later so so we're in a kind
5:43
of different ball game when it comes the Hebrew Bible the Tanakh than we are with the New
5:49
Testament okay but then on the flip side we also had scribal Traditions that are very different from what you had in the
5:55
New Testament you had this obsession with individual letters
6:01
and um and I think I could call it an obsession there was this idea that is
6:06
attributed to Rabbi AKA in the early second century uh maybe this is not where we
6:12
wanted to go here let's not go down a rabbit Trail so my background that's my
6:18
academic background U I'm currently the director of The Institute for Hebrew Bible manuscript research which I
6:24
founded people can find it online ihmr dcom um on my religious side um I wear
6:32
two hats a religious one and a academic one on my religious side um I'm what's
6:38
known as a kite Jew that is a Jew who believes strictly in the Old Testament and not in what's known as the oral law
6:44
written a book about that the Hebrew Show versus the Greek Jesus um and you
6:50
might think that's strange why' you write a book that mentions Jesus when you're talking about the Ora you got to
6:55
read the book so or we could talk about that but that's all we talk about the rest of the time um so and I have neas wall.com or nehemias
7:03
wall.com you can see more of my um religious side and also some academic
7:08
stuff they're mixed in as well so yeah um so I am completely fluent and as much
7:15
as anybody could be in I suppose in uh ancient Hebrew um nobody speaks Biblical
7:22
Hebrew today uh but we can read it um I'm fluent in modern Hebrew as well I
7:28
took two years of Greek at the University of Jerusalem I don't have nearly the expertise in Greek that I do
7:33
in Hebrew can read a little bit of Arabic uh and a few other languages are
7:39
very I once had a a teacher who said he spoke or he read a dozen languages but then we came to find out he included
7:46
ammonite and moabit and Edomite which are all B and Canaanite which are all you can learn those in a few weeks if
7:52
you know Biblical Hebrew well so I know those two those are pretty easy wow that's an impressive
8:00
um uh that that's very impressive for someone who you know I don't know Hebrew
8:05
fluently I don't know Greek fluently and it's um it's always very um enlightening
8:12
to listen to your material specifically on the name of Jehovah and so can you
8:18
explain your uh scholarship into the name of Jehovah and what you
8:24
found so first of all I would pronounce it yehovah um and actually behind me and
8:29
I just literally minutes before this started I I had to upload a u a background image and there was just
8:36
something on my computer some random image that I must have been looking at at one point and so it was downloaded
8:42
and so there you can see the letters um can they see my mouse no they probably can't so I have to point to it and I was
8:49
okay yeah there so you see there is the Hebrew letters yud hey VAV that is oh cool and that is what you
8:57
say in English is Jehovah most people today most Scholars at least say Yahweh
9:03
um and one of the things that jumps out for anybody who doesn't or who does
9:08
rather who does read Hebrew is that there's a missing vowel and uh and what do I mean by a
9:15
missing vowel So based on the way the Hebrew vowel points work is you can't
9:20
have a letter in the middle of a word like that un less except in certain
9:26
circumstances which doesn't have a vowel attached to it if it's the end of syllable then it has these dots that
9:32
indicate that it doesn't have a vowel but it's the end of a syllable right so um and actually we
9:38
have another example over here if I can get my straight because
9:43
it's so there oh and then it's see if I get here closer no it's disappearing my
9:48
finger so let's find one closer to my head so I'm actually looking for an example where there's a word oh here
9:54
beautiful oh that must be your slide or your background so
10:00
here is the word vom and he said and notice there a little line above this
10:06
letter and that tells you that that letter is silent so that's an exception
10:11
to the rule where you can have a letter in the middle of a word which isn't pronounced and in this case the letter
10:19
is part of the root Amar to say and B is and he said all right so in God's name
10:25
and in with was the tetragramaton the four-letter name of God that the there is no symbol like that in this case um
10:34
the well there are actually manuscripts that do have it but that's that's a little bit more complicated um that
10:40
actually proves my hypothesis so in any event U but let's not get into that a bit complicated so here we're missing a
10:46
vowel and really from if you went back into the 10th century and you said to
10:51
any Jew who read Tiberian Hebrew said read that the way it's written they
10:56
wouldn't be able to read it it's unreadable this way so um so I came up with this hypothesis
11:03
which is that the scribes left out that vow because they didn't want people to read it now why wouldn't they want
11:09
people to read it uh because Jewish tradition is you don't read that name it goes back to at least tmic times meaning
11:17
we have this going back so this manuscript is the Aleppo codex it's considered the most accurate copy of the
11:22
Bible in Hebrew and uh the uh talmud was completed in the year 500 and off the
11:30
top of my head I don't remember if it's what's known as a PR so it could be from the year 200 or earlier um I think it is
11:38
from the second century and it's this this idea that they would read the name as
11:44
Adonai right and so that so um all right so this is a Jewish tradition I grew up
11:49
with my father was an orthodox Rabbi I wasn't raised as a kite Jew meaning St the Old Testament to I was raised with
11:55
the Ora law with the teachings of the rabbis as being mosaic Revelation that's what I was taught I don't believe that
12:01
that's what I was taught uh and um there was a time I I guess I did believe that
12:08
um I didn't know any better so um so and most Jews who are religious do
12:14
believe that that that there were two toras revealed on Mount Si there was the written Torah and the oral Torah and the
12:20
oral Torah was later written down by rabbis or the contents of it were right maybe not word for word so so the
12:27
tradition is you read it this word as Adonai and Adonai means Lord a
12:33
really my great Lord if we want to be really technical about it and but it's written yud V and even rabbis admit that
12:41
in ancient times it was pronounced for example in the mishna which is the early part of the oral law that was written
12:47
down around or not written down it was it was composed around the year 210 so in the missiona they say that in the
12:54
temple when the priests would recite the Priestly blessing they would say the actual name and then outside the temple
13:01
they would say Adonai so that could be probably is our earliest solid evidence
13:07
as solid as as a tradition from 200 years after the events is or 150 years
13:13
later um that's our first evidence that there were people pronouncing the name of God as Lord and that's where you get
13:19
in the King James where it says Lord in all caps so the Lord in all caps
13:24
represents the Hebrew yud the tetr Graton
13:29
with the with the um uh intermediary of the Greek where it was written down as curios oh beautiful there you have it uh
13:36
so that Lord in all caps I love that Gothic font even though I've trouble reading it um and so that represents the
13:43
Hebrew whenever you see that in the Hebrew you know that more than likely although not in every case unfortunately
13:49
but in most cases um 99.9% of cases Lord there is
13:55
yud V the name of God in some instances by the way when it says praise the Lord in the King James if I'm not mistaken
14:01
and someone can correct me if I'm wrong in the comments you can correct Me Maybe when it says praise the Lord the Hebrew
14:07
has yah but so that's that's the exception to the rule in 40 around 49 instances I
14:13
didn't count them but it's 49 in Hebrew so I think those 49 or most of those in
14:18
the King James are going to be Lord with caps but in every other instance Lord with caps is yud this word that Jews
14:25
traditionally pronounce as Adonai which means my great Lord and and but in ancient times they pronounced it even in
14:31
the time of the second temple in the temple itself and then there's another thing in the in the mission that says
14:38
that on the uh on yum kipor the high priest would Proclaim this name and the
14:43
entire congregation would would go through a special ritual when they heard it right so um all right so uh what is
14:53
the pronunciation of this name that was my burning desire before I got into Academia before any of that I had a
14:59
burning desire to know what that name is how is it pronounced and I read lots of theories right there's lots the
15:05
scholarly literature is you'll hear today's Scholars say it's Yahweh but actually they'll say that's a scholarly
15:11
guess the anchor Bible dictionary says it's a scholarly guess and among Scholars
15:16
themselves there's uh there's a consensus to use Yahweh but there's a lot of different theories uh there's one
15:23
from the 19th century that says it has the same vowels as Pharaoh so it would be yaho right or yaho in the uh let's say
15:32
Tiberian pronunciation right there's a lot of different a lot of different theories about what it is uh there's a
15:37
rabbi from the 12th century who says that it's ye right is it y I don't know it could
15:45
be it's possible um but my so my prayer was and this is I want to take on put my
15:51
religious hat here just make that clear my prayer to to the almighty was to God was I want to know this based on what
16:00
was preserved by your people in the original manuscripts that we have we don't have the manuscript that Moses or
16:05
Joshua wrote but we have copies of copies of copies and I want to see this in in the scribes that preserved your
16:12
manuscripts I want to see what at least they thought it was because that's the closest I can ever get to
16:18
anything to even know that this is a verse that was spoken by the creator of
16:24
the universe uh and recorded in the Hebrew Bible what I have is the the manuscripts right I don't have the
16:31
original copy written by Samuel in this case if I'm not mistaken this is Samuel
16:37
um uh or Gad the SE or whoever wrote this right it's the book of Samuel um
16:43
what I have is I have the manuscripts that were preserved so um that was my
16:49
prayer and uh I'll make a long story short so we can get on to more recent
16:55
developments um and I have a video on my website nw.com uh it's on the open door series I think
17:01
I talk about this in a lot more detail I'll go into it but long story short I found places in the manuscripts where it
17:07
did have the full vowels and by the way years later maybe 20 years after I I
17:13
discovered this I read a scholar who said the same thing I said and and look
17:19
there's some people will say well and I've actually been told this by by let's say people in media don't mention the
17:25
other Scholars that discovered this pretend that you discovered it no see where I come from in my field if other
17:31
people discovered it before me it actually makes a stronger case that's right this isn't just my wackadoodle
17:38
theory there are Scholars before me who came up with some pieces of this not all
17:43
of it together um but for example there was a scholar named Martin Russell um in Germany who said that the
17:52
scribes left out one of the vowels so people wouldn't pronounce it right so that that's I thought that
17:58
was my Discovery but people had said that before me and by the way it's not obvious why they left that one of the vows there's another theory that they
18:04
pronounced the name as shemma which is the Aramaic of Hashem the name but
18:10
there's reasons to think that's not the case that I won't go into that are very technical um so um I found there was a
18:18
place where there wasn't the vows in multiple places and eventually I found over 2,000 manuscripts which wasn't
18:23
necessary frankly right after the second or third witness you could say okay youve multip instances in multiple
18:29
manuscripts at least somebody could feasibly think that that's meaning among the scribes could have feasibly thought
18:35
that that was yahovah um meaning that's the name you get with those vows yehovah
18:40
which is obviously the source of the English Jehovah now here's the really interesting thing so people make a big
18:46
deal about the J and the Y uh is it yahovah or Jehovah or Jehovah right I my
18:53
name is neia some people call me nehemia Nehemiah right okay close enough just
18:59
don't call me baly that's what I say that's a very sensitive topic um so I
19:05
notic you're wearing a hat too got a bit of hair got hair all right
19:11
now I have Hair Envy um okay so uh so with the full vowels you would read that
19:17
as yehovah now is that the name that Moses used well I have no access to that
19:23
kind of information right what I have access to is there are scribes who record Ed it this way now maybe those
19:30
scribes thought it was Adonai and they're putting in the vows of Adonai
19:35
that's the standard explanation in fact in my field in Academia that's a fact
19:41
and that's common knowledge except there are people before me again I discovered that I didn't
19:48
discover this that's beautiful for me to find out I'm not the one who discovered this that great minds think alike there
19:54
were people before me who said oh why wouldn't they have the vowel a if it's ad don't n
20:00
and well that's because the scribes knew this to be or believed it to be let's say who knows what no is right the
20:07
scribes belied this to be the original pronunciation even though they read it as Adonai right so that that's um there are
20:14
people who said this in in the 1800s who said this in the 1830s there a rabbi named Samuel David lato who said that oh
20:22
well and by the way this is a guy who wrote a grammar right so so so there's
20:28
something that I call and I and I created this phrase there's something that that Scholars use which I call the
20:35
the um ignorant Christian hypothesis and I think we should stop on that for a moment and
20:43
uh yeah just I think I've got a copy of the grammar here oh
20:49
okay oh nice so it's actually a grammar of uh oh
20:56
no that's a different guy it's a different guy I yeah I don't know who that is um I can't read it actually is
21:02
it David sorry it's Davidson David Davidson no no that's
21:08
somebody else okay I could the end of that name I just saw David no Samuel David lato was a rabbi in Italy he's
21:14
considered um in a sense a bridge between traditional Jewish knowledge and modern scholarly academic knowledge
21:22
because he was completely immersed in the Jewish traditional world but also in the scholarly academic world and he
21:29
unhesitatingly would say well I don't you know the the the people who made the vow points they got it wrong he writes
21:35
that all over the place but not in this case in this case he said they got it right and he's not the only one other
21:41
rabbis have said that it's uh yahovah and they knew the Hebrew grammar right so what's the ignorant Christian
21:47
hypothesis so the so and it's not my hypothesis this is something Christian Scholars have put out uh
21:54
um it's this idea that the the name Jehovah is imposs or yahovah is an
22:00
impossible hybrid and that phrase impossible hybrid is actually used it's an impossible hybrid it's the letters of
22:08
God's name of the tetragramaton with the vowels of Adonai so that makes it a hybrid what
22:15
makes it impossible no one's been able to explain that to me maybe I'm not
22:20
smart enough to understand it there's actually let's say it is a hybrid it's still not impossible well it's
22:25
impossible based on an assumption they have which is that the name is is a simple verb and has to have the vows
22:32
that you'd have in a verb well who says that they just made that up right okay
22:39
um could be but there's no reason to think that it's names so here's the
22:45
thing about Hebrew names names are often based on verbs but don't have the vowels
22:51
they would have if they were verbs and why is that because names are nouns and the vows can be modified and adapted to
22:58
the noun um okay so so so there's a
23:03
difference between what the like my name means yehovah or yah more directly yah
23:09
Comforts okay but if I said yah Comforts in a sentence it wouldn't be neya or it
23:15
would be uh in this case it would be the the perfect form so wait a minute why am I
23:22
not because that's not how names work not always at least right they usually
23:28
work in that the vowels are modified okay in any event meaning there's a verb behind the name that we'll get to I hope if we
23:34
have time um but you wouldn't expect really the V the name to be the exact
23:40
vowels of of the verb so this impossible part of the impossible hybrid we can just forget that that's nonsense that's
23:46
just speculation whether it's a hybrid or not okay so the hybrid is based on
23:53
this idea of cre I won't go into that but there are certain words that are written one way and read a different way
23:58
right and so you have the actual vowels of of a completely different word and that's not an uncommon thing in the
24:04
Hebrew Bible um it happens all the time
24:09
and we could go into why that is you actually have one right here interestingly okay yeah so there in the
24:15
margin it says oh beautiful it says um and then we have to uh if you can go
24:21
over a little bit to over here because referring to something in the the I wish I could okay actually I think I can um
24:27
hang on here we go so it says
24:33
um so here it's a bit different so here it's the same vowels but in any event you see here it says C or clay and that
24:41
means read it as so there's one word written here in the body the text with
24:46
vowels and there's another word in the margin it says read it as this other word and here the vowels wouldn't
24:52
actually change necessarily they're the same vowels um
24:58
so um all right so this is not an uncommon thing it's called cre or cray cre it's also called This is a common
25:06
thing so the claim is that y yehovah y has the vows of
25:11
Adonai but the letters of Y and and I I liken it to what Isaac said when he he
25:19
was he was blind or maybe he had really bad cataracts and he was feeling his
25:26
son and he said I can hear the voice of of
25:32
Jacob but but it's the feel of Esau right because uh Jacob was deceiving him
25:40
and put on um uh you know sheep skin to make because uh Esau was very hairy so
25:47
um he says he says the voice is the voice of
25:53
Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau so did I say that backwards the
25:58
voice is the voice of Jacob I don't even remember what I said the voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau so um so that's the claim
26:06
for this name that it has the vowels of the the word Adonai except it doesn't
26:11
have the vowels of Adonai P blatantly the vowels of Adonai are slightly different with an A and they say oh well
26:20
that's because it's an ol if not a u that's not how creative Works creative this system of its written one way in
26:26
the body like here and then the margin it's written another way it could have
26:31
impossible vowels in this word it's totally like there are examples that I've brought like the word Anu which is
26:37
read as anaku in Jeremiah it could have completely different unrelated vowels to
26:43
the word the way it's written and it doesn't care it just has the vows of the way it's read um there's actually really cool
26:50
examples well I won't go into it's complicated completely impos socalled impossible vowels if it's creative if
26:56
that's your explanation then the vows will be impossible for that particular word that's not it's not an issue so why
27:03
doesn't this have if I can get to it why doesn't this have the actual vows of Adonai and my hypothesis was well once
27:10
we put in that missing o it's yehovah and Adonai would be
27:16
yahovah um and it doesn't have those vowels and and it turns out people before me noticed this as well I mean
27:23
obviously they noticed it but they noticed it and said that's because these are the original vowels and so why the
27:28
vowels of I don't I in that word you have to preserve the original vowels right you don't have to but
27:34
that's at least what the scribes did that's that's the claim that predates Me by many many years um I found a rabbi in
27:44
the 14th century who said that so it's like 600 years well great minds think
27:49
alike um so I rediscovered something apparently that was that was well known at least for certain
27:55
circles um and to me that's great right that doesn't diminish My Discovery and
28:00
here's the funniest thing ever I'll have people who say what you're saying is complete nonsense and it's impossible
28:06
and the very same people will say but this is obvious and so therefore you didn't
28:11
discover anything fine I didn't discover a thing I accept it but it is obvious it's obvious once you take into account
28:17
certain pieces of information and data right um so it's not obvious right but okay but other people said it before me
28:23
so all of that is to say that currently the best evidence I have is that the
28:29
name is yahovah could it be something else could it be yooo vooo and people
28:35
think I'm joking when I say that I'm not I found cabalistic texts that have the
28:40
vowels Yoo vooo literally now they don't say that it was ever pronounced that way
28:45
what they say is that when you're when you say the name Adonai you should be thinking in your mind of these other vowels right something called kavanot or
28:53
the sort of meditations right um so they don't actually say that's how it was one at
28:58
one time pronounced the people who say it it was at one time pronounced say it's yahovah and there's other other
29:03
pronunciations as well I mentioned Rabbi uh iben Ezra who said it was yeh okay so
29:08
the stronger evidence from Jewish sources that it was yeh than that it's Yahweh there's not a single Jewish
29:14
Source anywhere in the course of Jewish history that I know of and if somebody
29:20
wants to to show me differently where it's the V of Yahweh I actually did find a cabalistic work I think where it's
29:26
Yahweh but again there they're talking about meditations not how it was pronounced so where where does Yahweh
29:33
come from can you can you explain the connection to jenus and how he
29:38
popularized that type of concept yeah so so it's it's actually
29:44
unbelievable so you it's under the category of you can't make this stuff up
29:50
um and you have to also see it to believe it so I encourage people to do their own research so ginius was one of
29:55
the great garans of Hebrew of all time really um and
30:03
ginius uh he was a German was not Jewish um he wrote what today is
30:11
considered the definitive grammar of Biblical Hebrew any grammar that isn't his was based on his like for example we
30:18
mentioned I mentioned Samuel David lato he mentions ginius all the time and he
30:24
was a rabbi he didn't always agree with ginius but he was the great scholar in
30:29
fact today one of the most common uh um dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew used by
30:35
Scholars is called Brown driver Briggs or bdb and that's based on Gus's dictionary okay right if you read the
30:42
full title which is like several sentences long it was based on one version of of the German dictionary of
30:50
ginius so ginius says in one version not in all of them meaning his final
30:56
conclusion was something different but you can see his thought process he says that um uh and I haven't
31:04
looked at this in a few years so I hope I'm getting this right if not go look what I said on my website.com because that's probably correct um so gazia says
31:12
something to the effect of that he's coming up with this idea that um so
31:18
let's back up there's something called comparative comparative linguistics where where Scholars noticed that
31:25
different languages are related and one of the largest uh families and
31:31
by largest I don't means by speakers but one of the most widespread langu uh families of languages is called
31:37
Indo-European languages and this was actually discovered by this guy I want to say he
31:42
was in Vienna or someplace like that and he had um exchange students or students
31:48
who were from India he was surprised to find out that
31:53
there are words in ancient Indian languages that are the same word for the same thing in European
32:00
languages in Latin for example and he said how can that be oh there's coincidences in languages right
32:07
coincidences absolutely happen but there were too many for it to be a coincidence so they realized that all the
32:15
Indo-European languages are have a common root um and at one time they were
32:21
probably a single language um and if you want to say that was just after the flood okay whatever
32:27
or just after God mixed up the languages in the Tower of Babel at that time French didn't exist and German didn't
32:34
exist and um Sanskrit didn't exist but there was an Indo European mother
32:39
language that later meaning not that much later evolved into different
32:44
languages right that would be the faith explanation right um okay so why do I
32:50
mention that so there was this idea at the time that just as all the languages
32:55
came from one thing all the gods that one time must have come from a common source that was the idea that they had
33:01
in in European academic secular scholarship and
33:09
so and if you want to say not just the whole world like maybe in China theyve they had different gods but all over the
33:15
Mediterranean they must have had some common deities that evolved with different
33:21
names and different attributes right that that was where ginius was coming from and he proposes that yud is related
33:28
to the name for Jupiter me saying that kazus at one time thought that
33:34
um and how could it be related to Jupiter there's no p in it there's no t in it there's no R well Jupiter is
33:40
actually yep which is Father Yahweh or yeh depending how you
33:48
pronounce ancient uh Latin um so pter is
33:54
father so if you strip out that he's the Father the father of all the Gods right that's what they believed then you're
34:00
left with yeh or Yahweh in one of the forms by the way there's different forms and in Latin I won't go into that people
34:07
can look it up and one of them he said okay that has to be connected to yud V
34:12
because originally the V was a w and we could talk about that if you want um and so if
34:19
it's something well we don't know what the vowels are because Jews pronounced it as Adonai so the vowels have been lost that's what he said that's what
34:26
they thought that's what most Scholars still think um therefore if they have the same consonants YW then they must
34:34
have the same vowels so he patterned one of his pieces of evidence not the only one was that yud vve would be pronounced
34:41
the same as one of the forms of Jupiter as Yahweh now later he had different
34:49
arguments and different reasons for saying that but you can see what his thought process was right he essentially
34:55
wanted it to be Yahweh and was looking for different pieces of evidence to support it and one of those is he was
35:00
pattering it after Jupiter in Latin so wow yeah that's
35:07
pretty shocking um it's shocking that he would be thinking well if we want to
35:12
understand the god of Israel we have to pattern it our understanding after other ancient
35:18
religions look that's a common thought in in Academia
35:23
today that you know later the the religion of Israel uh evolved and they became monotheists and originally they
35:31
believed in many gods um and if we want to understand uh let's say uh the
35:36
beginning chapter of Isaiah before chapter 40 because there your theory falls apart so you have to say this a second Isaiah but if you want to
35:43
understand Isaiah chapters one through um I want to say 37 because I think 38
35:49
and 39 is the story of San if memory serves me um but if you want to understand the first 37 chapters you got
35:55
to understand them as polytheists and um okay that requires an
36:03
assumption well first the first assumption it requires is that requires the first assumption it requires is that
36:10
the Hebrew Bible doesn't have a uniform view of the deity right and I for theological
36:18
reasons reject that um and if you want to say academically for um uh you know
36:25
so they'll say that's my Dogma okay I accept that fine that my my working
36:30
assumption is that Tanakh it had at least an understanding of God that was uniform and um if you want to say you
36:38
don't believe that you I think the burden of proof is on you because I'm saying it's it's a faith statement right
36:44
if you want to make a a non-faith statement what's your evidence and their evidence requires them
36:51
to uh I call it Jerry mandering the Bible um so they'll say well yeah in
36:56
Deuteronomy you have a the idea of one God so that was later right and in and in some
37:02
particular Psalm there's an idea of only one deity so that was later right so everything that
37:07
supports the idea of monotheism in the earliest period of let's say of ancient
37:12
Israel um well that that that was later and all the early stuff is the stuff that doesn't support it like for example
37:19
when it says in Deuteronomy that God is yahovah Adon Elohim he's the Lord of lords and
37:27
the God of gods which in Hebrew means like Song of Songs what does Song of Songs mean so that's what the Hebrew
37:34
version of in English we have What's called the superlative so you have um you know big
37:39
bigger biggest so biggest is the superlative the way Hebrew expresses the
37:44
superlative is by saying Song of Songs the greatest song right God of gods is
37:50
the greatest god and they'll say ah see there's more than one God he's just the greatest of them
37:57
that's a face palm moment I'm sorry Muslims on a daily basis say Allah is the greatest are you saying Muslims
38:05
today in the 21st century believe there's multiple gods well I'd love to see them dare
38:12
publish that the prophet of Islam believed there were multiple gods when he formulated that prayer please I dare
38:18
you publish that in an academic Journal good luck so I'm just gonna um but in
38:25
there um and just look at this uh this is a transcription of it's a
38:32
translation yes into the English by uh tragal of justus's work where he talks
38:39
about jovis and Jupiter but he actually mentions jenius afterwards thoroughly
38:45
retracted this okay he came up and by the way what's in Brackets is from the
38:50
translator yes if you look at the original which I don't remember if it's Latin or German um I it's German yeah
38:57
okay so you have have to ignore what's in Brackets if you want to know what ginius wrote right so ginius wrote beautiful I love you brought this to
39:03
give my own opinion I suppose this word to be one of the most remote Antiquity right so this is his thought process in
39:08
the remote Antiquity you had this big super tribe which spoke the ancestor not only of Indo-European languages but also
39:16
Semitic languages so this is really remote Antiquity right and he's Pro not probably right according to the Torah
39:22
that's right there meaning the part that there was a language that predates all
39:27
the languages today right isn't that beautiful he thought that but he thought that for secular reasons right mean
39:33
meaning he thought all the languages of the world evolved out of a common language all right I don't know if that's true or not um from a from a
39:40
secular perspective but that's what he means by remote Antiquity perhaps of the same origin as jovis Jupiter what do you
39:47
mean jovis jovis sounds nothing like it because yis and Y is what one of the
39:52
forms was Y and then you yupiter which is father youu or yoa and transferred
39:59
from the Egyptians to the Hebrews sorry right so look this is an idea in
40:06
in in which still exists and is often valid not this idea but the general idea is what's called diffusionism I don't if
40:13
you have this in Australia but we have the woke crowd who says that's cultural appropriation if you know I eat a taco
40:20
which is really funny because in Mexico they don't eat tacos uh that's something that was invented in Texas it's called
40:26
TexMex actually um so so much for cultural appropriation but the idea of cultural appropriation is that each
40:32
culture has these things that belong to them and other cultures aren't allowed to use them that's not how culture works
40:37
the way culture really works is diffusionism there's an idea in one culture and it diffuses it spreads out
40:44
to other cultures and all cultures today are based on diffusionism from previous
40:50
cultures right there there is I mean nobody today has the original human culture that's not a thing um or even
40:57
the culture your ancestors had 2,000 years ago right even Judaism today has evolved and there's a Jewish culture
41:04
that exists outside the Tanakh um and certainly outside of even rabinal literature it's a culture that exists
41:10
today that's that's been influenced by other cultures and other cultures were influenced by it that's how culture works right so that basic idea isn't
41:17
wrong but now he's applying it to the name of the god of Israel he says compare what has been said above as to
41:23
the use of the name of the Egyptian gems right because they're Egyptian gems that have
41:28
yve right so there's there's magical when I see gems it's I won't go into it
41:34
there basically ancient Egyptian magical sources that have the name yve and here
41:40
he's saying something which is almost certainly wrong that the Egyptians gave that name to the Israelites what we know
41:47
today which I don't think he was aware of is that Egyptian magic was based on Jewish magic and you might say Jewish
41:54
magic Jewish magic doesn't exist it's not supposed to exist so here we have to go back to their
41:59
ancient Israel having multiple gods ancient Israel did have multiple gods and the prophets rebuke them for it
42:07
right Jeremiah says the number of your cities is the number of your Gods oh Judah right so if you say well you know
42:13
ancient Israel had multiple gods the idea of one God is a later development well not if you believe the prophets if
42:19
you don't believe the prophets fine okay if you believe the prophets there was only one God and if you had more than one God you were a sinner right so what
42:26
their saying these secular Scholars is that we believe the PE we believe the
42:33
people the prophet prophets were rebuking were the was the original authentic religion of yahovah of
42:40
Yahweh wow that's that's stunning and and so it seems that the
42:47
word the name Yahweh comes from Jo which
42:52
is which is Jupiter right so Latin didn't pronounce it Jo they pronounced y
42:58
wow yeah as far as I know that's what I've been told by Latin experts I'm not at all a Latin expert I know less Latin
43:05
than I do Greek and and so you got multitudes of people around the world calling out the
43:11
name of Yahweh or Jupiter in churches around the world and what should people
43:16
do with this information that you've just given right now well so here I want
43:22
I want to be sensitive and careful I think the people who are calling on Yahweh most of them they don't they're
43:28
not intending to be calling on Jupiter right so does that matter um
43:35
that's a theological question that I can answer for myself I can't answer for them um Psalm 44 talks about something
43:42
even more extreme or maybe it's talking prophetically about this can we look at Psalm 44 you have that and you're oh
43:49
bring it in King James let see what it says I don't know what it says Psalm
43:55
44 1611 so it's GNA be so tell so yeah
44:01
so the 1611 I discovered this shockingly that the 1611 isn't the same as what
44:07
what you find today as the King James that was surprising to me like for example I started to say this before
44:13
people make a big deal of the difference between Jehovah and yahovah but in one place in the King James it actually has
44:19
yahovah with with an i
44:24
okay or what that was that jehi or je
44:30
Jehovah yeah sorry Jehovah okay meaning meaning whether you pronounce it yahovah or yahovah that the
44:37
king J the King James doesn't tell you that right there's no there's no accent markers in English like there are in
44:44
Hebrew I don't think there are um meaning I don't I'm not aware of that being in the King James but
44:52
um just made this high resolution so hopefully doesn't what is your source
44:57
for this okay I don't know this one so the one I usually use is the University of Pennsylvania which has a scan of
45:04
which I hope is actually the 1611 they claim it is yeah this one here is definitely the 1611 it's just going to
45:11
take a little while for it to okay up I think I might go back actually it's a little bit too high definition yeah I
45:17
don't know if we need it on super high so let's go actually to the next oh is this Psalm 44 yes oh look at has four
45:24
eyes I love it so let's go to the next page please
45:30
so 44 scroll down a little bit more so there it is verse 20 I think in
45:37
Hebrews 21 um if we have forgotten the name of our God or stretched out our
45:44
hands to a strange God shall not God search this out for he knoweth the
45:50
secrets of the heart so what it's saying here and the context here is they've been scattered
45:56
among the Nations right this is exile right so this is a Psalm that David didn't write because it's describing
46:02
Exile as a reality um past tense thing well at least in my view so
46:09
um so this idea that they inadvertently
46:14
called on the name of the wrong God and God still is going to look in their heart isn't that beautiful wow so if
46:20
somebody says Yahweh and they in genuinely think that that is how the
46:26
name yud V was pronounced I I mean I say work it out for yourself in fear and trembling with
46:31
prayer and study before the creator of the universe but this would seem to indicate that God if that is authentic
46:37
God will accept that even if you call out Jupiter in your ignorance and think that is the original name of God of the
46:44
god of the Hebrew Bible of the Ten Commandments then it sounds like God will accept that so he's much more
46:52
merciful than we are yeah he's much more understanding than we are
46:57
now I still think you should try to find out the truth the best of your ability and do the best you can right so so this
47:04
is something I'll hear from Christian pastors uh and they'll say about not about this they'll talk about other
47:10
things they'll say and not all Christian pastors most in fact I would say probably not but I have heard this that
47:17
um certain doctrines they know not to be true they'll say well it doesn't affect salvation I don't want to confuse the
47:23
the people on the pews h wait so you're doing things that
47:29
you know aren't true and you're okay with that because
47:34
it doesn't affect salvation so that's like didn't Paul talk about
47:41
eating from the food of the sacrifi things sacrificed to Idols he talks about if you don't know if it's
47:46
sacrificed to Idols okay then don't offend your conscience but if you know it's sacrificed Idols I don't think
47:52
anybody in the New Testament said that that was okay so if you don't know any better you don't know any better right
47:59
yeah or you don't know right so and so just um what so on the flip side what is
48:07
the atmology of Jehovah okay so here is something
48:13
where uh within a Jewish context let's say outside of the academic context what
48:19
I'm about to say is not even controversial this is so common knowledge that I've been criticized
48:26
why would you pretend this is your Discovery when this is so obvious and I have it right if you actually listen to
48:32
what I say this is so obvious in the Jewish context that the atmology of the name
48:40
yahovah or or whether you pronounce the yahovah or Yahweh really doesn't affect this part of it is the three forms of
48:47
the Hebrew verb ha he was he is he will be now in the academic context the
48:54
explanation of yahovah or yah is he that causes to be and that's
49:01
purely an invention of academics there's no Jewish Source I'm aware of that says
49:06
that what do I mean by that um this notion this idea that God's name means
49:14
he that was he that is he that will be is widespread is ubiquitous I like that
49:20
word uous meaning it's found everywhere in Jewish sources and the idea that he
49:25
that it means he that causes to be that comes out of um out of Christian SL
49:33
secular really more secular than Christian theology right it's this idea
49:39
the name of God must mean Creator and so how do you say Creator in
49:44
Hebrew well B okay well that has nothing to do with all right what if we change the
49:50
vowels to yah it's he that causes to be oh
49:57
okay now there's a grammatical problem with that remember I mentioned the impossible hybrid it's a leave out
50:03
hybrid let's talk about impossible for a second in the entire history of the
50:08
Hebrew language so so I I got to back up here a bit so Hebrew has seven verbal
50:16
conjugations and if you change the vowels and sometimes prefixes and
50:22
suffixes and infixes it changes the meaning and it transforms the vowel excuse me
50:29
transforms the verb into another conjugation and it changes the meaning so the very same word that means he will
50:35
be can mean he that causes to be by changing the vowels however not every
50:44
and I know this is very Advanced and complicated so guys bear with me not every
50:49
Hebrew uh um verb exists in all seven
50:55
conjugations in fact you'd be hard pressed to find a single verb that exists in all seven
51:00
conjugations um so much so that grammarians use artificial madeup words because you
51:07
don't have a word that in practice exists in all seven conjugations and all of that's to say yah or Yahweh in their
51:15
pronunciation is the he form of the verb which doesn't exist in the entire
51:21
history of the Hebrew language now going to be really accurate
51:27
it does exist once in a poem from the 9th or 10th
51:33
century and it doesn't appear as Yahweh but that's a bit more complicated
51:38
so in other words Yahweh doesn't exist in the Hebrew language it's a madeup scholarly academic form it's a
51:44
speculative form of something that may have at one time existed but doesn't anymore that's that's the better way to
51:50
describe it right so I can point I can point in the history of the
51:56
Hebrew language of What's called the call conjugation that's spelled usually qal
52:02
call conjugation and that's the simple conjugation for the name for the word to
52:08
be that exists all over the place um and then the explanation that
52:16
Jews have come up with long before me is that the name is he was he is he will be
52:23
um and uh I actually have a Source here
52:28
uh from a presentation I did a few years back that I'm gonna read to you I can sh am I able to share um yeah try it um if
52:35
you just fiddle around for a little bit I'll good luck just try it okay no I'm kidding um so share
52:44
screen screen sharing is easiest with two monitors well I don't I mean I don't
52:49
really have two monitors I sort of do but not really I'll just try and change some of these settings so your browser
52:54
has blocked your screen I'll just read it to you okay so this is
52:59
a rabbi uh named Rabbi ysf Bor Shore and I want to say he's from the
53:06
12th or 13th century but I'm gonna google it because I don't remember oh he's 12th century France okay oh he was
53:13
one of the Disciples of the famous Rashi all right and he says in his commentary
53:18
in Exodus 3:14 now he's commenting on I wish I
53:23
could show this um I'm a kind of person who needs to see stuff yeah yeah I think
53:30
it's worth seeing is so let's see let's try it again so share screen share
53:38
screen oh wait it wants me to block it I don't want to block it I wanted to
53:43
allow steam yard Studio oh there it is allow am I
53:49
sharing um yes add to Stage oh can you see this uh slide that I have in my
53:55
little slide show with my little do you see that or no I'll just I'll just fiddle around I've got like oh no I'm
54:01
sharing Firefox sorry okay so let's stop sharing Firefox I've never used this
54:06
software before no that's fine share screen select oh here it is sharing my
54:14
PowerPoint all right beautiful can you see my PowerPoint now I'll just go
54:20
through oh yes here we go add to Stage yes oh there it is okay so it says
54:27
um this is Rab ysf boror in from the 12th century France and he's commenting on Exodus
54:33
3:14 now you could disagree with Rabbi Yosef Bor but I would love to see the Jew traditional Jewish sources that show
54:39
that it's Yahweh that it's that it's uh he that causes to be um that's a verb
54:45
that means he that causes to be he says that's I am that I am or literally I
54:50
will not literally but you could translate as I will be that which I will be he says and he remember that's I am
54:56
am that I am in most English translations is the explanation of the unique four-letter name written
55:01
throughout the Torah meaning Y for the Holy One Blessed Be he was
55:07
without beginning and he will be without end this is the meaning of the name HOV
55:12
he is and he was and he will be so you could say that this is wrong
55:22
but you can't say this is just some crazy theory that I came up with this has been around for this guy's from the
55:28
12th century so uh I want to say that's 800 years ago but my math is very bad
55:34
right so let's say he's around 1175 yeah yeah that's 800 900 years ago
55:39
wow all right well so he's so 900 years ago about 8 850 whatever
55:47
um Jews were already saying that the name means he was he is and he will be
55:54
now I have earlier sources that I I sh with you but um the bottom line is that
56:00
this idea of he was he is he will be um is something that's all over the place
56:05
in Jewish sources it's it's uh and here he just explains it within the context of I am that I am and here what he's
56:11
dealing with is there's this strange thing in Exodus 3:14 God
56:18
says I will be or I am that which I am and he says tell them a sent me uh has
56:27
um sent me so and then he said and it says and yahovah said and God said further to
56:33
Moses and then he says his name yahovah and he says this is my name for ever this is my name from generation to
56:39
generation so is it a or is it yehovah now here we have to talk about what a
56:44
name is right because in later Jewish thought in Jewish philosophy you could
56:50
say that um a name is a title as well right say Elohim is his name name and
56:57
you could say Adonai is his name and you could say El Shai is his name but in the Tanakh his name is only
57:04
yahovah sometimes with attributes added to it right it'll be like yahovah of hosts but that core yahovah that is his
57:11
name and the others are called in Hebrew kinu which is something like a
57:18
nickname um right or you could say a pen name right so um in Modern English right
57:24
so so he has titles or we'd say titles I suppose God has many titles and beautiful titles but he only has one
57:31
name one Shem and that's yud yahovah in the tanak in later times he has many he
57:37
has many names which are really just titles and names mixed as if they're the same thing um so when he says this is my
57:44
name Forever This is my mention is what it actually says in the Hebrew from generation to generation and he says his name is y what is it is it or yahovah or
57:52
Yahweh or however you pronounce y right that that doesn't really change the this this part of it so the
57:59
explanation of the name is I will be and then he says has a verb that isn't a
58:04
simple verb right it's not a simple verb there is no verb in the Hebrew language um let's say in that form of
58:12
the verb uh there's a PL right we don't have to get into that but Y is not a
58:17
simple verb here from if it's in the same format as e
58:23
then it's a combination of three verbs yah yeah he was he is he will
58:30
be and I have no doubt in my mind that in the Book of Revelation when it
58:36
describes this figure and we could talk about what that figure is as he was he
58:42
is he will be that it's the same explanation as Rabbi ysf Bor gave in the
58:48
12th century and it's kind of hard to say that Rabbi ysf Bor Shore lived in France in the 12th century was echoing
58:55
Christ Doctrine which in his world was Catholic Doctrine because this is a time when Jews and Christians were at
59:01
loggerheads right certainly about the explanation and nature of God there's no
59:06
way a Jew is going to accept something a Christian said if anything they'll go out of their way to say something
59:12
different so if he's saying this this is drawing from Jewish sources and I could show you what some of those Jewish
59:18
sources are we have time to go into that but yeah that's that's really interesting so would I be correct with
59:25
this um little uh picture that I've made here and this is from your work I've
59:32
just sort of sort of spell I think that's from the King James version well absolutely that's the 1611 printing if
59:39
I'm not mistaken Oh I thought it was Hebrew um so I've written the Hebrew
59:45
here he will be uh he is and he was would that be the correct um atmology of
59:54
the next verse where it has Jehovah so so here's what he so we have to first of all you have the what the word the upper
1:00:01
left y that that's the font is backwards right so the U should be at on the far
1:00:06
right of the word not the far left ah yes okay it's funny I had a journal academic Journal article where I had
1:00:12
this exact problem I wrote it correctly and when they went to typ set it it came out backwards um and they were able to
1:00:18
fix it actually but it had already been published with the mistake and they were able to go back and and change it
1:00:24
incredibly um so that this thing happens uh a lot so um yeah so so so we have to
1:00:31
understand that Hebrew names are often short sentences and there's something that have been called um
1:00:38
M&S which stands for midrashic name derivations and em and and I didn't come
1:00:44
up with that a scholar at barine University who name at the moment escapes me he came up with that but but
1:00:50
he's he's just defining something that was well known in Judaism for thousands of years which is that the names in the
1:00:57
Bible aren't necessarily uh grammatical derivations and what I mean by that is
1:01:04
that um that there are name there are numerous names I don't even know if it's
1:01:09
hundreds or what the exact number is there are names where the name is
1:01:15
connected to the meaning of a sentence so for example Judah right I'm a Jew
1:01:21
where does Jew come from Judah Jew comes from yahovah I will thank yahovah but if I was going
1:01:29
to say yahovah I will thank yahovah or I will praise yahovah could mean as well uh if I was gonna say I will praise or I
1:01:35
will thank yahovah in a sentence uh isn't that interesting and it really also could mean I will confess
1:01:41
Jehovah which how interesting that Jews don't speak the name usually because the name Jew means I will confess Jehovah so
1:01:48
but if I was to say I will confess or I will thank or I'll praise yahovah in a sentence I would say OD yahovah or
1:01:56
yehovah o I wouldn't say Yehuda right so how do I get from Judah
1:02:01
to I will thank yehovah well I've gotta I'll say mush things I gotta modify
1:02:08
things to put it into a name or Abraham he's the father of many nations but
1:02:13
father of many nations isn't Abraham doesn't even sound a little bit
1:02:18
like Abraham right abonim is the phrase father of many nations by the way there's that word go which Christians
1:02:24
think is a some people think is a slur well no Israel and peoples related to it
1:02:31
are called go Nations so father of many nations aamon but it's Abraham shouldn't
1:02:38
it be a aamy or something so so that's a what
1:02:44
what this scholar Baran called M&S midic Nam derivations right so sometimes the
1:02:50
name sounds like the other word and it's good enough that it sounds like it
1:02:55
doesn't have to be grammatically derived from it but in this passage we have a
1:03:01
question what does I am have what on Earth does it have to do with yehovah and the answer there is what Rio
1:03:09
said it's giving you the explanation of the name so this is an m andd a madic
1:03:15
name derivation and it's I I prefer to call them bnds Biblical name derivations but whatever not split hairs so this
1:03:22
name derivation the first verse 14 is the derivation of verse 15 and that makes
1:03:29
perfect sense in Hebrew we see it all the time dozens or hundreds of times right there's a famous character in
1:03:35
Chronicles called Jaz in English Jaz is from the Hebrew yah abetes and it says because he was born
1:03:42
beot in sadness and what actually is done there in Chronicles is the two of the letters
1:03:47
in the name are switched so you can't say that's a grammatical derivation right it's a word that sounds
1:03:55
like the other word so in this case number one sounds like y yud
1:04:01
however you pronounce that name and number two very clearly seems to be
1:04:06
derived from the same Roots right so Hebrew and Al Semitic
1:04:11
languages are based on three-letter Roots that's one of the central principles of Semitic Linguistics right
1:04:17
so it's true of Hebrew Aramaic Arabic Gaz Acadian all the Semitic languages
1:04:22
are based on three-letter Roots there are some exceptions um and they have excuses for the exceptions the linguists um but the
1:04:31
three-letter root here is the is the letters hey you hey or hey VAV and I say or because sometimes it functions as if
1:04:38
the root is hey UD hey and sometimes it functions as if the root is hey V right so the past tense is ha which is
1:04:47
he but the present is he VAV and then the future is ye h which
1:04:56
has hey y with a prefix so is the pref is the prefix form I will be and it has
1:05:03
hey yud he so how do we get he will he is Exodus 3:14 says nothing about he is
1:05:11
or he was it only says about I will be
1:05:16
so the yud prefix is he will so then it should be what you have
1:05:21
there but backwards right in the upper left um right so it's yud yud but then
1:05:27
when the name we have yud VAV so where' the VAV come the VAV had to come from the present tense form I guess you could
1:05:33
say it was from the imperative form but nobody says that that I'm aware of so so Jewish sources by and large
1:05:41
agree uh that the name derives from he was he is he will be and where they're
1:05:46
getting they're not just making that up out of the thin air where they're getting that from comparing Exodus 3:14
1:05:51
and 3:15 and saying wait a minute is is the future form but with a
1:05:57
different prefix where did the V come from the V came from the present tense
1:06:02
over there that's where they're getting it from wow that's very interesting and
1:06:08
that's I guess it's it's been amazing to me to see that um in the Book of
1:06:15
Revelation so I'll just get this this uh verse up from my website uh where it has Thou Art
1:06:23
righteous O Lord which art and was and sh be so it's got the the the present um
1:06:32
the sorry the past the present in the future and so this would be the atmology
1:06:38
of Jehovah I I would say it's it's the explanation notice there's a difference
1:06:45
between atmology and the name explanation right derivation implies uh
1:06:50
a linguistic um process I guess this is a linguistic process too
1:06:56
but it's not a derivation here's what I could say I am is a derivation of the
1:07:01
verb ha to be right and yud is a derivation from that verb as well but
1:07:08
it's it's an unusual form of derivation at least that's how it's explained in Jewish sources and that it's three
1:07:14
different forms It's a combination that expresses three forms of the Hebrew verb so you could say that I don't know that
1:07:20
might be splitting hairs but that's what I do for a living I split hairs isn't it I have no hair
1:07:28
um so yeah so I hope that makes sense um and yes I actually sorry go ahead
1:07:37
follow up yeah and I look at Revelation earlier in the book yeah absolutely uh
1:07:42
from a Jewish perspective when you read this and you you see it in a in a Christian context um what do you think
1:07:51
the author had in mind when he wrote this so that's what I want to get to
1:07:57
let's look at um uh and I'm forgetting the verse off the top of my head but it's the one in
1:08:02
earlier in Revelation where he said it says holy holy holy where yes Revelation
1:08:08
uh 48 I'm pretty sure that is revelation 4 right let me pull this up in my little
1:08:13
Bible Software here 48 all right so yes we have hos hagios
1:08:21
hagios which I'm pronouncing the Hebrew University way not the way Greeks say it today because they have like a y for the G so
1:08:28
oh there you go beautiful hagos hagios hagios uh oh I don't see that part there
1:08:33
um which is holy holy holy and that's nobody doubts nobody disputes that this is taken or it echoes you could say
1:08:41
right meaning uh I suppose if you if you're a believer in the New Testament you would say this is taken from the Revelation John had but John then saw
1:08:48
the same thing that happened in Isaiah 63 let's put it that way yes so in other words John had the
1:08:56
same sort of Isaiah 63 Revelation where in Isaiah 63 it says in Greek Hos Hos
1:09:02
hgos holy holy holy yes and what's really interesting C can I share my
1:09:09
screen here and show everybody my Greek here please to this is my Bible Software
1:09:15
accordance let me pull up the Hebrew okay so he's he's in heaven and he's
1:09:20
seeing the Angels so we'll do present and we'll do share screen
1:09:25
and then we have to choose uh okay so here's accordance so can you see that oh
1:09:34
can you see that now there it is beautiful so accordance is my very fancy
1:09:40
Bible Software okay and it says there in the Hebrew and he called this one to another
1:09:46
and said right mean the angels in heaven kadad kados holy holy holy yov yahovah
1:09:54
of hosts the whole Earth is filled with his G Glory so in Greek we have and here's the
1:10:01
operative words in Greek let me see if you could you see my mouse here do you see my mouse I might just
1:10:08
try and make it a bit you what I just made it a little bit larger so okay all right oh so you see
1:10:16
what my mouse is hovering over not my mouse all right so it's there there hagios oh I love this so what my
1:10:21
software does is it highlights the Hebrew word and the Greek word that parallels the Hebrew so we have
1:10:28
kados haos kados hagos kadosh hagios holy holy
1:10:33
holy and then it's curios which is Lord curios in modern Greek
1:10:40
pronunciation um and then it's of hosts but the Greek doesn't say of hosts it
1:10:47
says SA or sa in let's say the classical
1:10:52
pronunciation something like that Sab sa so what's going on here so there's no
1:11:00
question whatsoever this comes from a Hebrew phrase because it uses a Hebrew phrase right you don't have to guess
1:11:06
there's a Hebrew phrase right there in the Greek so so it's transcribing the Hebrew
1:11:12
word of hosts and it's interesting what does of hosts mean right that's a
1:11:17
different discussion is it the hosts of Heaven for the hosts of Israel or the or the Angels the host of Heaven as in the
1:11:25
star it's not clear but any of it so it's cuos Sav sa the the Lord of hosts which
1:11:34
is the translation of yahovah of hosts so in the original Hebrew even if
1:11:41
you read it as Lord it says right in other words this word is what Jews today when they read this they
1:11:47
read this as Adonai Adon and so maybe that's why it was translated as cuos SA
1:11:55
um because that was the way it was read by Jews but the letters the four letters are there in the original
1:12:03
Hebrew um and maybe that's what was written in the original um source of the Book of
1:12:10
Revelation or even in the Greek Source it could have been written I don't know but in any event it's definitely based
1:12:16
on this phrase and uh so why is that
1:12:21
important so it's important because um when we uh look at
1:12:29
um uh in the Greek of Revelation so now let's go back to the Greek of
1:12:36
Revelation it says cuos hoos
1:12:43
honor so it's Lord the god the
1:12:51
alyy and Ponto is the standard translation in in Greek
1:12:59
for Wow right so so we've already learned something fascinating it's not
1:13:05
that John sat down with the Book of Revelation excuse me it's not that John of Patmos that's more accurate so John
1:13:12
of Patmos didn't sit down with the Greek translation of the Tanakh the septu agent that we have
1:13:19
today and then say I'm gonna lift this verse and put it in my book that didn't happen we know that didn't happen
1:13:26
because he doesn't just change yahovah to cuos and by the way the sepian does
1:13:31
have curios but he has Hanto cror as a translation of of hosts where the seent
1:13:40
has just cot in the Greek letters wow right so so John is not getting this
1:13:45
direct from the sepagan at least as it's come down to us today in our standard Septuagint version right so it could be
1:13:52
the septu was different in the first century when John wrote this or it could
1:13:58
be that I guess from a faith perspective you could say the angel didn't pick up
1:14:03
the book of the septu agent from the 21st Cent or from the 4th century and read out of it but the angel translated
1:14:11
into and here's a question I don't know what you believe do you believe the angel was speaking to or when John had
1:14:16
this Revelation har you believed it happened was I believe in Greek I believe it was spoken to him in Hebrew
1:14:23
because he was a native Hebrew and I I believe in edenic that Hebrew was the
1:14:28
first original language on Earth yeah I believe that too although I would say the Hebrew we have today isn't the
1:14:35
Hebrew mean even the Hebrew of the Torah may not be the Hebrew of Adam and Eve because we have words that come from
1:14:41
Egyptian certainly in the language of Adam and Eve there wasn't the word Pharaoh um or auu which is the Egyptian
1:14:47
word for um um uh Papyrus um or reads we translate it but
1:14:53
it's really Papyrus right so presum didn't have those words but yeah some form of Proto Hebrew I believe existed
1:14:59
in but that's a faith statement that's fine um okay so um in any event um
1:15:05
however the Revelation happened or however John wrote this whatever you believe about it it's not based
1:15:11
directly on our version of the Su because there are differences Ponto
1:15:16
instead of sa so then he adds another thing and that other thing is and I'll
1:15:21
let you present it because that's your expertise which is the Texas receptus because because the Texas
1:15:29
receptus um has this um actually the Nestle island has it too so it's not there it's not different other verses
1:15:34
it's different so there it doesn't really matter um so what do you have
1:15:40
there in the Greek um I'll just uh share screen there we go um I just thought I'd add too that
1:15:48
there is a a chastic structure to these five I call them the triatic
1:15:54
Declarations with uh the first one has the the
1:15:59
present the past and the future or the first two have that the middle one has
1:16:04
the past the present and the future and then the final two has the present past
1:16:10
and then future so it's quite an interesting um little study to get
1:16:15
into um but just back up to the actual verse it has
1:16:22
um and I heard the angels of the water the Angel of the waters say thou art righteous O Lord so it's interesting it
1:16:29
has O Lord which in Hebrew would be Jehovah every yeah every time this
1:16:35
triadic declaration appears in the Book of Revelation the word Jehovah or um
1:16:42
curios in the Greek appears except for the first time when John's sort of explaining himself in a bit of an
1:16:49
introduction but whenever it's spoken by Jesus or the Angels or the 24 ERS they
1:16:56
say Lord then they sort of expand and say who was and is and is to come or who
1:17:03
was and is and shall be it's like they they're saying the word and then they're explaining um the the the atmology as I
1:17:11
mentioned before or an explanation of what that means and they also use pantocrator in every one of those places
1:17:18
as well which is quite interesting so the reason Revelation 4 is so important from my perspective is that I don't need
1:17:25
to guess and say that originally it said they yehovah I have the book of Isaiah to know that when you have holy holy
1:17:33
holy blank Ponto cror that the word blank is
1:17:38
yehovah that's like that's right there in and that's that's what's so beautiful to me about it right because because
1:17:44
otherwise I think you're probably right I don't know about the the the um castic
1:17:49
structure but the other part I think you're probably right that this was a term to refer to uh Jehovah or yehovah
1:17:56
um but in Revelation 48 it's unambiguous
1:18:02
that it's based on Isaiah 63 and I think it's not even disputed if somebody
1:18:07
disputes I'd love to hear why um and but based on I mean it's the same sort of vision that's taking place right it's
1:18:14
the same it's the same Revelation um and uh and there as far
1:18:20
even the Nestle Allen which I know you don't go by you go by the uh arasmus Texas receptus but even the next Nestle
1:18:27
Allen has the same as the Texas receptus which is hoen
1:18:34
konos uh right so it's um he that uh it's the three forms of the verb right
1:18:42
so now there isos which is to come but frankly the
1:18:47
difference between there is to come and he will be is um not really significant
1:18:53
in this context you know and somebody May disagree with me but in Hebrew um you know you'll say
1:19:01
and it was and in in indoeuropean languages you'll say and it came to pass well it came where where did it come
1:19:09
right so um it will come to pass you in Hebrew you say it will be oh and which
1:19:14
translation is this this is interesting so this is the Elijah um 1599 dolot which was a 12
1:19:24
Language by ible now he worked on the he a Hebrew New Testament and so um this is
1:19:31
where I've underlined the green with green here the name of um yahovah and then it's got the triadic declaration
1:19:38
and so uh in 14 it doesn't have the name of Jehovah in um in 18 it does in 48 it
1:19:50
has Jehovah and the trtic Declaration uh in whoops I've gone a bit
1:19:56
far there 1117 it has that and then Revelation
1:20:02
165 uh I'm not sure where that picture went I think my I might be getting them a bit bit
1:20:09
muddled but the first one doesn't have the name of Jehovah but the rest do they all have uh Jehovah which is in green
1:20:16
here and and the trtic Declaration or the past the present and the future or is to come or shall be uh with the red
1:20:25
underlined so I thought you might find that interesting yeah that's so that's interesting what's interesting about it
1:20:32
is someone is translating the Greek back into Hebrew uh or I don't know what he used
1:20:38
did he use the Greek or the the Latin but anyway he's going back into Hebrew with whatever European language he's
1:20:43
using and he's coming to what seems pretty obvious to me which is and I
1:20:48
don't again I don't know is there I'm really curious is there someone who disputes this in in Christian study
1:20:54
studies I don't I don't know the answer to that but it seems patently obvious
1:21:00
that this is um this idea of he is he was he will be or in different orders or
1:21:06
you showed that I love that castic structure I had noticed that I mean I noticed they were in different orders but I hadn't noticed it was a c castic
1:21:12
structure um that that's a thing that you'll find in Hebrew poetry but also in
1:21:17
Hebrew writing where it's ABC CBA right my faite like you you have different
1:21:22
elements that repeat themselves and they're when they're repeated they're in the reverse
1:21:28
order so you have he sheds the blood of Man by man
1:21:33
his blood shall be shed wow right and so that's ABC CBA right so that's an
1:21:38
ancient thing right that's everybody agrees even secular Scholars and that's something a really early thing that
1:21:44
phrase uh it's from Genesis chapter nine uh somewhere around there um right just
1:21:51
poetically it's it's a very early form and it's chastic so let me show you something I have here which is um so you
1:21:59
have something called tarum uh pseudo Jonathan and it called pseudo Jonathan
1:22:05
because it was attributed to a man named Jonathan um the son of uzziel who
1:22:11
translated the prophets into Aramaic oh you have it there okay uh pseudo
1:22:18
Jonathan is something where they thought it was translated by Jonathan because it's actually quite funny why um and
1:22:25
later they realized this isn't Jonathan because Jonathan is certain phrases he uses and this is a translation of the
1:22:30
Torah and Jonathan only translated the prophets so it's called pseudo Jonathan it's interesting what was it originally
1:22:36
so in the Hebrew manuscripts apparently it said Tav yud which is an acronym
1:22:42
which they mistook to be tarum yonathan tarum Jonathan and now they say oh that
1:22:49
was tarum Yi the Jerusalem tarum
1:22:54
right so this was the tarum they used in the land of Israel at least that's what whoever wrote the manuscript thought uh
1:23:01
and then later people misunderstood it and thought it was of Jonathan so that's what pseudo Jonathan means um when is it
1:23:07
from boy it's debated there's a professor at Baran University who says it's from the 12th century other
1:23:12
Scholars say it may go back to the first century even the one who says it's from the 12th century says it is earlier
1:23:17
sources because obviously there's earlier things in it okay so tarum
1:23:23
Jonathan on Deuteronomy 32 uh 39 has um uh Anna and this is an aric
1:23:33
right so actually we know so Exodus 3:14 it has um a I am that I am and he could
1:23:40
easily translate it that way but he doesn't he translates it
1:23:47
an I am he that I was and in the future am to be right so what he's doing is he's
1:23:54
taking that interpretation that Yosef bahor Shore put in there in the 12th century and he's doing this probably in
1:24:01
the first or second century right so this is important because the earliest source that I know of at least um that
1:24:07
has it and we'll look at pho in sub in a minute um and he is explaining the
1:24:15
Divine name yahovah as those three tenses and what's interesting is that in
1:24:22
a way it's ironic that the earliest Jewish source that has this
1:24:27
explanation or that has this as you call it triatic what did you call it Tri I like that triotic declaration triotic
1:24:35
declaration all right um I'll call it the trense Declaration or something I don't know um so the earliest uh
1:24:42
reference this Tri tense declaration is the Book of Revelation inless tarum Jonathan is
1:24:49
earlier in the book of re or let's say it's Source right meaning tarum Jonathan
1:24:55
was based in earlier sources and it and apparently had this trense format or
1:25:03
explanation um and so and so we have now two witnesses from around the year 100
1:25:11
whenever you date turum Jonathan or the Book of Revelation right give let's take give or take 20 years right uh I don't
1:25:16
really know um I know a lot of that speculation uh and then Deuteronomy 3239
1:25:23
is another one I don't know if you you have that one uh you do okay uh it says
1:25:28
see now that I am I am he and there is no God with me that's in the Hebrew what
1:25:34
it has and in the uh pseudo Jonathan in the T in the Aramaic it says see now
1:25:40
that I am he that is and I was and I am he that in the future am to be right and there's no other God beside
1:25:47
me so it's the same explanation this uh there's no question that there's some
1:25:53
connection between what we have in Revelation even if we only have it once right there's disputes about all five of
1:25:59
those right but even if we only had it once there's a connection between what's in
1:26:04
Revelation and what's in tarum pseudo Jonathan and nobody is going to argue in
1:26:10
nobody's seriously gonna argue let's put it that way maybe I want to say differently nobody serious is going to
1:26:15
argue that tarum Pudo Jonathan was influenced by The Book of Revelation
1:26:21
that's not plausible so they both have a common source now is is can you say that Revelation
1:26:27
was influenced by tarum Pudo Jonathan pretty unlikely right chronologically it doesn't work so there so this is an idea
1:26:34
that exists in the Jewish world that they're both drawing on right you could say if you want the
1:26:40
Angels drawing on it or whatever right um or it's happening in you know in
1:26:45
heaven and that's what John pmos is saying right however you want to explain it or when it's translated into Greek
1:26:51
they're incorporating this into their translation right or John is translating it that way I don't know whatever um but this is an
1:26:58
idea that's in Judaism in the first century that that's the takeaway here and probably before because you know
1:27:04
generally when these things are quoted they must have some earlier life so so I
1:27:09
think that's quite significant so I so I gave a lecture on this at baralan University and I I don't know if I'm the
1:27:16
first which isn't which is where I got my PhD and what's interesting about Baron is it's one of only two orthodox
1:27:24
Jewish universities in the world at least that I know maybe there's other ones um Yeshiva University in New York
1:27:29
and barlan University in ramakan Israel uh and I presented on this exact topic
1:27:36
and um there I was at Baron University presenting on the Book of
1:27:42
Revelation and showing how it has parallels to um at an Orthodox Jewish
1:27:48
University I'm presenting on Revelation and showing how it H has a common idea that exists in
1:27:54
Tumo Jonathan so wow yeah so um when when the
1:28:03
rabbis said the name of Jehovah in the temple did they pronounce the
1:28:10
explanation of the name with the IMs like would they have said the name
1:28:16
Jehovah and then said you know the one who was and is and is to come because um
1:28:22
I've that's a good question I was going to say definitely not and then something
1:28:30
came to mind which is really interesting um now
1:28:35
you're getting me thinking about something interesting am I still sharing my screen or uh no you're not okay
1:28:42
um so meaning what you just said no I don't think that's a thing um or let me put it
1:28:49
differently I don't know that we have evidence for that um
1:28:55
right so the rabbis talk about the priests not just the high priests they talk about the priests in general
1:29:00
pronouncing the name in the temple during the Priestly blessing then the high priest would do it on yum
1:29:06
kipur um but the priest would do it daily um so first of all it wasn't
1:29:11
necessarily rabbis right because the high priest generally wasn't wasn't a rabbi um but they heard
1:29:18
it right so did they when they were discussing what he said did they say the explanation I am is what you're
1:29:26
asking that's an interesting question that I immediately want to say no but
1:29:31
then something comes to mind that I have to check before I say it in order to be responsible um let's see if you want to
1:29:38
wait a minute it's a bit awkward here for those online no that's fine I'm I'm throwing out some pretty in depth that's
1:29:44
a good question I like the question so um but did they explain it
1:29:50
the way you just said it definitely not but is there an illusion to that um that's
1:29:56
interesting all right I need I need to do more research here in order to answer this
1:30:02
responsibly unless I get lucky and not find what I'm looking for
1:30:08
um uh let's
1:30:15
see yeah uh
1:30:25
so I'm gonna have to oh no here it is um I found it so it's in the Babylonian
1:30:34
talmud oh no it's in the Jerusalem talmud interesting
1:30:39
um and it's describing the ceremony that took place on
1:30:45
sukot um and they would sing Ana yahovah Ana yahovah
1:30:55
which is from the psalm Psalm 12825 and it's you know oh Lord or oh
1:31:01
yova I don't know how they said it in the temple uh uh say and and the other
1:31:07
ones I know because we're told that's how they said it with the actual name here maybe they said Lord I don't know uh meaning at some point maybe they said
1:31:13
yahovah but but in the first century maybe they're saying Lord um so it's oh
1:31:19
oh please uh Lord save right that's where you get hosana by the way from Psalm 128 from 18:25 so this is
1:31:27
something that was recited or sung in the ceremony in the temple and then it says they would there's a so there's a
1:31:33
different opinion which says no they didn't just say that they would say
1:31:39
an i and he please save I and he please
1:31:44
save so instead of oh please hosana it was I and he so what's I and
1:31:52
he right so maybe that was an I mean I'm thinking
1:31:59
out loud here right I'm I'm spitballing but there you have an I right who's I well no nobody thinks
1:32:07
I is and people have suggested this is related to the word Jehovah right that's not something new I just came up with
1:32:14
but nobody's been intelligently in my opinion been able to explain how but maybe that's how maybe the I there is
1:32:21
related to the I am I don't know just a thought right that was just you
1:32:26
know just a spitballing right so that's in the uh Jerusalem talmud um sukot chapter
1:32:34
4 and in what's people normally quote the Venice Edition so in the Venice
1:32:40
Edition it's folio 54 um B if somebody wants to look that
1:32:46
up but it's also chapter 4 section three so anyway maybe someone will
1:32:53
discover something something there how that or maybe that's I am and what he is oh
1:33:00
interesting idea yeah but that's been connected to the tetr time before right that's not new to me okay yeah very interesting and
1:33:09
so um maybe just what about the theophoric names now I know that you
1:33:14
you're a busy guy and we've already gone for an hour and a half I could go we really
1:33:20
wow um but I've really enjoyed this but if I could go forever I could go for as
1:33:27
as long as you want but I'm I'm throwing it in your support and just saying let's
1:33:33
do a few more a few more top like question let's we limit it to two hours
1:33:38
since I I need to get to yeah um so what about the theophoric names the the the
1:33:44
names of Jehovah inside the like Benjamin neton Yahoo it seems to have
1:33:50
the name yaho in in the end of that and so the rule is at the so there is
1:33:55
numerous theophoric names a theophoric name is where you have the name of another God inside your
1:34:04
name um so for example um and let's take an I like to start with examples which
1:34:10
aren't related to the god of Israel because that helps us understand what
1:34:16
the concept is here right there might be some theological significance to the the the Israelite or let's say the the the
1:34:24
yehovah base theophoric names so for example Israel has an enemy in the
1:34:30
second temple or in the first temple period rather um maybe slightly before the first temple indeed named uh um
1:34:37
Hadad ezer and KH Hadad ezer is the name of
1:34:44
the god of the arameans who live in Damascus and ezar means he helps so
1:34:50
Hadad ezar means Hadad helps and Hadad was actually probably the name of ba
1:34:56
right ba means Lord it wasn't his actual name and the explanation that that schols have come up with is his actual
1:35:03
name was Hadad um and the Canaanites didn't want to say his name so what they said was
1:35:10
Lord interesting by the way um so Hadad Asar is Lord uh sorry is Hadad helps and
1:35:19
we have the same name in Hebrew except it's not with the god Hadad it's with our God and it's
1:35:25
yozar so yozar is yehovah helps but the very same name exists with yo at the end
1:35:33
and when yaho is at the end it's yahu so we have Azar yahu he's one of the Kings
1:35:38
of Israel is also a prophet him AAR dead right so that's Azariah in English right
1:35:43
so Azariah is azal yahu and it's really the same name as yo right or it's the
1:35:48
same meaning as the name yozar yehovah uh saves now why isn't
1:35:57
it Azar yaho why is it Azar yahu or why
1:36:03
isn't it yahu ezar because that's not how Hebrew works it's just not right so Hebrew has
1:36:11
this thing where long vowels are shortened when they're distant from the place of the
1:36:16
emphasis um I could go into that it's a bit complicated but basically if you
1:36:21
have something that by itself is yah as in Hallelujah yah is its own word in
1:36:26
Hallelujah in Hebrew it's written as a separate word or um we have other instances where yah is by itself if it's
1:36:33
yah with the long vow kamat that would be shortened to yaho at the beginning of a word right that's kind of obvious to
1:36:40
people who know Hebrew grammar shadal said that in the early 19th century right that's no big discovery of mine
1:36:47
right that's that's something that the um how do I put this I won't say it
1:36:54
because it's obnoxious so I won't say it anyway let's move on um so in proving that the name is
1:37:02
yahova um how how do you use the theophoric names to right so whenever
1:37:07
the names begin let's start with whatever the names end it's yahu right and the emphasis in Hebrew is
1:37:14
the is the yah right so Hebrew has two places it can put the emphasis it can put it on the final
1:37:21
syllable or second to last syllable there's no such thing in Hebrew as the main emphasis is on the third to last
1:37:27
syllable that's not a thing in Hebrew it is in English right happens all the time in English in fact English prefers um
1:37:37
not putting it at the end of a syllable right Al it depends on right you you
1:37:42
could change the meaning in Hebrew or excuse me you can change the meaning in English by um where you put the
1:37:49
emphasis right so think about the word perfect and perfect
1:37:54
so perfect the syllable is in the last place and perfect it's on the second to last now English doesn't express it as
1:38:01
last and second to last but Hebrew does it calls it literally above and below
1:38:06
right below is the last syllable and and above is the second to last syllable right that's how he uses Aramaic terms
1:38:12
for that so um so those are the two emphasis emphases so my name NE isn't
1:38:19
actually neia it's why am I called
1:38:24
because my great-grandfather his native language was Yiddish and in Yiddish they like to shift the syllable earlier in
1:38:31
the word so in Yiddish it's neia right in proper Hebrew it's neya
1:38:37
right let's say in Tiberian Hebrew to be more accurate right let all right so in any event um and there's many names like
1:38:44
that so we'll have modern Jews who are named Rifka which is Rebecca but it's not rifa in the Bible it's
1:38:51
rifa right so so um so the emphasis is on the yah in names like Netanyahu right
1:38:59
so Netanyahu it's actually on Netanyahu right if I called him nanahu by the way in English this is a major
1:39:05
controversy now who would have believed whether you call her Kamala or Kamala
1:39:11
right that's that's something that will get you banned from some social media platforms and label a racist if you call
1:39:18
I don't even know what the right one is off the top of my head I'm not even sure so I'm afraid to say
1:39:23
um they're listening um so but but really uh nitan
1:39:31
yaho is the emphasis is on the yah and all the names it's on the yah right so
1:39:39
it's not Hallelujah that's actually wrong in Hebrew it's
1:39:45
Hallelujah right so it's on the yah there it's actually two words hyphenated but it's a bit different um so it's not
1:39:51
hyphenated in nanahu it's really one word um and it's really that's actually
1:39:57
my name nobody calls me that I had one professor at University who called me that
1:40:02
Maron um but nobody else calls me that even my father called me NE because that's the yish pronunciation or the
1:40:09
Eastern European Jewish pronunciation in any event um uh so names tend to be very
1:40:16
conservative even though in modern Hebrew they would say B just like in Tiberian Hebrew for
1:40:23
the name they still say so so the point is that the
1:40:29
in is pre- pronal right it's two positions before the emphasized syllable
1:40:39
so it really can't be uh not in Tiberian Hebrew it couldn't
1:40:46
be yaho uh oh it wouldn't be yeah it would
1:40:51
be it couldn't be um uh let's take a yah name right so yaho ezar right which is
1:40:56
the same as azer yahu it can't be yaho ezar because that's not how Hebrew works
1:41:02
right the syllable has to be shortened to in this case what's called AA and it becomes y right that was something that
1:41:08
was pointed out by shadal 150 almost 200 years ago actually I'm looking at the calendar he wrote that in the 1830s
1:41:15
right so this should be pretty obvious right I don't think that part's disputed right I don't know if it is
1:41:21
it's a good question does anybody dispute names like yozar or let's say yahushua yahushua is a bit different um
1:41:29
but it's the same basic principle yahushua so the emphasis is on Shu and yahushua Joshua and why isn't it yah
1:41:38
yahu yahoshua because that's not how Hebrew works right it's too far from the
1:41:43
emphasized syllable to have a long vowel like kamat which is the vowel in
1:41:50
nanahu right you just you wouldn't have it there so it becomes truncated or it's
1:41:56
called pre- tonal shortening in this case pre- pronal I guess if we want to be really technical um yeah so so it's
1:42:02
gonna be a year in those names it has to be and why wouldn't it be in the name yehovah when the cell emphasiz syllables
1:42:09
on the VA now yeah go ahead and so with the
1:42:15
with the name like or with the word hallelu yah is yah like a contracted
1:42:22
form of Jehovah so there's different explanations of it um one explanation is
1:42:28
that it's a contracted mean everyone agrees it's a it's an abbreviated form
1:42:34
right but how is it abbreviated so one explanation is that um it is uh just
1:42:42
it's the first two letters here it's complicated because it could be the first and last letter as well right so
1:42:47
those are the two explanations basically okay uh this Rabbi I mentioned before David Samuel David L though he has an
1:42:53
interesting explanation where but it's complicated I won't go into it we only have a few minutes left so okay um so I'm just
1:43:01
wondering about I'll just show my screen um here we go so in the Hebrew uh
1:43:10
theophoric names we have names like um jeho Ain but that's changed to joakin so
1:43:18
it seems like the eh was removed at some stage would would this be the first type
1:43:25
of form of a like a Noma Sacra type of thing no uh well I don't know what you
1:43:30
mean by nominos Sacra I know what it means in New Testament studies I don't know that it applies here nomin Sacra is
1:43:36
like where you're writing the word cuos and you write the the Kappa and the sigma and you put a line over them um or
1:43:42
cier which is O Lord and you write the cap in the Epsilon and you're trying to save
1:43:48
space people have claimed that that indicates deity I'm not convinced of that because in the early Greek
1:43:55
manuscripts they also have the word Jerusalem um as you know
1:44:00
y um or something like that um so is are you saying Jerusalem is God
1:44:07
and the explanation I've heard from Greek Scholars is ah Jerusalem was a was a was a like a cipher for for
1:44:13
God I don't find that very convincing name Mary when it refers to the mother of Jesus is also ninous Sacra sometimes
1:44:22
in some man SC so so I find that very doubtful but okay but who knows that's not my expertise so is this a nomin of
1:44:28
Sacra not exactly what this is is it's a truncation right so you have um y the
1:44:35
mother of Moses think about that before the Torah was given we have somebody who has this
1:44:40
abbreviation right so she's not YH which means yahovah is Honorable I guess it
1:44:46
could mean yahovah is heavy but probably yahovah is any honorable or the glory of yahovah yahovah is glorious that's what
1:44:53
y means um no
1:44:59
it's right so the emphasis of the second it's not y by the way it's y uh right the or joed I guess in
1:45:07
English right the emphasis is in the second last syllable and you have a further truncation now this truncation
1:45:12
is for a different reason I think so the letter uh you just said H which is
1:45:18
interesting that's what Australians say so I'm from Chicago and we say h H yeah
1:45:24
and you say house I don't know do you say house or do you say house house okay
1:45:31
what about the things that you cook with cook with are those herbs or herbs herbs
1:45:37
really so in America we say it correctly we say herbs I'm jokeing about correct because who's to say right it's
1:45:44
different dialects of English so in some pronunciations of Hebrew from ancient times they didn't pronounce the h
1:45:53
and so ye
1:45:59
became and we had a tration it became y right so if you're pronouncing the H as
1:46:07
an Australian pronounce it in Herb in herb then you the hay will drop and we
1:46:15
have that in lots of places it's not unique to theophoric names it's all over
1:46:20
the place especially where the a h at the beginning of a word although not only or towards the beginning uh we have
1:46:27
it at the end too why am I in the Bible or he is the biblical
1:46:33
character is neyya why isn't he like Netanyahu neyu so the answer is it is we have
1:46:40
inscriptions from the first temple period that were found on these seals and it's really strange because somehow
1:46:47
the Jewish occupation already began in the seventh century BCE or the 6th Century BCE and I'm joking here right we
1:46:54
have Jewish seals like somebody would stamp their name into a piece of clay and we have that little piece of clay
1:47:00
it's called a bullah to seal impression and we have those from the sixth Century BCE or late 7th Century BCE from
1:47:10
Jerusalem right so it shows that there were Jews there in the seventh or sixth Century BCE um probably closer to the end of the
1:47:16
seventh and um and they have uh the name nahu
1:47:23
right why isn't it Nya so what happened is the name was truncated because they didn't pronounce the he and soyu became
1:47:32
ya which became right same thing at the beginning
1:47:37
y became Y and what's interesting is we don't have the form yoh for the mother
1:47:44
of Moses we only have y now we do have Yosef which is Joseph
1:47:50
and we know that name came from yehovah We're told what it means right it's yahovah adds yahovah multiplies yahovah
1:47:56
y y and usually it's y but we have a place in the tanak
1:48:05
in the Hebrew Bible where it's written Yos is that in the English do you see that I actually don't know the answer to
1:48:11
that I think it is in the English um they do have the jeho and Joe
1:48:19
distinction and I guess the the circles that I'm in we we sort of feel that this
1:48:25
was because of the Commandments don't take the name of the Lord in vain so some of these names were shortened so
1:48:31
that people wouldn't accidentally say the name of Jehovah when they're saying Jehoshaphat or jeho that's nonsense I'll
1:48:39
tell you why that's nonsense and I don't mean to offend you no that's F if that's your theological view then I'll respect
1:48:45
it but um let me rephrase I take back its nonsense here's why I don't think
1:48:51
that's correct um so the the Jewish ban on the name
1:48:57
right so there and that's debated when that started we could discuss that but that's that'll be another hour so but
1:49:02
nobody disputes that by a certain period there was a ban on speaking the name whether it happened in the second third
1:49:09
Century BCE when the death of Simon the just or maybe a few Century later whatever so there's this time and period
1:49:17
where Jews rabbis decide it's forbidden to speak the name and in any context text not just
1:49:23
outside the temple and well the temple was destroyed definitely according to one version um and uh so they say Adonai
1:49:32
instead and today they'll even say Hashem which is now further like uh a
1:49:37
mission creep right first we say you yehovah is too holy so we'll say Adonai
1:49:42
and now we say Adonai is too holy outside of prayer so we'll say Hashem right so whenever that happened but it
1:49:48
was certainly in place by the end of the second century CE that's not this that's not disputed and it really can't it's
1:49:54
hard to dispute that um it never applied to the theophoric
1:50:00
names never even today there's people with the name
1:50:05
yahushua right it's a very common name there's people with the name um I'm trying to think of another
1:50:12
one off the top of my head that which is a common name right I mean there's people with the name yohanan right so there's an example
1:50:19
yohanan is a common name now yhan in the T is truncated to yanan but sometimes it's
1:50:27
yhan now in modern times it's very common for people to have the name yhan
1:50:34
so despite the fullblown ban in the name where there's even a tendency not to say Adonai because it's too holy right that
1:50:40
mission grief they'll still say yaho in a name because nobody thinks that's taking the name of God okay right it's
1:50:47
an element of God's name but it's so common obviously the band never the band never applied to yah in Hallelujah
1:50:55
that's why it's so surprising that in the King James they have Lord for
1:51:02
Hallelujah because nobody ever had a ban on that in Judaism right that's always been
1:51:07
accepted that that's some sort of an abbreviated form however you explain it and therefore it's not forbidden because
1:51:12
it's only the full form that's forbidden by retical tradition or law um and so
1:51:18
the yaho form the yaho element has never been bad it's not a thing so now there are people
1:51:26
who truncate it right there are people who and this is an interesting thing I was shocked when I moved to Israel when
1:51:32
I first came to Israel um I was there for before I even moved I was there for a year and I was in an Old Pond studying
1:51:39
Hebrew and there were these Jews from Italy and we were reading something in the weekly Torah portion about the
1:51:44
mountain where uh I still remember it now it's been like it
1:51:50
1990 that's a long time and we're reading something from the Torah portion about the mountain where
1:51:56
Aaron the brother of Moses died and the name of that mountain is H haar or I'll
1:52:03
just use the English American pronunciation Jahar or Mount and it's a h like
1:52:10
the ancient herb and these Italian Jews who were in my Alan said or a
1:52:16
r and I said why are you pronouncing it incorrectly and I asked the teacher and
1:52:22
she said that's that's how I pronounce it you mean there's two dialects of Hebrew and I don't even know about it
1:52:28
and I'm at the time 17 years old and I never even knew there was another pronunciation of Hebrew and in fact the
1:52:36
the predominant pronunciation in modern Israel is to pronounce the he as an uh so it's so the predominant
1:52:43
pronunciation is or a notar right some do still pronounce it
1:52:49
correct I would say correctly but I'm being factious as H haa um and so so the other so so the point
1:52:55
is this pronunciation of pronouncing the he as an Al if existed already in
1:53:04
um in the time of Moses right you had people who pronounced
1:53:10
it um yanan and then people who pronounced it
1:53:16
yanan and there's people who's who are saying his mother's name is y in fact
1:53:21
that's the dominant form right so the point is that this is an internal this
1:53:26
is really like Urban herb right it's not that one is right one is wrong right you speak Australian English I speak
1:53:33
American English right um and some people say herb and some people say herb
1:53:38
and some people say h and some people say h now the PE linguist will say you
1:53:43
know H is is what's called a um uh overcorrection that's what it's
1:53:50
called right so they so Australian realized that they dropped or maybe
1:53:55
people in London originally right not Australians dropped the H and they wanted to put the H back in and they put
1:54:00
it in places it didn't belong and that's probably true where the H pronunciation
1:54:05
came from but now if you're learning the AL alphabet in in Australia I'm sure
1:54:11
they tell you H is the correct pronunciation am I right yeah that's right yeah okay and it's right in
1:54:17
Australian English and certain places in in the UK uh H in americanl English
1:54:22
would be pretty unusual um maybe there are places in where they pronounce it that way so the
1:54:28
point is we have that in Hebrew in the time of Moses I believe it's the time of Moses uh where it's Y and
1:54:36
Y or or yoh is the dominant one and it's not there's nobody's B there's no ban on
1:54:41
the name in the time of Moses right that's not a thing uh it's there it's
1:54:47
everybody saying the name all the time and um at least the ones who know it and
1:54:52
so her name is just and so just another quick question
1:54:58
um do you think the mastic Val pointings are original o so my view on that has
1:55:05
evolved over time as I've learned more things and I'm gonna give you the really
1:55:11
short answer standing on one leg and we have five minutes we that's a Hebrew
1:55:16
expression standing on one leg mean the time I the amount of time I can balance on one leg which for me is not too long
1:55:22
um I don't even think it's five minutes so uh let's start with this within
1:55:27
Jewish sources there's a debate about whether the vowel points as graphic
1:55:32
symbols were uh part of the original Torah given on Mount Si or whether the
1:55:39
te text was naked meaning it wasn't with vowel points but the people knew how to read it because they could read
1:55:46
Hebrew that's a debate within Judaism um and and it's a debate that
1:55:54
still exists today in fact uh the first one to my knowledge to suggest that the
1:56:00
vowel points and I mean is graphic symbols there's no such thing as a language without vowels let's let's back
1:56:06
up right people say originally Hebrew had no vowels that's not true no scholar says that what they say is the vowels
1:56:13
weren't written down as graphic symbols right of course it is vowels the only language that potentially could
1:56:19
have no vowels would be sign language or a language only exists in written form every spoken language by definition has
1:56:26
consonants and vowels maybe they don't call them consonants and vowels but they exist in every spoken language as far as
1:56:32
I know I don't know how you could have a language without them even if they're just transition vows um like in Polish
1:56:38
you have these uh clusters of like five vow five consonants but they have some kind of anyway that's a special case but
1:56:46
they still have vowels in Polish so Hebrew always had vowels nobody disputes
1:56:52
that what they dispute in Judaism with I mean this isn't just modern Scholars who say this there was a rabbi named eliahu
1:56:59
bakor or Elijah levitas and he came up with this idea in the 16th century that
1:57:05
the vows weren't originally written down um
1:57:11
and and it's become more popular and it's pretty much it's it's universally accepted in Academia now that the bows
1:57:18
weren't originally written down um but that they were oral so we're where do they come from so one secular scholar
1:57:26
has written that they were a tradition of pronunciation from the second temple
1:57:32
period another secular scholar would say no the merites in the sixth or seventh
1:57:38
century made them up they said ah in this instance we know grammatically this
1:57:43
word is you know bom and so they put in the vows of vom right so um I think the first one's
1:57:51
probably right I mean there's good reason to think that these go back to an earlier reading tradition that
1:57:58
predates the um the time they were written down um I don't rule out the
1:58:03
possibility they were written down but at this point I I'd like to and I've said that in the past that you know I
1:58:09
believe they were written down but now I would say I'd like to see more evidence that they were written down um I think
1:58:16
there is good I think the better evidence and it's interesting because in Christianity this was a big debate there
1:58:21
was a time in the Christian world where you would be excommunicated from your church if you said that you didn't
1:58:28
believe the vowels were given at Mount Si the Hebrew vowels of the Hebrew text which is incredible who knew that
1:58:34
Christians cared about that but they did um it's pretty incredible that was a
1:58:40
major issue within Christianity it was probably a bigger issue with Christianity than in Judaism because in
1:58:46
Judaism they said okay so suabbi thinks they're they were from the time of Ezra rather than from Mount Si who cares
1:58:54
right doesn't doesn't change that we consider them author authoritative right but in Christianity
1:58:59
if they're not written down in protestantism in particular if they weren't written down they weren't authoritative right that was the thought
1:59:05
so it's interesting that was more of an issue in in Christianity in protestantism than it was in Judaism at
1:59:11
the time in like the 16th 17th century um so yeah some somebody needs
1:59:17
to research that topic some more because it's a really fascinating thing uh the history of that still hasn't been fully
1:59:22
written it's been partially written but not fully written okay so and then a lot of it had to do with what they thought
1:59:27
anyway I won't go into that Rabbit Trail so yeah so I appreciate you having me on it's been two hours and I don't want to
1:59:33
yeah I've gotta get get get some things I wish I could stay here with you all day um it's finally the morning for you
1:59:39
it's probably time for your your Brey or whatever you people call yeah
1:59:45
Brey but um I've really enjoyed this uh nemia and um thanks for coming on the
1:59:51
show I just just want to say look and a bit of an apology I listened to your interview with Kent
1:59:58
hovind and a lot of Christians follow him for the creation research stuff that he did but I I felt that he was a bit of
2:00:05
a jerk to you and I just want to apologize on have thicker skin just at the moment you know if October 7th
2:00:12
hadn't happened I don't know that I would react so uh would I think I would have just brushed it off and laughed but
2:00:19
um especially following October 7th the response being well you it didn't happen
2:00:24
but you you Jews deserved it um and this is outpouring of anti-Semitism that I
2:00:30
haven't seen um in my lifetime certainly not in the Western World I think in that
2:00:36
context maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to it so I just sort of mentioned that
2:00:42
just um on the but I really appreciate your scholarship I appreciate your input
2:00:47
have you got any last words uh for the audience before we shut this off
2:00:52
yeah well I appreciate those who have made it for the full two hours and um uh
2:00:59
I'm sure I've said many things that were incorrect um and I'll you know we we
2:01:04
there's this expression in Europe the elevator uh response which is you just
2:01:10
left somebody's apartment and you're coming down in the elevator or they call it the stairs response you're walking
2:01:15
down the stairs and you think oh I should have said such and such so I'm sure five minutes from now I'll realize
2:01:20
i' said something that was completely completely wrong so guys go to my website nw.com and hopefully there I
2:01:26
didn't make a mistake um but hopefully in two hours I only had two or three
2:01:31
mistakes uh really well um and I really appreciate having
2:01:39
you that should be a reminder just to keep keep studying and doing your own research because I don't have all the answers and sometimes I have the answers
2:01:46
and I still say the wrong thing so keep doing your own research and what I what I appreciate about you
2:01:52
is that from what I've been told I don't think we discussed this but I'm sure your your audience knows it better um
2:01:59
but I what I appreciate is that you know you're a believer in the texus receptus and that's completely contrary
2:02:07
to the scholarly um consensus and you don't care you're
2:02:12
gonna follow the evidence where it leads and maybe you're wrong I have no idea if you're right or wrong that's not my expertise but you're willing to follow
2:02:19
what you think is right even if everybody else thinks it's wrong um so I
2:02:25
I think that's that's you know one of the things they say about Einstein is the reason he camp with so many
2:02:30
wonderful discoveries is because he had a form of autism which I also have which um made
2:02:38
him follow what he thought was right even if everybody else said he was wrong because he really didn't care what anybody else said um if he thought if he
2:02:45
was convinced he was right he just thought well I haven't been proven yet so I appreciate that that I think that
2:02:53
um sometimes that can be a problem but sometimes that can lead to really important Discovery as a change the world and um if you just accept the
2:03:00
consensus what everybody says you're definitely not going to change the world you you'll be right probably most of the
2:03:06
time or maybe you'll be wrong most of the time but there are things where you'll miss what the truth is so anyway
2:03:13
thank you for having me okay well thanks nemia and um I'm going to play my little
2:03:19
outro and I'll contact you in email later on and we'll have a bit of a chat but um I really appreciate it thank you
2:03:25
very much okay well thanks for joining us guys um I've got a head out as well but
2:03:33
um I didn't even get to touch on the vaticanus issues I really wanted to sort
2:03:38
of spend half the time on Revelation 165 and Jehovah and the other half on vaticanus issues I've got about 20
2:03:46
questions on that but we it just seemed more natural just to stick with the Joo
2:03:51
issue and to just sort of Rabbit Trail on those um and so maybe we'll have a part
2:03:57
two in the future um but yeah I really appreciate you guys uh jumping on um and
2:04:05
everyone who commented and um yeah I'm going to play my fancy little outro and
2:04:11
then I'm going to split and so God bless you guys thanks for joining us and we'll catch you on the next one
2:04:21
[Music] oh
2:04:29
[Music]
2:04:48
[Music]
2:05:19
[Music] n [Music]
2:05:53
[Music]
2:06:01
[Music]
