Replies

1.b. The sounds of the Hebrew language are now rendered in the squarish Aramaic letters, a transition brought into the Jewish culture by Ezra after the return from the Babylonian exile. I suppose the residence in exile resulted in enough assimilation into the foreign culture led to the commonality of the Aramaic language and spelling.

sounds are sounds. letters are letters. i would think you wouldnt confuse the two.

1.c. So all the 'Hebrew" you read today has already been transliterated into Aramaic spelling.

i fail to see your point. 'its not really Hebrew' is not worthy of you.

1.d. Even in Biblical times, there were variations of pronunciation of Hebrew words. (Would you say "sibboleth" or "shibboleth"?)

it wasnt so long ago that spelling was pretty vague even here in America. Again, irrelevant.

1.e. In order to get the pronunciation correct, the current vowel pointing was introduced about 600 AD, for which the Qames-Hatuph pointing under the shin and the teth would give the pronunciation "saw-tawn" in, and only assuredly in, today's Ashkenazian/Tiberian accepted use. 1.f. As for the American English pronunciation, which is "say-ten," it is _not_ a transliteratiom of the original Hebrew word for Satan. It is a translation, giving the word for the designation of the Devil in our language. Found several times in Job (perhaps the oldest book of the Bible), no one really knows how exactly how it was pronounced then.

I am learning Hebrew. I know enough of it to know what i am talking about. Do you read and speak Hebrew?

2. Does a greater difference in pronunciation of "Yeshua" and "Jesus" create any lack of assurance about whom the translation of the Bible refers?

I think the issue of the name is a very valid issue. Jesus was not only a Hebrew, Not only a Jew, but a Rabbi. Why cant we call him by his Hebrew name? Calling something else, if it doesnt diminish what he was, it certainly doesnt portray everything that He was.

2.b. Moses (translated from Mosheh) renamed his chief general from Oshea (O-shay-ah) to Jehoshua (translated as Joshua with J sounds as 'dzhy') (in Hebrew sounds as yeh-haw-shoo-ah); otherwise spelled as you have, Yehoshua (Num. 13:16)(Heb. 4:8)

I dont suppose you see the name of God in his name, and how it is obscured in English with a J in this case either

2.e. When _translated_ so, does it make any change in the sense of a passage to an English speaker/reader? No.

You may have a point here. But a weak one. It doent make any difference to English readers, because someone took it upon themselves to change things without noting this to the reading audience. "Names in this book have been changed because you people are too stupid to pronounce the original names"

3. But what is your underlying point or assumption? What are you trying to show? Hard to guess. Why don't you just come out and say what your 'hot button' is?

Ive said it two or three times, and you refuse to address the issue because YOU CAN NOT. the author of the article posted is a false teacher, who is teaching contrary to scripture, while implying him or someone like him should be the one to explain the bible to you. Seems pretty insidious to me.

I just showed you above -- why couldn't you either (a) say you didn't understand (which is the great insight of the article: the response of a wise man); or (b) simply look at the verse to see that there the name Jesus refers to the Joshua/Yehoshua of the OT, not the Lord Jesus Christ?

i understand what the beginning of Hebrews is saying, yet i am not familiar with the chapter you pointed out. I suppose if it eases your indignation, I dont know what that chapter is saying. Paul is very difficult and it is not wise to make rash interpretations (see Peters warning)

Dont feel obligated to respond to my silly claims. I doubt i will respond to you again.