Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

From: “Angela M. Baxley” 

Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

Date: November 10, 2012 at 11:45:37 AM PST

To: Larry Vosen

Larry, if you ever come across those references supporting your change of “yah” to “yeh” and every proper name which bears “yah” into “yeh”, then I would love to have those. If I found the evidence sound, I would purchase a copy of your work, as well as promote it. 

However, speaking as sincerely and with love, may I offer to you that it seems that you are making the change with the same motivation as the Hebrews had in obscuring the Exalted Name in the first place? While they worried the Name would be used in vain, and specifically picked up the tradition of the ineffable name from the Egyptians and put it into use to prevent your fear—that the Egyptians would blaspheme the Name. To change Yah on a fear that it is blasphemous, but not being able to offer evidence for such a wide ranging effect I find to be nearly the same reasoning that brought us into this situation in the first place.

I offer this so as it may be of help in some way to you, as you must have your marketing plans which will have to be drawn up, though I imagine you’ll get considerable press for having changed all the Hebrew theophoric names ending in yah, I’m not certain that will help your cause. 

Oh, and my family tree goes back to the tribe of Judah, and to Abraham and Sarah through the royalty of the world. However, I am like you and fear not those who can kill the body.

Go, off with you! Get back to your work! and many thanks for conversing with me!

Philia,

Angela

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Larry Vosen wrote:

Angela,

 

Thank you for your most helpful and link-laden letter.  I have seen / visited most of the sites you’ve provided, but you’ve added a few new places for me to visit as well.  I appreciate that!

 

I can’t recall where I saw this, but there is another author somewhere who argues that the “yah” name is actually a blasphemous reference to the Elohim of heaven, and that in its use, we draw near to that unforgivable sin of blaspheming The Holy Spirit.  I am way too involved in producing The ENB Audiobook right now though, to re-research all of my notes, but you can imagine the tingle in my heart at the prospect of committing that sin!

 

The ‘dis-fellowship’ issue that you mention is one that all of my contacts either await or anticipate.  I think in a way, looking at it solely from the outside, it would be something a break-away would want.  I’ve never really gotten into a conversation about the consequences of this action though, so it’s not something I profess to know anything about at all…

 

As for the Hebrew society changing/adapting to the YEH abbreviation/spelling – I have to be completely honest with you:  In regard to the Gospel, which so thoroughly includes The Holy Scriptures; I do not give their opinion any consideration whatsoever.  Now you must understand that this sentiment is not uttered with disrespect for the Yehudi nation, because they remain the Chosen Ones.  But, in accord with the very Word of Elohim, I know that WE are enemies wherever That Word is concerned.  I learned long ago to not trust my enemies.  Furthermore, if you look at my last name, you might recognize something interesting, because I am ¼ Jewish / Yehudi!  Vosen is derived from the Rosen clan, which would – if the lineage is correct – make me a Levite.  In that vein, you’ve got to know that I have Hebrew FAMILY, and I don’t care what they think about this matter either.  J  Realistically, when we consider the mess we’re in, regarding The Exalted Name (Divine Name, if you will), the Yehudi nation could not care less if we ever know the correct presentation of that name!  Mr. Wall makes that perfectly clear – in a very gentlemanly way…

 

It may very well be that I am breaking from ‘conventional’ wisdom on this matter, and to be perfectly honest with you – I really don’t have a problem with that.  Conventional wisdom has gotten us into a great deal of trouble, and I’m simply trying to maintain a course of consistency and correctness in as much as I know and have been given.

 

Thanks again for the links.  I will do more reading when I have the opportunity.  In the interim though,

I remain faithfully and humbly your servant,

larryv

 

 

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 3:59 PM

To: Larry Vosen

Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Oh, I’m so glad you articulated your thoughts! I found your website via the fact that you referenced “Proofs of the Interpolation of the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible” that brought me to your website. I’m a HUGE fan of archive.org which allows me to read old texts [preserved via (v1) searchable (v2) scans]. 

 

Before I continue, I don’t recall, and after searching through the text today could not locate your reference to Wall using “Yeh” rather than “Yah”. I don’t mean to pester you, I just wish to understand!

 

I likewise do not use “Jesus”. It’s pagan origins are so completely obvious. I didn’t read your version of the bible, just your introductions regarding the translation. Another search through and I couldn’t find your references to support “Yeh”. I’m not offended—my name is not based on the name, thus my name wouldn’t change by your using “yeh”—you’ll have a terrible time convincing my Hebrew friends that their names should be spelled that way though! 🙂

 

In any case, I came to C.W. Wall’s book via my research after the Harvard Theological Review article which someone proposed on the forum ChannelC.org as proof that “Jehovah” (which I have vehemently argued against, resulting in my parents finding me appalling though they haven’t turned me yet!) was in use long before the advent of the letter J. That article was entitled The Horned Hunter on a Lost Gnostic Gem. I was shocked he’d present that article as a proof point, because it seemed merely to prove my own point—Yehovah, or the more modern Jehovah, is a pagan gnostic god and a name originated in Egypt and invoked in magick, not the name of our heavenly Father. It turns out that my brother-in-law, only came into association with JW’s through my sister whom he later married, is a big fan of Fossilized Customs and gave me that book at my uncle’s funeral a few months past. 

 

Lastly, Gérard Gertoux is (or was?) a JW (though he does not wish his religious affiliation to be published as it brings/brought him up for judicial review, to be disfellowshipped, something I await myself). He is probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet regarding the divine name. You can see posts of the work I’ve collected here: http://seekjehovah.org/tag/yehowah/ and listed below (I’m sure I’ve missed some). 

 

In any case, thanks so much for taking the time to discuss this with me. I understand that you have no intent to use “Yah” (which somewhere in the reference’s below is argued to be a full name, not as you and I believe it to be a shortened form of Yehowah), I just wish to research where it is that you found support for “Yeh”. Make me smarter! 🙂

 

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Larry Vosen wrote:

Angela,

 

I truly appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, but at this stage in my processes, I am not so certain that you can take my findings and adapt them as you are trying to do.  I am saying that, because until you read The ENB (Exalted Name Bible), I don’t think you ever saw the YEHOWAH presentation before.  If I’m wrong about that, tell me – but nowhere is YEHOWAH presented in that manner/format – outside of Mr. Wall’s very old, and very eclectic book (which took years to discover).

 

Further, Mr. Wall has shown the YEH format as well, and I’ve got to stick with what I’ve discovered from that very reliable source.

 

My prayer today revolves around the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.  My concern lies in the New Covenant presentation, because Jesus cannot be correct in any format!

 

I know that our civilization is familiar and comfortable with the JAH spelling, and would accept the YAH presentation too, but as I said in my opening comments about The Exalted Name, I am going to stay with what I’ve discovered in Mr. Wall’s writings, and discard popular wisdom.

 

Please do not be offended, but the Old Covenant presentation of YEH remains as is.

 

Sincerely,

 

larryv

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:15 PM

To: Larry Vosen

Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Please keep praying on it—please, please, please. I don’t mean to push in a manner that’s offensive, so please don’t let it be. I am not even quite certain why it is that I was struck to write you, and even more so uncertain why I feel so compelled to continue in what feels like a plea? For what it’s worth, please add that to your consideration! 🙂

 

Further reasons why it seems to me you ought continue seeking the answer, postponing “Yeh” as your final determination…

 

Theophoric bible names come in a few forms, “Yehow-” using the YHW as a prefix, or end in the short form “-yah”. I believe this is a contraction through my studies, as I cannot find abbreviations in use. As a matter of fact, it appears that the concept of “Yah” as an abbreviation, rather than a contraction of YHWH came about to support those who propose that the exalted name is “Yahweh”—Simply put, “Yah” had to be an abbreviation because otherwise they couldn’t prove “Yahweh” to be the name. Prior to “Yahweh” it “Yah” is referred to as a contraction, simliar to how Yehoshua came to be condensed, elisioned, or contracted to become Yeshua. Letters are removed from the middle, akin to the way we speak, carrying the beginning to the end but sometimes glossing by the middle. 

 

Have you considered all the “Yo” names? Incidentally the “Yow” names lend credence to the spelling/pronunciation Yehowah, as they are something of those elision’s such as Yow’el—meaning “Yehowah is Elohim”.

 

I strongly believe in the concept that “Yah” is the whole name, rather than a portion of it. This is to say if you were to assert that the divine name is “Yahweh” and say that then it’s an abbreviation, then you drop the “weh”. Or if you say that it’s “Yehowah” and that “Yeh” is the abbreviation, then you drop the “owah”. However, “Yah” as a contraction or elision or condensed—not abbreviated nor a hypocoristicon (e.g. Larry for Lawrence, Angie for Angela)—version of Yehowah means that the name still contains its whole meaning or intent, though not spelled out.

 

I can’t really imagine David composing songs taking the liberty to hack off some of our Father’s name. I believe he was inspired, but I do not believe he was inspired to use “Yah” with the intent that it is an abbreviated form of the name. In my own name, I know that when someone takes to calling me “Ang” it’s a gesture of intimacy. No one calls me that really, besides my cousins. Our intimacy with our Creator is defined by referring to him, not by name, but by his being our Father. He has a name, and he has a relationship to us. We either us his name, or refer to him by our intimate relationship. I know this so well, as once I knew in my heart that “Jehovah” was not his name, I struggled for so long to use “Father” instead. It was a hard habit to break, and only has begun to successfully be done now that I have a name that I feel represents the truth. 

 

You might argue that if Yehowah is the sound of breathing, is our Father’s spirit when he breathed life into us, then “Yah” is an abbreviation for the “Y” inhalation, and the “ah” exhalation. When I practice the concept of breathing his name, I hear the sound of the “Y” as I inhale, the “h” is that briefest of moments where you stop and then the “ah” of exhaling. If you were to consider “yeh” an abbreviation, then you don’t have that concept. You can breath in and out, but there isn’t that moment in-between.

 

 הָוָה,הֲוָא until הָיָה

I did find an write up that addresses the masculine/feminine aspect of the ah/eh debate: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110591768/d03-the-Ah-Eh-Argument

 

Here’s a paragraph that seems to start to address a bit of my concept—pardon me, getting tired so copied and pasted it in without editing or additional comment, just speaking to the pattern of contraction (as opposed to truncation, which interestingly implies to “maim”):

The main obstacles in trying to render His name as YAHshua instead of Yeshua, is created by the fact that there is no Hebrew letter “hey” in Yeshua, and also by the Masoretic vowel pointings or nikud. The tsere that is under the Yod in “Yeshua” in the Hebrew scriptures demonstrates the vocalization of the first syllable as “yay,” and not “YAH.” This is also true of the Greek vowel eta, which is pronounced “Yay”, and is found in the transliterated Greek rendering of Yeshua which is Iesous. Many use Y’shua thinking that it is a shortened version of YAHshua, when in fact, Y’shua would represent a truncated version of the long form Yehoshua with the theophoric element “Yeho” removed. This shortening occurred with many names that possessed the theophoric element of the Name of the Almighty during the second temple period.

Another example would be Yehowseph shortened to Yoseph. Biblical names such as Yehonatan (Jonathan), Yehoyaqim (Jehoiakim), Yehoshafat (Jehoshaphat), Yehoram (Jehoram), and Yehoshua (Joshua), all have the shva under the yod signifying the “Yeh” vocalization, but the later shortened version of Yehoshua (Yeshua) does not.

Lastly, I wanted to offer commentary on my understanding of Yehowah’s son coming in his Father’s name, and how it is that you use Yehowah not Yehoshua (or the variants). The Aid book published by the Watchtower, has a section on “Name” which was written by Raymond Franz “apostate” ex-JW former Governing Body member. The concept is that Y’shua bore his Father’s name in his own, and his name “Yehoshua” means “Yehowah is Salvation”. It wasn’t to be in the literal sense, but in the familial, “family name” or “making a ‘name’ for one’s self”. He was the very image of his Father, to see him was to see his Father—compare “Emmanu-El” meaning “El is with us” and Acts 4:12 points out that his name carries salvation, which is true in the case of the name of “Yehowah is Salvation”. Joel 2:32 speaks to us in the end times, though it was an old covenant text, it parallels the account of Revelation. Before the presence of the Messias on earth, the only name to call upon was the Father’s, but by the time his Son arrived that name was in disuse. However, he gave his Son his own name to carry in a most poetic manner making it literally “Yehowah is Salvation”. I don’t believe in trinity, or the concept that the Son was the Father in flesh. I believe he was the very “spit and image” of his Father and that the scriptures are incredible in the poetic manner in which prophecies come true. By the way, having had a Greek roommate, the whole John 1:1 thing becomes no longer fodder, as the translation is fine, it’s the understanding that no knowledgeable Greek believes it to intend trinity. Personally, I’ve come to the understanding that the verse speaks to the moments before time, before he was begotten—he was begotten, and everything else was created. Later, after he was begotten he became flesh. Thoughts?

 

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Larry Vosen wrote:

I understand everything you’re saying – about being misunderstood, about being misrepresented, about getting your web active before it’s really ready, and yet wanting to keep it out of the public eye until it’s ready.  Wow, have I been there.  J

 

I chose to use YEH, because I did not want to confuse the issue (primarily), and because 3050 is in fact the abbreviated form of the whole.  Keeping transliteration nuances to a minimum, I struggled with this, prayed forever (still, in all honesty) and decided to keep it all as simple as possible.  YEH throughout the Exalted Name Bible is the abbreviation of YEHOWAH.  As simple as I can make it!

 

The Ph.D. is in theology.  I have never been called doctor by anyone, and do not introduce myself as such – ever.  I am larry.

 

I have an ex-JW friend (female) living in Reno, NV, who is intently ministering to those ensnared within the organization.  I thought I’d share some of your info with her – and hers with you.  Nothing pushy, but a chord of two is stronger than any single individual…

 

Praying you are well,

Your servant,

larry

 

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:04 PM
To: Larry Vosen
Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Thank you Larry. I don’t mind your sharing my thoughts, I would just want to make sure that what you’d share accurately reflects my thoughts—not for believing you’d intend to do otherwise, but rather I know that at times my communication isn’t as clear and concise as I’d like it to be and I have left folks thinking I believe one thing when really it’s another. Meanwhile, I am working on a website that aims to do such the same, and will be linking to your site. I have both oBible.org which is a work in progress as much as seekjehovah.org, the ironically named domain. One day I hope to see my family “come out of her” as I have. My personal belief is that all religion is “false religion”. 

 

Now, on to our letter—I read Charles W. Wall’s chapter on pronunciation and I too agree with you—tradition of men make’s one’s worship in vain, Y’shua once said.  I believe Christianity (as a religion, based in her mother Babylon, the whore and mother of the whores, and the “Universal” (Catholic) church) is a vehicle for unaware ‘believers’ to worship the Sun. There’s much I’d love to share and will as soon as I get everything together to be able to present it in a logical and coherent manner. (You’ll see the Seek website is really quite a mess. I keep an eye to ensure it’s not reaching the world yet, but it’s online to start letting Google “crawl” it while I continue to edit and revise.)

 

All that aside, my main point in my email was to ask not about “Yehowah”—a point we agree on—but instead, “Yeh” instead of “Yah”. From my understanding of language studies, and I’m a “babe” mind you, is that the contraction is Yehowah or, in case the formatting doesn’t come through on your side, the first letter “Y”, and the last two letters of Yehowah, “ah”. I liken it, thanks to my southern upbringing, to “Y’all” instead of “You all”. This called “elision” a word I’ve only learned so that I can speak about this precise point. Other examples are “I’m” or “Let’s” or “Ma’am”. My point is that one doesn’t drop the front or end, but rather the middle. 

 

Thus, I come to the question what makes you choose to represent “Yehowah” as “Yeh” with an “e” instead of “Yah”? I’d like to understand your reasoning and where that came from. I am currently searching to see where it was that I recall reading the same assertions I’ve made above in print, so I’ll share that source with you when and if I find it. 

 

What’s your PhD in?

 

Best,

Angela

 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Larry Vosen wrote:

Angela,

 

Thank you for your most kind and humbling letter.  I appreciate your input and questions.

 

Yes, we are about finished recording and editing The Exalted Name Bible.  Once our recording and editing is complete, I will have all eBook versions updated to insure that the second edition is as pristine as possible.  Prayerfully, Father will provide a publisher soon, and with the edit complete, our file for that publisher will be as ready as possible.

 

As for your question about the spelling of the name.  I do not know how far you read under the Exalted Name Tab, but on that page I offer the following.  (Please pardon the length, but this is a significant issue):

 

My research ultimately took me to a book originally written in 1857 by Mr. Charles William Wall, in a book entitled, “Proofs of the Interpolation of the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible and Grounds Thence Derived for a Revision of Its Authorized”, Volume 20; v.925; General Books publication date: 2009 (A serious title for a serious topic)!  In his book, Mr. Wall reveals the truth of the Exalted Name in a very profound manner.

First off, I want to tell you that Mr. Wall’s understanding and comprehension of Hebrew is fascinating and beyond reproach. Without any pomp or bravado, Mr. Wall minutely details his proof regarding the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible, and how those Vowel-Letters dictate the proper spelling and pronunciation of the Exalted Name.  This 410 page book does considerably more than reveal proof of the Exalted Name, no matter how great a service that one task might be, because the entire book is dedicated to proving why a revision of the authorized version (of the Bible) is needed. Mr. Wall does a remarkable job!  For me, and for this work that I now undertake in providing The Exalted Name Bible™, I owe Mr. Charles William Wall a great deal of thanks. With that said, here are a few excerpts from Mr. Wall’s explanation of the matter, along with my notes and conclusions, which should put your hearts at ease as you read  The Exalted Name Bible™. Mr. Wall said,

“As the pointed text has now been shown to yield a just representation of the sound of the four-lettered name (YHWH)  the sites of its most frequent occurrence, or those which come under the head of the last of the seven above described cases, it may appear, at first view, unaccountable that the Jewish priesthood, considering the strong prejudices they felt on the subject, should have ever permitted the Hebrew Bible, with its vocalization thus improved, to get into Christian hands. But the fact is that, however eagerly they may have desired to prevent this event, – and the expectation that they would be able to do so was probably one of the natural means by which they were induced to suffer the vowels belonging to the proper sound of the group in question to be applied to it in any site, – it became eventually quite beyond their reach to secure this object of their ardent wishes.” (Emphasis mine).

Mr. Wall advances his discussion on this matter, thus,

“What rendered them (the Jews) completely independent of either priestly or rabbinical instruction was the printing of the pointed Hebrew text near the end of the fifteenth century; and they have (the Christians), in fact, so advanced since that period in the critical analysis of Hebrew, that, by means of close attention to the grammatical structure of the sacred text, and more especially through the light thrown upon its sense by the inspired writers of the New Testament, they have arrived at a far superior knowledge of it to that possessed by the very priests of the Jews.”

He further goes on to say,

“The whole Hebrew Bible was first printed with points at Soncino, in the year 1488; – and twenty-eight years after, came out the Arcana Catholice Veritatis (by Galatinus, a Franciscan monk, or, as he styles himself in the dedication of his work, one belonging to the ordo fratrum minorum), in the tenth chapter of the second book of which the true pronunciation of the four-lettered name is given; nor, from the manner in which the subject is there discussed, does the proper sound of this word appear to have been then for the first time announced.”

Mr. Wall did his homework though, because he concludes his discussion of these writings by saying,

“The edition of this work to which I have had access is dated in the year 1603; and the right pronunciation of the name in question is therein printed lehoua, which would, in the modern form of it, be exhibited Jehova; which again, by substituting equivalents for the two letters whose original powers have since been changed, would come out Yehowa, differing from YEHOWAH, the exact transcript of HIiT, only by the omission of an unsounded H at its end. This restoration, however, of the true sound of the examined name was for a considerable length of time admitted to be correct only by individuals: The first Bible into which it was introduced is, I believe, that of Matthews, published in the year 1537, whence it spread through all the authorized English versions which after that date successively came out; so that it is wanting in only the first of them, namely, Coverdale’s Bible. Thus the English Church appears entitled to the credit of being the first Christian community which has given its sanction to this important correction.”

With all that said, I will repeat the fact that the Exalted Name is:

YEHOWAH (YEH -O- WAH)

And it is THAT NAME which you will find throughout The Exalted Name Bible™, wherever the Hebrew 3068 or 3069 are used.

Furthermore, wherever the Hebrew 3050 is used, which is the abbreviated form of His name, it will customarily be found in use with another Hebrew word, thereby forming a name or an expression. The abbreviated presentation of His name is YEH, and we find that name hidden throughout Scripture in connective names like: Joel, Elijah, Judah and Benjamin, and it is hidden in the New Covenant as well in names, and even in words like, Halleluyeh… Those corrections are also made within The Exalted Name Bible™, which eliminates another few thousand misinterpretations.

 

When you consider the above, the most base ancient spelling available of The Exalted Name is, LEHOUA, which, as it says above, “would, in the modern form of it, be exhibited Jehova; which again, by substituting equivalents for the two letters whose original powers have since been changed, would come out Yehowa, differing from YEHOWAH, the exact transcript of HIiT.”

 

I don’t think it appropriate to deviate from the only presentation that is truly based upon the ancient Hebrew language, just to pacify a current (past 100 year) trend.  Does that make sense?

 

The past years have brought a great number of pen pals into our world, and I delight in developing those relationships.  So, if you wish to write, please feel free to do so.  And, with your permission, I might share some of your thoughts with the other ex-Jehova Witness brothers and sisters that communicate with me…

 

Praying that you are well, and that our Father blesses your ministry and walk of faith, I remain faithfully and humbly your servant in YEHOWAH ha Mashiach,

larryv

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Larry Vosen
Subject: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Larry, I found your site and am quite pleased. Excellent work, I’ve been on a similar journey myself, although I’m just embarking, and it seems as though you’ve nearly completed your work in The Exalted Name

 

I wanted to ask you about something. You use “Yeh” instead of “Yah” (for Strong’s #3050). I understood “Yah” to be a contraction, similar to “you all” being contracted “y’all”. Hence, Yehowah becomes what we would understand as essentially “y’ah” (pardon my apostrophe, for clarities sake—the “ehow” of the word are removed in the contraction.

 

Thus, hallelujah, would properly revert the “j” to a “y”, and be halleluyah, the suffix “yah” being the contraction above. 

 

This is my childlike level understanding, and while I haven’t finished reading the material on your site, and perhaps you cover this, I wanted to reach out and ask your thoughts. Feel free to point me to something that you’ve perhaps already written. 

 

Meanwhile, much appreciation for your hard work! I turn 33 soon, and am happy to have such wonderful research available through the power of technology. 

 

Angela Baxley

p.s. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, but no longer associate thanks to learning “the Truth” is a man, not a religion. 🙂 If you have thoughts on “hovah” as in Jah+hovah, I’d love to hear that as well. Perhaps penpals? 

 

 

 

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Larry Vosen”

Subject: RE: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

Date: November 10, 2012 at 1:50:56 PM PST

To: “‘Angela M. Baxley'”

Angela,

 

First, I think it outstanding that we are not discussing the Full Exalted Name; YEHOWAH (from YHWH), but that we are discussing the abbreviated version YEH (from YH).

 

Inasmuch as today is a day that I do not ‘labor’ on the project, I decided to go back over some of my notes, to see where / why I focused on YEH, instead of YAH.  Although I don’t have the time to dig as deeply as I might like, one of the first pages I read spoke about the number of changes and iterations that have taken place between the ancient language and today, and how many of the words are presented in their transliterated form: how they sound, first, and then coupled with their translation – as best could be done – based upon their meaning.

 

And, as you already know, while the sound of the Name is significant, the meaning of the sounded name must also be applicable, or else the whole thing falls apart.  Right?

 

Well, we know that in the Bible there is no name beginning with Yah or Yahu – and none ending by –yo or –yeho.  However, there is confusion between the short name YH and the exalted name YHWH, and as we know, the Jews began to differentiate between the treatment of these two names; Jehovah or YEHOWAH being agreed upon as the full Exalted Name, while a different Yah presentation was given for the abbreviated name, at the time of the Babylonian captivity.  (In which of the three different deportations these changes really began is only a guess, but clearly – by the time of Daniel, the language had in fact changed).

 

In my discovery process, I found nothing to substantiate the reason for the differing (thereby confusing) sounds, except that the Jews were feverishly attempting to eliminate the blaspheme of the Exalted Name that was taking place in Babylon.  Further, the explanation that, YehowAH is the appropriate breakdown from the full Exalted Name is incorrect, because every Hebrew teaching I’ve seen so far spells out very clearly that the Hebrews do not believe there is any sort of direct link between the full YHWH and the abbreviated YH forms.  Therefore, by using YehowAH, some are trying to place a link where most Hebrew scholars openly believe that none exists.  (Whether this is an intentional contradiction in the teaching or not, I do not know, but it is an example of why I strive to not give much credence to some of the Hebrew instructions).  Nonetheless, it is very possible that the Yah format was developed during the Babylonian captivity – so that those whose names were derived from the Exalted Name, or which pointed directly toward that name, could still be used, with only a slight vocal variation.

 

In maintaining the consistency of the sound, “YEH”, the vocalization is correct – but even more importantly, nothing in regard to the meaning of the word is changed one iota.

 

I guess that’s the best / short explanation I can offer on the abbreviated form of the Exalted Name that I use in The ENB.

 

But, like I also said, I am more concerned with the Messiah’s name / usage in the New Covenant, than I am with the Old Covenant abbreviated Exalted Name.  If the Old Covenant vocalization and meaning that I use do not impact the truth, then I’m not violating or blaspheming.  But, if the New Covenant vocalization and spelling are incorrect, I could be in trouble.  The YEHOSHUA Name for the Messiah is ever on my mind, but I cannot prove or disprove the correctness or incorrectness of that name.

 

I pray you are well.

 

Sincerely in YEHOWAH,

larryv

 

 

 

From: Angela M. Baxley

Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:46 AM

To: Larry Vosen

Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Larry, if you ever come across those references supporting your change of “yah” to “yeh” and every proper name which bears “yah” into “yeh”, then I would love to have those. If I found the evidence sound, I would purchase a copy of your work, as well as promote it. 

 

However, speaking as sincerely and with love, may I offer to you that it seems that you are making the change with the same motivation as the Hebrews had in obscuring the Exalted Name in the first place? While they worried the Name would be used in vain, and specifically picked up the tradition of the ineffable name from the Egyptians and put it into use to prevent your fear—that the Egyptians would blaspheme the Name. To change Yah on a fear that it is blasphemous, but not being able to offer evidence for such a wide ranging effect I find to be nearly the same reasoning that brought us into this situation in the first place.

 

I offer this so as it may be of help in some way to you, as you must have your marketing plans which will have to be drawn up, though I imagine you’ll get considerable press for having changed all the Hebrew theophoric names ending in yah, I’m not certain that will help your cause. 

 

Oh, and my family tree goes back to the tribe of Judah, and to Abraham and Sarah through the royalty of the world. However, I am like you and fear not those who can kill the body.

 

Go, off with you! Get back to your work! and many thanks for conversing with me!

 

Philia,

Angela

 

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Larry Vosen wrote:

Angela,

 

Thank you for your most helpful and link-laden letter.  I have seen / visited most of the sites you’ve provided, but you’ve added a few new places for me to visit as well.  I appreciate that!

 

I can’t recall where I saw this, but there is another author somewhere who argues that the “yah” name is actually a blasphemous reference to the Elohim of heaven, and that in its use, we draw near to that unforgivable sin of blaspheming The Holy Spirit.  I am way too involved in producing The ENB Audiobook right now though, to re-research all of my notes, but you can imagine the tingle in my heart at the prospect of committing that sin!

 

The ‘dis-fellowship’ issue that you mention is one that all of my contacts either await or anticipate.  I think in a way, looking at it solely from the outside, it would be something a break-away would want.  I’ve never really gotten into a conversation about the consequences of this action though, so it’s not something I profess to know anything about at all…

 

As for the Hebrew society changing/adapting to the YEH abbreviation/spelling – I have to be completely honest with you:  In regard to the Gospel, which so thoroughly includes The Holy Scriptures; I do not give their opinion any consideration whatsoever.  Now you must understand that this sentiment is not uttered with disrespect for the Yehudi nation, because they remain the Chosen Ones.  But, in accord with the very Word of Elohim, I know that WE are enemies wherever That Word is concerned.  I learned long ago to not trust my enemies.  Furthermore, if you look at my last name, you might recognize something interesting, because I am ¼ Jewish / Yehudi!  Vosen is derived from the Rosen clan, which would – if the lineage is correct – make me a Levite.  In that vein, you’ve got to know that I have Hebrew FAMILY, and I don’t care what they think about this matter either.  J  Realistically, when we consider the mess we’re in, regarding The Exalted Name (Divine Name, if you will), the Yehudi nation could not care less if we ever know the correct presentation of that name!  Mr. Wall makes that perfectly clear – in a very gentlemanly way…

 

It may very well be that I am breaking from ‘conventional’ wisdom on this matter, and to be perfectly honest with you – I really don’t have a problem with that.  Conventional wisdom has gotten us into a great deal of trouble, and I’m simply trying to maintain a course of consistency and correctness in as much as I know and have been given.

 

Thanks again for the links.  I will do more reading when I have the opportunity.  In the interim though,

I remain faithfully and humbly your servant,

larryv

 

 

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 3:59 PM

To: Larry Vosen

Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Oh, I’m so glad you articulated your thoughts! I found your website via the fact that you referenced “Proofs of the Interpolation of the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible” that brought me to your website. I’m a HUGE fan of archive.org which allows me to read old texts [preserved via (v1) searchable (v2) scans]. 

 

Before I continue, I don’t recall, and after searching through the text today could not locate your reference to Wall using “Yeh” rather than “Yah”. I don’t mean to pester you, I just wish to understand!

 

I likewise do not use “Jesus”. It’s pagan origins are so completely obvious. I didn’t read your version of the bible, just your introductions regarding the translation. Another search through and I couldn’t find your references to support “Yeh”. I’m not offended—my name is not based on the name, thus my name wouldn’t change by your using “yeh”—you’ll have a terrible time convincing my Hebrew friends that their names should be spelled that way though! 🙂

 

In any case, I came to C.W. Wall’s book via my research after the Harvard Theological Review article which someone proposed on the forum ChannelC.org as proof that “Jehovah” (which I have vehemently argued against, resulting in my parents finding me appalling though they haven’t turned me yet!) was in use long before the advent of the letter J. That article was entitled The Horned Hunter on a Lost Gnostic Gem. I was shocked he’d present that article as a proof point, because it seemed merely to prove my own point—Yehovah, or the more modern Jehovah, is a pagan gnostic god and a name originated in Egypt and invoked in magick, not the name of our heavenly Father. It turns out that my brother-in-law, only came into association with JW’s through my sister whom he later married, is a big fan of Fossilized Customs and gave me that book at my uncle’s funeral a few months past. 

 

Lastly, Gérard Gertoux is (or was?) a JW (though he does not wish his religious affiliation to be published as it brings/brought him up for judicial review, to be disfellowshipped, something I await myself). He is probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet regarding the divine name. You can see posts of the work I’ve collected here: http://seekjehovah.org/tag/yehowah/ and listed below (I’m sure I’ve missed some). 

 

In any case, thanks so much for taking the time to discuss this with me. I understand that you have no intent to use “Yah” (which somewhere in the reference’s below is argued to be a full name, not as you and I believe it to be a shortened form of Yehowah), I just wish to research where it is that you found support for “Yeh”. Make me smarter! 🙂

 

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Larry Vosen wrote:

Angela,

 

I truly appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, but at this stage in my processes, I am not so certain that you can take my findings and adapt them as you are trying to do.  I am saying that, because until you read The ENB (Exalted Name Bible), I don’t think you ever saw the YEHOWAH presentation before.  If I’m wrong about that, tell me – but nowhere is YEHOWAH presented in that manner/format – outside of Mr. Wall’s very old, and very eclectic book (which took years to discover).

 

Further, Mr. Wall has shown the YEH format as well, and I’ve got to stick with what I’ve discovered from that very reliable source.

 

My prayer today revolves around the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.  My concern lies in the New Covenant presentation, because Jesus cannot be correct in any format!

 

I know that our civilization is familiar and comfortable with the JAH spelling, and would accept the YAH presentation too, but as I said in my opening comments about The Exalted Name, I am going to stay with what I’ve discovered in Mr. Wall’s writings, and discard popular wisdom.

 

Please do not be offended, but the Old Covenant presentation of YEH remains as is.

 

Sincerely,

 

larryv

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:15 PM

To: Larry Vosen

Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Please keep praying on it—please, please, please. I don’t mean to push in a manner that’s offensive, so please don’t let it be. I am not even quite certain why it is that I was struck to write you, and even more so uncertain why I feel so compelled to continue in what feels like a plea? For what it’s worth, please add that to your consideration! 🙂

 

Further reasons why it seems to me you ought continue seeking the answer, postponing “Yeh” as your final determination…

 

Theophoric bible names come in a few forms, “Yehow-” using the YHW as a prefix, or end in the short form “-yah”. I believe this is a contraction through my studies, as I cannot find abbreviations in use. As a matter of fact, it appears that the concept of “Yah” as an abbreviation, rather than a contraction of YHWH came about to support those who propose that the exalted name is “Yahweh”—Simply put, “Yah” had to be an abbreviation because otherwise they couldn’t prove “Yahweh” to be the name. Prior to “Yahweh” it “Yah” is referred to as a contraction, simliar to how Yehoshua came to be condensed, elisioned, or contracted to become Yeshua. Letters are removed from the middle, akin to the way we speak, carrying the beginning to the end but sometimes glossing by the middle. 

 

Have you considered all the “Yo” names? Incidentally the “Yow” names lend credence to the spelling/pronunciation Yehowah, as they are something of those elision’s such as Yow’el—meaning “Yehowah is Elohim”.

 

I strongly believe in the concept that “Yah” is the whole name, rather than a portion of it. This is to say if you were to assert that the divine name is “Yahweh” and say that then it’s an abbreviation, then you drop the “weh”. Or if you say that it’s “Yehowah” and that “Yeh” is the abbreviation, then you drop the “owah”. However, “Yah” as a contraction or elision or condensed—not abbreviated nor a hypocoristicon (e.g. Larry for Lawrence, Angie for Angela)—version of Yehowah means that the name still contains its whole meaning or intent, though not spelled out.

 

I can’t really imagine David composing songs taking the liberty to hack off some of our Father’s name. I believe he was inspired, but I do not believe he was inspired to use “Yah” with the intent that it is an abbreviated form of the name. In my own name, I know that when someone takes to calling me “Ang” it’s a gesture of intimacy. No one calls me that really, besides my cousins. Our intimacy with our Creator is defined by referring to him, not by name, but by his being our Father. He has a name, and he has a relationship to us. We either us his name, or refer to him by our intimate relationship. I know this so well, as once I knew in my heart that “Jehovah” was not his name, I struggled for so long to use “Father” instead. It was a hard habit to break, and only has begun to successfully be done now that I have a name that I feel represents the truth. 

 

You might argue that if Yehowah is the sound of breathing, is our Father’s spirit when he breathed life into us, then “Yah” is an abbreviation for the “Y” inhalation, and the “ah” exhalation. When I practice the concept of breathing his name, I hear the sound of the “Y” as I inhale, the “h” is that briefest of moments where you stop and then the “ah” of exhaling. If you were to consider “yeh” an abbreviation, then you don’t have that concept. You can breath in and out, but there isn’t that moment in-between.

 

 הָוָה,הֲוָא until הָיָה

I did find an write up that addresses the masculine/feminine aspect of the ah/eh debate: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110591768/d03-the-Ah-Eh-Argument

 

Here’s a paragraph that seems to start to address a bit of my concept—pardon me, getting tired so copied and pasted it in without editing or additional comment, just speaking to the pattern of contraction (as opposed to truncation, which interestingly implies to “maim”):

The main obstacles in trying to render His name as YAHshua instead of Yeshua, is created by the fact that there is no Hebrew letter “hey” in Yeshua, and also by the Masoretic vowel pointings or nikud. The tsere that is under the Yod in “Yeshua” in the Hebrew scriptures demonstrates the vocalization of the first syllable as “yay,” and not “YAH.” This is also true of the Greek vowel eta, which is pronounced “Yay”, and is found in the transliterated Greek rendering of Yeshua which is Iesous. Many use Y’shua thinking that it is a shortened version of YAHshua, when in fact, Y’shua would represent a truncated version of the long form Yehoshua with the theophoric element “Yeho” removed. This shortening occurred with many names that possessed the theophoric element of the Name of the Almighty during the second temple period.

Another example would be Yehowseph shortened to Yoseph. Biblical names such as Yehonatan (Jonathan), Yehoyaqim (Jehoiakim), Yehoshafat (Jehoshaphat), Yehoram (Jehoram), and Yehoshua (Joshua), all have the shva under the yod signifying the “Yeh” vocalization, but the later shortened version of Yehoshua (Yeshua) does not.

Lastly, I wanted to offer commentary on my understanding of Yehowah’s son coming in his Father’s name, and how it is that you use Yehowah not Yehoshua (or the variants). The Aid book published by the Watchtower, has a section on “Name” which was written by Raymond Franz “apostate” ex-JW former Governing Body member. The concept is that Y’shua bore his Father’s name in his own, and his name “Yehoshua” means “Yehowah is Salvation”. It wasn’t to be in the literal sense, but in the familial, “family name” or “making a ‘name’ for one’s self”. He was the very image of his Father, to see him was to see his Father—compare “Emmanu-El” meaning “El is with us” and Acts 4:12 points out that his name carries salvation, which is true in the case of the name of “Yehowah is Salvation”. Joel 2:32 speaks to us in the end times, though it was an old covenant text, it parallels the account of Revelation. Before the presence of the Messias on earth, the only name to call upon was the Father’s, but by the time his Son arrived that name was in disuse. However, he gave his Son his own name to carry in a most poetic manner making it literally “Yehowah is Salvation”. I don’t believe in trinity, or the concept that the Son was the Father in flesh. I believe he was the very “spit and image” of his Father and that the scriptures are incredible in the poetic manner in which prophecies come true. By the way, having had a Greek roommate, the whole John 1:1 thing becomes no longer fodder, as the translation is fine, it’s the understanding that no knowledgeable Greek believes it to intend trinity. Personally, I’ve come to the understanding that the verse speaks to the moments before time, before he was begotten—he was begotten, and everything else was created. Later, after he was begotten he became flesh. Thoughts?

 

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Larry Vosen wrote:

I understand everything you’re saying – about being misunderstood, about being misrepresented, about getting your web active before it’s really ready, and yet wanting to keep it out of the public eye until it’s ready.  Wow, have I been there.  J

 

I chose to use YEH, because I did not want to confuse the issue (primarily), and because 3050 is in fact the abbreviated form of the whole.  Keeping transliteration nuances to a minimum, I struggled with this, prayed forever (still, in all honesty) and decided to keep it all as simple as possible.  YEH throughout the Exalted Name Bible is the abbreviation of YEHOWAH.  As simple as I can make it!

 

The Ph.D. is in theology.  I have never been called doctor by anyone, and do not introduce myself as such – ever.  I am larry.

 

I have an ex-JW friend (female) living in Reno, NV, who is intently ministering to those ensnared within the organization.  I thought I’d share some of your info with her – and hers with you.  Nothing pushy, but a chord of two is stronger than any single individual…

 

Praying you are well,

Your servant,

larry

 

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:04 PM
To: Larry Vosen
Subject: Re: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Thank you Larry. I don’t mind your sharing my thoughts, I would just want to make sure that what you’d share accurately reflects my thoughts—not for believing you’d intend to do otherwise, but rather I know that at times my communication isn’t as clear and concise as I’d like it to be and I have left folks thinking I believe one thing when really it’s another. Meanwhile, I am working on a website that aims to do such the same, and will be linking to your site. I have both oBible.org which is a work in progress as much as seekjehovah.org, the ironically named domain. One day I hope to see my family “come out of her” as I have. My personal belief is that all religion is “false religion”. 

 

Now, on to our letter—I read Charles W. Wall’s chapter on pronunciation and I too agree with you—tradition of men make’s one’s worship in vain, Y’shua once said.  I believe Christianity (as a religion, based in her mother Babylon, the whore and mother of the whores, and the “Universal” (Catholic) church) is a vehicle for unaware ‘believers’ to worship the Sun. There’s much I’d love to share and will as soon as I get everything together to be able to present it in a logical and coherent manner. (You’ll see the Seek website is really quite a mess. I keep an eye to ensure it’s not reaching the world yet, but it’s online to start letting Google “crawl” it while I continue to edit and revise.)

 

All that aside, my main point in my email was to ask not about “Yehowah”—a point we agree on—but instead, “Yeh” instead of “Yah”. From my understanding of language studies, and I’m a “babe” mind you, is that the contraction is Yehowah or, in case the formatting doesn’t come through on your side, the first letter “Y”, and the last two letters of Yehowah, “ah”. I liken it, thanks to my southern upbringing, to “Y’all” instead of “You all”. This called “elision” a word I’ve only learned so that I can speak about this precise point. Other examples are “I’m” or “Let’s” or “Ma’am”. My point is that one doesn’t drop the front or end, but rather the middle. 

 

Thus, I come to the question what makes you choose to represent “Yehowah” as “Yeh” with an “e” instead of “Yah”? I’d like to understand your reasoning and where that came from. I am currently searching to see where it was that I recall reading the same assertions I’ve made above in print, so I’ll share that source with you when and if I find it. 

 

What’s your PhD in?

 

Best,

Angela

 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Larry Vosen wrote:

Angela,

 

Thank you for your most kind and humbling letter.  I appreciate your input and questions.

 

Yes, we are about finished recording and editing The Exalted Name Bible.  Once our recording and editing is complete, I will have all eBook versions updated to insure that the second edition is as pristine as possible.  Prayerfully, Father will provide a publisher soon, and with the edit complete, our file for that publisher will be as ready as possible.

 

As for your question about the spelling of the name.  I do not know how far you read under the Exalted Name Tab, but on that page I offer the following.  (Please pardon the length, but this is a significant issue):

 

My research ultimately took me to a book originally written in 1857 by Mr. Charles William Wall, in a book entitled, “Proofs of the Interpolation of the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible and Grounds Thence Derived for a Revision of Its Authorized”, Volume 20; v.925; General Books publication date: 2009 (A serious title for a serious topic)!  In his book, Mr. Wall reveals the truth of the Exalted Name in a very profound manner.

First off, I want to tell you that Mr. Wall’s understanding and comprehension of Hebrew is fascinating and beyond reproach. Without any pomp or bravado, Mr. Wall minutely details his proof regarding the Vowel-Letters in the Text of the Hebrew Bible, and how those Vowel-Letters dictate the proper spelling and pronunciation of the Exalted Name.  This 410 page book does considerably more than reveal proof of the Exalted Name, no matter how great a service that one task might be, because the entire book is dedicated to proving why a revision of the authorized version (of the Bible) is needed. Mr. Wall does a remarkable job!  For me, and for this work that I now undertake in providing The Exalted Name Bible™, I owe Mr. Charles William Wall a great deal of thanks. With that said, here are a few excerpts from Mr. Wall’s explanation of the matter, along with my notes and conclusions, which should put your hearts at ease as you read  The Exalted Name Bible™. Mr. Wall said,

“As the pointed text has now been shown to yield a just representation of the sound of the four-lettered name (YHWH)  the sites of its most frequent occurrence, or those which come under the head of the last of the seven above described cases, it may appear, at first view, unaccountable that the Jewish priesthood, considering the strong prejudices they felt on the subject, should have ever permitted the Hebrew Bible, with its vocalization thus improved, to get into Christian hands. But the fact is that, however eagerly they may have desired to prevent this event, – and the expectation that they would be able to do so was probably one of the natural means by which they were induced to suffer the vowels belonging to the proper sound of the group in question to be applied to it in any site, – it became eventually quite beyond their reach to secure this object of their ardent wishes.” (Emphasis mine).

Mr. Wall advances his discussion on this matter, thus,

“What rendered them (the Jews) completely independent of either priestly or rabbinical instruction was the printing of the pointed Hebrew text near the end of the fifteenth century; and they have (the Christians), in fact, so advanced since that period in the critical analysis of Hebrew, that, by means of close attention to the grammatical structure of the sacred text, and more especially through the light thrown upon its sense by the inspired writers of the New Testament, they have arrived at a far superior knowledge of it to that possessed by the very priests of the Jews.”

He further goes on to say,

“The whole Hebrew Bible was first printed with points at Soncino, in the year 1488; – and twenty-eight years after, came out the Arcana Catholice Veritatis (by Galatinus, a Franciscan monk, or, as he styles himself in the dedication of his work, one belonging to the ordo fratrum minorum), in the tenth chapter of the second book of which the true pronunciation of the four-lettered name is given; nor, from the manner in which the subject is there discussed, does the proper sound of this word appear to have been then for the first time announced.”

Mr. Wall did his homework though, because he concludes his discussion of these writings by saying,

“The edition of this work to which I have had access is dated in the year 1603; and the right pronunciation of the name in question is therein printed lehoua, which would, in the modern form of it, be exhibited Jehova; which again, by substituting equivalents for the two letters whose original powers have since been changed, would come out Yehowa, differing from YEHOWAH, the exact transcript of HIiT, only by the omission of an unsounded H at its end. This restoration, however, of the true sound of the examined name was for a considerable length of time admitted to be correct only by individuals: The first Bible into which it was introduced is, I believe, that of Matthews, published in the year 1537, whence it spread through all the authorized English versions which after that date successively came out; so that it is wanting in only the first of them, namely, Coverdale’s Bible. Thus the English Church appears entitled to the credit of being the first Christian community which has given its sanction to this important correction.”

With all that said, I will repeat the fact that the Exalted Name is:

YEHOWAH (YEH -O- WAH)

And it is THAT NAME which you will find throughout The Exalted Name Bible™, wherever the Hebrew 3068 or 3069 are used.

Furthermore, wherever the Hebrew 3050 is used, which is the abbreviated form of His name, it will customarily be found in use with another Hebrew word, thereby forming a name or an expression. The abbreviated presentation of His name is YEH, and we find that name hidden throughout Scripture in connective names like: Joel, Elijah, Judah and Benjamin, and it is hidden in the New Covenant as well in names, and even in words like, Halleluyeh… Those corrections are also made within The Exalted Name Bible™, which eliminates another few thousand misinterpretations.

 

When you consider the above, the most base ancient spelling available of The Exalted Name is, LEHOUA, which, as it says above, “would, in the modern form of it, be exhibited Jehova; which again, by substituting equivalents for the two letters whose original powers have since been changed, would come out Yehowa, differing from YEHOWAH, the exact transcript of HIiT.”

 

I don’t think it appropriate to deviate from the only presentation that is truly based upon the ancient Hebrew language, just to pacify a current (past 100 year) trend.  Does that make sense?

 

The past years have brought a great number of pen pals into our world, and I delight in developing those relationships.  So, if you wish to write, please feel free to do so.  And, with your permission, I might share some of your thoughts with the other ex-Jehova Witness brothers and sisters that communicate with me…

 

Praying that you are well, and that our Father blesses your ministry and walk of faith, I remain faithfully and humbly your servant in YEHOWAH ha Mashiach,

larryv

 

From: Angela M. Baxley
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Larry Vosen
Subject: Strong’s #3050 vs. Yeh

 

Larry, I found your site and am quite pleased. Excellent work, I’ve been on a similar journey myself, although I’m just embarking, and it seems as though you’ve nearly completed your work in The Exalted Name

 

I wanted to ask you about something. You use “Yeh” instead of “Yah” (for Strong’s #3050). I understood “Yah” to be a contraction, similar to “you all” being contracted “y’all”. Hence, Yehowah becomes what we would understand as essentially “y’ah” (pardon my apostrophe, for clarities sake—the “ehow” of the word are removed in the contraction.

 

Thus, hallelujah, would properly revert the “j” to a “y”, and be halleluyah, the suffix “yah” being the contraction above. 

 

This is my childlike level understanding, and while I haven’t finished reading the material on your site, and perhaps you cover this, I wanted to reach out and ask your thoughts. Feel free to point me to something that you’ve perhaps already written. 

 

Meanwhile, much appreciation for your hard work! I turn 33 soon, and am happy to have such wonderful research available through the power of technology. 

 

Angela Baxley

p.s. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, but no longer associate thanks to learning “the Truth” is a man, not a religion. 🙂 If you have thoughts on “hovah” as in Jah+hovah, I’d love to hear that as well. Perhaps penpals? 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Leave a Reply