Posted by Janey on March 22, 1999 at 19:59:09 {MW/mrDAKQdkdU}:
In Reply to: *Stafford's Response to White posted by J.H. on March 22, 1999 at 13:50:23:
Jan, I hate to say it but I think you are missing some things here.
JAN - Stafford claims "Jehovah" is a more accurate rendering of YHWH than Yahweh, and totally wacky claim.
I have Staford's book and he does a pretty thorough job
refuting the "Yahweh" position. He also quotes scholars who agree with him and who also make very convincing points which Stafford quotes. Have you read his discussion Jan?
JAN - The pronounciation was never lost. It was, and is,
Yahweh, a name for a semitic deity.
I don't think so. You should read the evidence first. And I do not see that Stafford is saying that "Jehovah" is the way to say God's name, but that it being "trisyllable" is closer to the
original than "Yahweh," a bisyllable.
JAN - Under the "is my argument circular" headline Stafford accuses White of making a circular argument. Here Stafford is obviously wrong, since there is more than one use of "theos" in John, and the other examples are certainly relevant to a discussion of John 1:1.
Jan, I think that is Stafford's point! Jesus is theos in a different sense than God, so for White and others to claim what they do is circular. THEY are the ones who
say there is only one sense.
Sorry Jan, I think you should read it again, more carefully.
Janey