Titus 2:13 - the modern versions mangle "our Saviour Jesus Christ"

[Steven Avery]

The rule extends far beyond the Christological references offered by Sharp.

The “rule“ cannot extend to Christological references without presuppositional circularities. The normative usages, with varying exceptions to help out, apply to human beings. The idea of “persons” can not automatically be assigned to “God” or ”Lord“ or “Spirits, without letting dubious ontological categories, often unaccepted, prefigure the rule, Even dyed-in-wool Athanasian creedalists will say that the ontology persons are radically different than human persons. They will even deny that Jesus Christ is a human being, if I remember, and he is definitely not a human person.

Do we give divine beings “personal descriptions”?

And if the Rule requires a set of Orthodox Trinitarian presuppositions to go into effect (e.g.God is a “person”, which actually is out in left field, but let‘s allow it) then it is worthless as a tool to convince folks who do not share those presuppositions.

 

[Brianrw]

The “rule“ cannot extend to Christological references without presuppositional circularities. The normative usages, with varying exceptions to help out, apply to human beings. The idea of “persons” can not automatically be assigned to “God” or ”Lord“ or “Spirits, without letting dubious ontological categories, often unaccepted, prefigure the rule, Even dyed-in-wool Athanasian creedalists will say that the ontology persons are radically different than human persons.

You realize this statement above is itself a presuppositional circularity? And it is also outside the scope of this discussion? As it relates to the Trinity, "Persons" is an anthropomorphism, merely an aid to help people understand there is a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with their own role and personality in the Godhead, yet they are one God. The reality is incomprehensible, such terms are only an aid to understanding what is far beyond the limits of our understanding. Are you Unitarian, or Oneness?

Do you have a “final answer” of Winter Rules that includes exceptions and examples missed by Sharp”

Do you have a special page where “personal descriptions” and other terms that are subject to varying understandings, like “proper names” are all made crystal clear?

"Personal descriptions" is actually how Sharp, not me, states it, and he gives specific examples: "regarding office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill."​

Glassius actually sums it up nicely, using the word epithet.

I haven't changed my answer at all, or added or changed any point of the rule or deviated from applying it as Sharp states it. Your examples have simply not met the requirements of the rule as Sharp states it. So these are not "exceptions and examples missed by Sharp," but bad examples put forth that for specific reasons do not fall under the umbrella of the rule.

It's your understanding that is deficient here. Sharp is not talking about any (article)-noun-"and"-(no-article)-noun construction...

The rule applies to singular, personal epithets. That is it.​

In its most simplest terms, that is the rule. Are plurals singular? No. Are ordinals epithets? No. Are proper names epithets (an epithet is "a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person" - MW)? No. Are things personal epithets? There may be hundreds of examples of passages that do not fall under this rule, but when they don't, it's because they fail to meet these simple requirements. Therefore elaborating the rule against abusers of it by emphasizing it excludes the aforementioned plurals, ordinals, or personal names, is in reality absolutely redundant.

The moral is this: simply. apply. the. rule. as. it. is. written.

I've added many times also, English grammar expresses virtually the exact same rule with the exact same exceptions. If you are stumbling over the Greek, just look at the English.

 

[Steven Avery]

You realize this statement above is itself a presuppositional circularity? And it is also outside the scope of this discussion? As it relates to the Trinity, "Persons" is an anthropomorphism, merely an aid to help people understand there is a distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with their own role and personality in the Godhead, yet they are one God. The reality is incomprehensible, such terms are only an aid to understanding what is far beyond the limits of our understanding. Are you Unitarian, or Oneness?

Are you an Athanasian Creedalist?

My background is eclectic, I am a Biblicist, and that Bible is the AV, since about the year 2000. My church heritage includes Christian community, oneness Penteoctal, Messianic and charismatic with the lite trinitarian tinge. And I will not sing any songs to the devil yahweh, nor will I sing any songs about "God in 3 persons, blessed Trinity". If they are in process, I will get up and leave, running out as I did in 2009 at the Homestead Heritage Fair. Well, definitely I would leave on the devil song. On the other, I might be able to cringe and bear it.

The basic point of the GSR is to show the Unitarian and perhaps the Arian that Greek grammar impels the ultra-direct Biblical declaration "Jesus is God" by changing the AV text to a new version. If the presuppositions are Trinitarian-Person doctrine, then of course it is all a waste of time, since it does not apply to the Unitarian (On the current landscape, I am talking Biblical Unitarians here, not the flakey cakey ones that are with the Universalists.) The oneness folks generally like the GSR, since it matches a Jesus is God orientation, so they don't worry about niceties like presuppositions. However, many support the Authorized Version, so they can see through the rigging.

If "persons" is not a reality, if it is a anthropomorphism extrapolation, that invalidates the GSR rule, which depends on a non-ethereal use of persons. That is built right into the "Rule" for fools.

It is curious to me that the non-GSR people do not just point this out, and say, quite properly ... "you lose".
Logic 101.

And I do not look at God as subject to my analysis of "personal epithets", whatever they are. The whole concept is arrogance and hubris and rebellion.

 

[Steven Avery]

I've added many times also, English grammar expresses virtually the exact same rule with the exact same exceptions.

Most GSR proponents will not admit this similarity of Greek and English constructions, so you get a brownie point. (humor, but true!)
Afaik, Gregory Blunt is the only writer who was willing to speak the truth on this point.

That also helps explain the excellent tendency of the AV to keep the Greek word order.

 

[Brianrw]

And I will not sing any songs to the devil yahweh

I trust here you are speaking in misguided ignorance and misinformed opinion when referring to God by name as a devil, which is utter blasphemy, and urge you to repent. So long as you intend to blaspheme, there is nothing further to discuss. You have thus far not treaded lightly where you should, but in this place you are very bold when you ought to fear God, who shall judge every idle word spoken by men.

 

[Steven Avery]

I trust here you are speaking in misguided ignorance and misinformed opinion when referring to God by name as a devil, which is utter blasphemy, and urge you to repent. So long as you intend to blaspheme, there is nothing further to discuss. You have thus far not treaded lightly where you should, but in this place you are very bold when you ought to fear God, who shall judge every idle word spoken by men.

Read and believe your AV.

Jehovah is the English for the Tetragram.

AV verses with Jehovah and JAH
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/av-verses-with-jehovah-and-jah.979/

Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob,
by the name of God Almighty,
but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalms 83:18
That men may know that thou,
whose name alone is JEHOVAH,
art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2
Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and not be afraid:
for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song;
he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4
Trust ye in the LORD for ever:
for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

Genesis 22:14
And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh:
as it is said to this day,
In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Exodus 17:15
And Moses built an altar,
and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi:

Judges 6:24
Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD,
and called it Jehovah-shalom:
unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.

Yahweh has no use whatsoever.

Then study how the two forms came into competition. One is true, the other is a counterfeit. You can find the information here on PBF, to start, and use my pointers to lots of superb writing and video.

(Note: Mostly English and Latin. If you read French, there is a superb writing in the 1800s by David-Paul Drach that usually flies under the radar.)

And Scott Jones wrote excellently on this decades back. Other wonderful Christian writers have pointed out the pagan, dark-side aspect of the bogus non-Hebrew-name Yahweh.

The idol words and blasphemy come when Christians are duped into prayer and praise (and corruption version reading) to that dark-side word that is Jupiter.

To be fair, many got drawn into this from a sincere ignorance. And I had years bumbling around Sacred Name, or Qodesh Name, circles. So if this is new to you, I can understand your reaction.

As an example, one time some Evangelicals in Asheville, NC were rallying, praying and singing to be a light of life around a baby-killing spot. The preacher actually started to pray in the crapola word. (Yes, I informed them more excellently, while thanking them for their ministry.)

 

[Brianrw]

That etymology through Jove is absolutely wrong. "Jupiter" comes from the Latin Iuppiter, and means "father Zeus." It comes into Latin through through the vocative Greek Ζεύ πάτερ (Zeu pater), "father Zeus." ζευς itself is from the proto-Indo-European Dyeus. The root word of Dyeus, dyeu, means "to shine," and has nothing to do with the Hebrew word in any way. It is the same root as the Latin word Deus, "God."

Whether the pronunciation of any of the proposals for the Hebrew name of God is correct is a matter of debate, since the Jews typically used Adonai in place of the name when speaking aloud. Additionally, it is not the etymology of a word that matters, but what that word signifies in the language presented. You should be more careful in your research; once corrected, you are accountable to the knowledge received. This is the second admonition.

 

[Steven Avery]

That etymology through Jove is absolutely wrong.

You are not paying attention.
The issue is not etymology, it is simply that the sound is virtually identical, and spirits are invoked by their name.

Focus.

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

If you are calling on "yahweh" you are jeopardizing any relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Brianrw]

You should say "focus" when you show yourself focused, which is rarely the case. But I am focused. Is this your comment on "Yahweh-jupiter?" Wasn't this you also who wrote, "This cuts very deep, as Yahweh is not a Jewish, Christian or Hebrew name, it is actually Jupiter (which is technically yahweh-pater)." What about this one here on the forum:

Nehemia Gordon claims to have discovered new information which is supposed to clearly prove that 'Yahweh' derives from Jupiter (Jove). By purporting that Yahweh is the name of a pagan idol, Nehemia has convinced thousands of people to stop using the pronunciation Yahweh and to use Yehovah instead.​

And then there's a couple places about Gesenius. And did I not just read from you above, "The idol words and blasphemy come when Christians are duped into prayer and praise (and corruption version reading) to that dark-side word that is Jupiter?"

I'm trying to find out how Iovis (Jove) relates in any way to any Hebrew word Yah or Yahweh. Gesenius provides a false etymology. Iovis (Jove) is derived from the same etymology I noted above, through djeu, "to shine."

I'm not looking at just one comment, I'm looking at the bigger picture. I see absolutely nothing similar with the pronunciation of the Yahweh vs. Jupiter or even Zeus for that matter. I didn't say that's how I pronounce it, only that it is one of a few proposed pronunciations. We don't know how it was originally pronounced since it wasn't uttered aloud and Hebrew is a revived language. Because Hebrew relies on consonental spelling with no true vowels (points are added, but not original), it's very hard to know what vowels were involved. So there's going to be debate. I don't care to get into it, Jehovah/Yehova is what I read. But you are being far too careless in all of this; I'm admonishing you as a friend. To me you're playing with fire.

 

[Steven Avery]

You still did not acknowledge that the issue raised is one of the same sound, not etymology analysis.

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

Your siding with the Rensburgs is like your refusing to study the Hofstetter heavenly witnesses analysis.
Willful ignorance.

hebrewgospels.com - Peter and Justin van Rensburg
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...els-com-peter-and-justin-van-regensburg.1399/

hebrewgospels.com on the yahweh-jupiter connection
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ls-com-on-the-yahweh-jupiter-connection.2054/

On the second one I document their material, and you seem to think it is my endorsement. These charlatans put out almost nothing in writing, so I try to show a bit of what they claim.

There is a lot about Genenus. He helped make the shift to Yahweh among scholars of little or no faith in Jesus, and he liked the connection of Yahweh and Jupiter, because these liberal scholars see the Hebrews as warmed-over pagans.

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

"The idol words and blasphemy come when Christians are duped into prayer and praise (and corruption version reading) to that dark-side word that is Jupiter?"

Here you did quote my words properly! Yay!

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

Evangelical Textual Criticism
Tyndale’s Use of ‘Jehovah’
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/04/tyndales-use-of-jehovah.html

Here is my comment:

Hi,

For those who like scholarship references, there is, rather new:

Pavlos D Vasileiadis
Nehemia Gordon

“Transmission of the Tetragrammaton in Judeo-Greek and Christian Sources” («Η Μεταβίβαση του Τετραγράμματου στις Ιουδαιο-Ελληνικές και Χριστιανικές Πηγές»), Cahiers Accademia: Revue de la Société Marsile Ficin, Vol. 18 (2021), pp. 85–126.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349711568_Transmission_of_the_Tetragrammaton_in_Judeo-Greek_and_Christian_Sources

In less formal circles, Nehemia tends to emphasize:

Masoretic Text manuscripts
Theophoric names
Hebraic (Rabbinical) references.

And he has spoken on the yahweh-jupiter connection.

Steven Avery

Do you have a comment or objection?

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

 

[Steven Avery]

The explanation of Yahweh-Pater == Jupiter is here

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

Focusing on Fundamentals

Focusing on Fundamentals

Facebook The Creator's Name FOCUSING ON FUNDAMENTALS https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheCreatorsName/permalink/768789813518884/ There are a number of points that could use a special short, clear page, off of Facebook, each one independently, and then connected. As well as the best...

www.purebibleforum.com

Have you been praying to Jupiter? - Nehemia Gordon gets right to the heart of the matter
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ght-to-the-heart-of-the-matter.315/#post-7858

where and when the equivalence of yahweh and jove was first clearly noted

where and when the equivalence of yahweh and jove was first clearly noted

The internet brought many of these topics to the fore. One irony is that it was in the "sacred name" circles that this equivalence was first noted. 15 years ago, on the sacred/qodesh name forum, the Latin aspect of this, which Nehemia Gordon studied with Latin professors, was properly...

www.purebibleforum.com

Jehovah and "yahweh" Resource Central

Jehovah and "yahweh" Resource Central

PBF 2024 - New Thread Ro Astrom urls on The Creators Name forum on Facebook - Gordon, Gerdvil, Gertoux https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/ro-astrom-urls-on-the-creators-name-forum-on-facebook-gordon-gerdvil-gertoux.4605/ This thread Jehovah and "yahweh" Resource Central...

www.purebibleforum.com

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

(more coming - you can use this search)

Search results for query: Yahweh-Pater Jupiter Latin

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

The simple fact is that you again reject the Authorized Version, which affirms Jehovah, and defend bogus pseudo-scholarship. This cuts deep, because you are defending a devil word.

The Holy Spirit is the unction to share this information. I know a group of over 1,000 members, originally Christian, who have destroyed their walk with the Lord Jesus Christ by moving to praying to "Yahweh", embracing the gibberish "Yahshua" and changing from an Authorized Version embrace to a dozen corruption versions.

You should try to come up to speed.

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

 

[Brianrw]

Your siding with the Regensburgs is like your refusing to study the Hofstetter heavenly witnesses analysis.
Willful ignorance.

Who are the Regensburgs? What are you talking about?

The simple fact is that you again reject the Authorized Version, which affirms Jehovah, and defend bogus pseudo-scholarship. This cuts deep, because you are defending a devil word.

I read it as "Jehovah," I'm just saying we don't know how it was pronounced because it wasn't spoken aloud and Hebrew is a revived language. Your etymology was false, as I have noted above. This is now the third admonition, and as such our conversations on every point, manner, and way, are finished.

 

[Steven Avery]

Your etymology was false, as I have noted above.

Please stop lying, by following your own confusions to false accusations.

As I never claimed it was an etymological argument.
Neither did Nehemia Gordon.

(Gesenius made absurd arguments, in order to foist the Yahweh abomination.)

The SOUND of yahweh is essentially the same as that of jupiter (i.e. the first part of jove-pater.)

If you went to a supposed Christian fellowship somewhere, and they were praying to Lucifer, and told you that this was the Hebrew Bible Creator, would you need a deep etymological study before you offered correction?

I realize that you are clueless about the excellence of the AV and the majestic name of Jehovah, but why defend creepy abominations?

 

[Steven Avery]

Who are the Regensburgs? What are you talking about?

Your quote above is from the Regensburgs.

Nehemia Gordon claims to have discovered new information which is supposed to clearly prove that 'Yahweh' derives from Jupiter (Jove). By purporting that Yahweh is the name of a pagan idol, Nehemia has convinced thousands of people to stop using the pronunciation Yahweh and to use Yehovah instead.

They, like you, are defending a pagan abomination, that is against the pure Authorized Version.