Gnosis Pithos

Actually, I have never insisted. Are you saying that if he himself claims to be a JW that you might not believe him? By the way, I did just get a response from him, and he preferred that I only use only one particular article of his when discussing 587/6 BCE. He says:
"To avoid any controversy on this controversial subject you can quote my article 'Basic astronomy for historians to get a chronology' . . . [link] . . . which was validated by Professor Hermann Hunger who is a reference in Babylonian astronomy." [Thanks to the person who gave me his most recent email address. I had tried the same one before without a response, but it is still correct. I received the above response a few minutes ago.]

Yes, I understand the all-important emphasis that you and opposers put on "higher education." But Gerard Gertoux DOES have formal higher education. How can we explain his agreement with COJ with regard to chronology?

I feel his pain
 

Curious. I've often wondered why Bible Speaks and Queen Esther and, to a much lesser extent, "you and yours" engage in self-up-voting. (TTH did this at least once, too.) But I agree that they are of zero value. There is a whole generation of people today who seem to live and die (sometimes literally) over the concept of digital approval. Facebook had to get rid of the down-vote because it caused the break-up of so many real and "social" friends. 
But the up-vote is still useful as a way to react to a good or funny comment, or express appreciation for the good and useful research that has gone into comments. You have received at least a dozen from me for the latter reason; probably a couple of them are in this very topic. I don't believe I have ever given a down-vote.
So credit where credit is due. I don't see any reason to remove it.
I hope not. I didn't think you were doing it on purpose. I just thought you sometimes saw a book with an impressive sounding title and assumed that the book supported something the GB was saying before you read the actual book. I have access to JSTOR and a lot of the full books you have referenced through a university alumni account. So, you probably don't know how much time I've nearly "wasted" trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Curious, again. You have usually been more careful to always deny that COJ had a scholar's view. I wonder if you would consider Gerard Gertoux to be a scholar. A few minutes ago, I just emailed him, asking for his permission to quote and discuss his view on the chronology of the destruction of Jerusalem. He appears to agree with COJ that the date must be either 587 or 586, not 607 BCE. The purpose of the email was also to double-check if it is still his current view.

I've never accused you of giving "scholars" more authority than God just because you often quote scholarly authorities who contradict the Governing Body in almost every way possible. That includes the "Kyrios Christos" book you just introduced above as an "example" which says basically that the New Testament was influenced by false religion. And I've never accused the Governing Body of giving "scholars" more authority than God just because they use and quote outside scholars, too, but usually in a much more judicious manner than several of your recent examples.
You include in your answer that Jesus was explicitly referring to the Pharisees and applying the verse as if he were saying that the Pharisees themselves were gods. I think this goes beyond any claim in the Watch Tower publications, which seem carefully worded to avoid this same implication. Note:
*** si p. 196 par. 19 Bible Book Number 43—John ***
In answer to their charge of blasphemy, he reminds them that in the book of Psalms, certain mighty ones of earth are referred to as “gods,” whereas he has referred to himself as God’s Son. (Ps. 82:6) He urges them at least to believe his works.—John 10:34. Other than your wildly inaccurate personal accusations, however, I found several parts of your answer to be useful, which is why I have given you another "up-vote." Thanks.

Don't know how long Gerard Gertoux has been a Witness, but two years ago I was asked to look over a paper (thesis-length) he had written on chronology. I went to get it about a year later and all the links had this item removed, but no others. Fortunately there was still a roundabout way to get a copy. I think this is his most complete work on chronology and it's excellent and comprehensive but it "demolishes" any chance that he could have believed 607 was the date for destruction of Jerusalem, at least at the time he wrote the paper. It was actually a very good paper, and I don't really know why it was removed from so many places. (I can guess, of course, but I could be wrong.) The next time the subject comes up, I'll be happy to quote at length from his paper, although I would respect his wish not to quote directly from it, if this is his wish.
Does anyone here have a current contact for him? If so, please PM me. Does he frequent any forums that anyone here knows about?

Thank you Suzi! I was actually wondering about that. My bad, I misinterpreted what I read in Wikipedia about him. He was born to Jewish family of rabbis. Which of course doesn't mean he is a rabbi himself, and it didn't make sense after I read what the Karaites stand for. That they do not believe in the Oral Torah like the rabbis do.
I will have to try and get a hold of it, sounds very interesting. A while ago I was also looking at a website, and I wish I could remember what they were called, I don't think they were karaites, but maybe some other Jewish "sect" who are anti Zionists, in that they believe Christ will rule from Jerusalem, but not thanks to any human political events and human intervention of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, but only through the literal coming of the Messiah and through God's intervention, not human. Sort of similar to what we believe except for the physical presence aspect. They feel that when he does come, they will be able to identify him, through genealogical records (this was a debate I wanted to have with one of the Rabbis, since all those records no longer exist, but didn't get around to it). Anyway, that was a bit beside the point, just interesting.....Interesting to note that so many Religions (Christendom and Judaism) have grains of Biblical truth, just all muddled up and inconsistent.....

Same as always. As I said: I thought you were saying you had addressed this with scholars, so I was interested.
I was interested in whether you had run across some useful information that either debunks the connections that several scholars have made, or perhaps put them in a more understandable light. You quoted from some sources that, as far as I can see, just take us further down into the same connections I was hoping to avoid, so I have my doubts that any of these sources can help. But I try keep an open mind. Which is why I was interested in your take on this.

The Watchtower never mentions the Canaanite or Ugaritic texts with respect to ELOHIM, or the Divine Council of EL, although it does refer to these texts with respect to EL (the Bull; or "Father Bull"). Our references never mention that YAHWEH was considered to be one of the sons of EL, just as BAAL was another son of EL. A couple of intriguing points are made in the Insight book, however:
*** it-1 pp. 976-977 Gods and Goddesses ***
Canaanite Deities. Extrabiblical sources indicate that the god El was considered to be the creator and sovereign. Although El seems to have been somewhat remote from earthly affairs, he is repeatedly shown as being approached by the other deities with requests. . . . In the Ras Shamra texts El is referred to as “father bull” and is represented as having gray hair and a gray beard. His consort was Asherah, who is referred to as the progenitress of the gods, whereas El is placed in the role of progenitor of the gods. . . . Most prominent of the Canaanite gods, however, was the fertility god Baal, a deity of the sky and of rain and storm. (Jg 2:12, 13) In the Ras Shamra texts, Baal is often called the son of Dagon, though El is also spoken of as his father. Baal’s sister Anath is shown referring to El as her father and he, in turn, calls her his daughter. Hence, Baal probably was regarded as the son of El, though he may also have been viewed as El’s grandson. In the mythological accounts Baal is depicted as assaulting and triumphing over Yamm, the god who presided over the water and who seems to have been El’s favorite or beloved son. But Baal is slain in his conflict with Mot, who was viewed as a son of El and the god of death and aridity. Thus, Canaan, like Babylon, had its god who died a violent death and thereafter was restored to life.—See BAAL No. 4. . . . Hence, at times Asherah and then again Ashtoreth may have been regarded as wives of Baal.—Jg 2:13; 3:7; 10:6; 1Sa 7:4; 12:10; 1Ki 18:19 We spoke of the Mesha stele as being the oldest extant mention of YHWH from about 890 B.C.E. Some of the next oldest extant mentions of the divine name YHWH are from Kuntillet Ajrud about which Wikipedia says the following:
(Arabic: كونتيلة عجرود‎‎) is a late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE site in the northeast part of the Sinai peninsula.[1] It is frequently described as a shrine, though this is not certain.[2] The inscriptions are mostly in early Hebrew with some in Phoenician script.[4] Many are religious in nature, invoking Yahweh, El and Baal, and two include the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" and "Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah."[5] There is general agreement that Yahweh is being invoked in connection with Samaria (capital of the kingdom of Israel) and Teman (in Edom); this suggests that Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, and raises a question over the relationship between Yahweh and Kaus, the national god of Edom.[6] The "Asherah" is most likely a cultic object, although the relationship of this object (a stylised tree perhaps) to Yahweh and to the goddess Asherah, consort of El, is unclear.[7]
An image on the piece of pottery (belonging to a pithos vase) found at Kuntillet Ajrud is adjacent to a Hebrew inscription "Berakhti etkhem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and [his] Asherah").
The connection to the false gods of Canaan and surrounding areas are to be expected, based on the Bible's continuous warnings to the Hebrews about the influence of false gods. The shared language of the region probably facilitated such syncretism, too. For example, the Insight book mentions Yamm, the god of the Sea. The Hebrew word for sea was also Yam. The Insight book mentions Mot as the god of death. The Hebrew word for Death is also Mot. The Mesopotamiam Sun-god was Shamash, the Hebrew word for sun was Shemesh.
But there is also a sense that gods could rise to the Most High of the "Council of Gods" (ELOHIM) and effectively replace EL. EL himself supposedly killed his father to reach this position, per the Insight book. Insight implies what some scholars have said: DAGON for a time might have been seen as the new EL making BAAL the son of DAGON rather than just the son of EL. This may also be an indication that as any god was seen to be the most powerful and ascendant, he became the "ONLY GOD" and that GOD becomes the MOST HIGH, therefore the ruler of the COUNCIL. Even in the Bible, the term MOST HIGH, does not just imply "The Most High over all the earth" but over all the other [non-existent, imagined] gods of other nations. (Psalm 77:13) ". . .What god is as great as you, O God?"  Poetically, at least, the Hebrews could still imagine a heavenly scene reminiscent of the common view of a "Divine Council of Gods."
(Psalm 82:1-8) God [ELOHIM] takes his place in the divine assembly [literally, "Council of EL"]; In the middle of the gods [ELOHIM] he judges:  2 “How long will you continue to judge with injustice And show partiality to the wicked? (Selah)  3 Defend the lowly and the fatherless. Render justice to the helpless and destitute.  4 Rescue the lowly and the poor; Save them out of the hand of the wicked.”  5 They do not know, nor do they understand; They are walking about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are being shaken.  6 “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High.  7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’”  8 Rise up, O God, and judge the earth, For all the nations belong to you. It's possible, of course, to make these "gods" simply powerful men who are judges, but then you have the problem of verse 7 which says that these "men" are going to die just as "men" do. And, of course, Jesus invokes verse 6 as a way of showing that he has every right to call himself the "Son of God" because the Father sanctified him and sent into the world from heaven. The Christian view is, of course, clarified here:
(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . ., we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. So, our position on all of this is very clear, and I'm sure we are in agreement about it. I was only asking if you had found points that are useful in countering the claims of too much similarity. I think Mormons have embraced some of these similarities, but they are obviously foreign to core Hebrew and Christian concepts.
The points you copied above that are found on the site: http://www.garshin.ru/linguistics/historical/author-comparisons/jehovah_eng.htm are very interesting. I see that this source is in agreement with some of the points we have brought up before, but the source also takes some liberties that might not be warranted.
The book you have pictured deals with a very similar theme of syncretism in early Christianity. In both cases these questions are likely dealt with improperly by most authors. The book you reference apparently treats the subject in a way that I find awkward based on a publisher's description (below). I know nothing about this book, except from excerpts I have just looked at today, but wonder what relevant information you might have learned from it. There is nothing relevant or useful on the pages you chose to copy. (I'm assuming you might have read more of it.)
In Kyrios Christos, Wilhelm Bousset argues that the Hellenistic Church's declaration of "Jesus as Lord" is a transformation of the pre-Christian Judaic community's understanding of Jesus as the Son of Man. This unique distinction between the primitive Palestinian community and Hellenistic Christianity reveals how the earliest Christian beliefs were informed by existing religious influences.

For how long a time has this info about Anochi been "new"? Otherwise, I agree with using either Yahweh or Jehovah, with preference for whatever people understand best in the context of communication. For us , this means "Jehovah" is best, in English, at least. Don't think I'll ever be using "Anochi" for either Jehovah or as some would say, for Jesus (in John 4:26 or 8:28 etc).
Do you have a good answer for those who argue that EL was the name of the Most High Canaanite God, represented usually by a bull? The argument usually goes that they also had a "COUNCIL of GODS" called "The ELs" (GODs), or in their language and Hebrew: "ELOHIM" (plural). The COUNCIL of the Most High, EL, included GODs whose names were JEHOVAH, DAGON and BAAL, for example, depending on the nations/tribes governed by the Most High, EL. Temples to the Most High in the area of Canaan, Palestine, Israel, Judea, etc., would include images and sculptures of bulls. This is supposed to explain why the most valuable sacrifice to Jehovah was the bull.
(2 Chronicles 4:1-5) 4 Then he made the copper altar, 20 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 10 cubits high. 2 He made the Sea of cast metal.. . . It stood on 12 , 3 bulls facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south, and 3 facing east; and the Sea rested on them, and all their hindquarters were toward the center. 5 And its thickness was a handbreadth; and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. The reservoir could hold 3,000 bath measures. (Numbers 23:22) 22 God is bringing them out of Egypt. He is like the horns of a wild bull for them.
(Deuteronomy 33:17) 17 His splendor is like that of a firstborn bull, And his horns are the horns of a wild bull. With them he will push peoples All together to the ends of the earth. They are the tens of thousands of Eʹphra·im, And they are the thousands of Ma·nasʹseh.”
*** it-1 pp. 374-375 Bull ***
Bulls were offered in sacrifice by the Israelites (Ex 29; Le 22:27; Nu 7; 1Ch 29:21), and at certain times the Law specifically directed that bulls were to be sacrificed. If the high priest committed a sin that brought guiltiness upon the people, he was required to offer a bull, the largest and most valuable sacrificial victim, this undoubtedly in keeping with his responsible position as leader of Israel in true worship. A bull also had to be offered when the entire assembly of Israel made a mistake. (Le 4:3, 13, 14) On Atonement Day a bull was to be offered in behalf of the priestly house of Aaron. (Le 16) In the seventh month of their sacred calendar the Israelites were required to offer more than 70 bulls as burnt offerings.—Nu 29.
Of course, the primary argument that the Hebrew ELOHIM came from such a source is that the term in the plural came to refer to Jehovah who was ONE God. The ideas of EL and ELOHIM and MOST HIGH and the COUNCIL are supposedly seen in various scriptures such as the Psalm here:
(Psalm 89:5-14)  5 The heavens praise your marvels, O Jehovah, Yes, your faithfulness in the congregation of the holy ones.  6 For who in the skies can compare to Jehovah? Who among the sons of God is like Jehovah?  7 God is held in awe in the council of holy ones; He is grand and awe-inspiring to all who are around him.  8 O Jehovah God of armies, Who is mighty like you, O Jah? Your faithfulness surrounds you.  9 You rule over the raging of the sea; (2 Chron 4:2, above) When its waves surge, you calm them. . . . 12 The north and the south—you created them; Taʹbor and Herʹmon joyously praise your name. 13 Your arm is mighty; Your hand is strong; Your right hand is exalted. 14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;. . . . (2 Chron 4:4, above: the four directions of the bulls) By translating both EL and ELOHIM as God, it's possible to lose sight of the actual argument being made, so here's another take on another Psalm commented upon in Wikipedia, marked in "blue" below:
In the Hebrew Bible, there are multiple descriptions of Yahweh presiding over a great assembly of Heavenly Hosts. Some interpret these assemblies as examples of Divine Council:
The Book of Psalms (Psalm 82:1) states "God (אֱלֹהִ֔ים elohim) stands in the divine assembly (בַּעֲדַת-אֵל ); He judges among the gods (אֱלֹהִ֔ים elohim)" (אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט). The meaning of the two occurrences of "elohim" has been debated by scholars, with some suggesting both words refer to Yahweh, while others propose that the God of Israel rules over a divine assembly of other Gods or angels.[9] Some translations of the passage render "God (elohim) stands in the congregation of the mighty to judge the heart as God (elohim)"[10] (the Hebrew is "beqerev elohim", "in the midst of gods", and the word "qerev" if it were in the plural would mean "internal organs"[11]). Later in this Psalm, the word "gods" is used (in the KJV): Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High." Instead of "gods", another version has "godlike beings",[12] but here again, the word is elohim/elohiym (Strong's H430).[13] This passage is quoted in the New Testament in John 10:34.[14]
In the Books of Kings (1 Kings 22:19) the prophet Micaiah has a vision of Yahweh seated among "the whole host of heaven" standing on his right and on his left. He asks who will go entice Ahab and a spirit volunteers. This has been interpreted as an example of a divine council.
The first two chapters of the Book of Job describe the "Sons of God" assembling in the presence of Yahweh. Like "multitudes of heaven", the term "Sons of God" defies certain interpretation. This assembly has been interpreted by some as another example of divine council. Others translate "Sons of God" as "angels", and thus argue this is not a divine council because angels are God's creation and not deities.
---end of Wikipedia quote---
But the curious issue of how to translate Deuteronomy also comes up here. For years, most translators found the Masoretic text preferable to the Septuagint because the Septuagint implied that people still remembered the Canaanite idea of a council of gods. (Not just Canaanite, but also Egyptian, Mesopotamian/Babylonian, etc.)
The NWT has:
(Deuteronomy 32:7-9)  7 Remember the days of old; Consider the years of past generations. Ask your father, and he can tell you; Your elders, and they will inform you.  8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When he divided the sons of Adam from one another, He fixed the boundary of the peoples With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.  9 For Jehovah’s people are his portion; Jacob is his inheritance. But, after the Dead Sea Scrolls supported the Septuagint, the RSV, for example changed its translation from the Masoretic to say:
(Deuteronomy 32:7-9) Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. Also:
New Living Translation
When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

English Standard Version
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

International Standard Version
When the Most High gave nations as their inheritance, when he separated the human race, he set boundaries for the people according to the number of the children of God.

NET Bible
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly.
  Commentaries had said that the LXX was probably corrupted because, as the Pulpit Commentary said:
From the very beginning, when God first allotted to the nations a place and a heritage, he had respect in his arrangements to the sons of Israel, who were his portion, and had as it were kept their interest in view in all that he appointed and ordered. According to the number of the children of Israel. When the Most High portioned out to the nations the heritage of each, he reserved for Israel, as the people of his choice, an inheritance proportioned to its numbers. The LXX. has "according to the number of the angels of God," an arbitrary departure from the original text, in accommodation, probably, to the later Jewish notion of each nation having its guardian angel. The Canaanite idea was that the Most High divided the nations and gave a portion of the sons of men to each God of the Council. Baal got the Canaanites, and therefore Baal presided in the Council of EL as far as the Canaanites were concerned. Jehovah was given the sons of Israel, and therefore Jehovah presided in the Council of EL as far as the Israelites were concerned. To the Babylonians it was Shamash, the Sun, who presided in the Divine Council.
This "division" might have been said to have happened in the days of Peleg and was facilitated by the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel, about the time of his generation:
(Genesis 10:25-11:9) 25 Two sons were born to Eʹber. The name of the one was Peʹleg, because in his lifetime the earth [earth's population] was divided. The name of his brother was Jokʹtan. 26 . . .  all of these were the sons of Jokʹtan. 30 Their place of dwelling extended from Meʹsha as far as Seʹphar, the mountainous region of the East. 31 These were the sons of Shem according to their families and their languages, by their lands and their nations. . . . 11:1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. . . .  They now said: “Come! Let us build a city for ourselves and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, so that we will not be scattered over the entire face of the earth.” . . So Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why it was named Baʹbel, because there Jehovah confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth. Some have tied this idea of each nation getting a guardian angel to the "watchers" of the books of non-canonical Enoch and canonical portions of Daniel. This is why Michael is the guardian archangel of Israel, and other nations have their own guardian angels. This relates to a question that @Anna asked recently on this forum. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47150-why-do-we-understand-the-prince-of-persia-in-daniel-1013-to-be-a-wicked-angeldemon/?tab=comments#comment-69704
 

No the apostles did not honestly believe they were above Christ. Some did believe they should be above other Christians, even above each other, and Jesus counseled them about that. (Mark 10:35+) So why bring up a "false" allegation that somehow Witnesses are giving "undue reverence" to the Governing Body? Easy. Because the Watchtower said they were. If you don't believe the Watchtower's claim, take it up with them.
Did you think that the counsel in the 1/16 Study Watchtower was unnecessary?
*** w16 January p. 27 “We Want to Go With You” ***
At times, well-known representatives of the Christian congregation—perhaps circuit overseers, Bethelites, members of the Branch Committee, members of the Governing Body as well as their helpers—may attend a convention or theocratic event that we also attend.
The counsel given referred to the kind of attitudes matched in the picture above from the same article. Similar counsel was repeated again in the 3/17 Study Watchtower.
*** w17 March p. 9 par. 6 Give Honor to Whom It Is Due ***
Most imperfect humans are strongly influenced by the spirit of SatanÂ’s world. That is why people tend to idolize certain men or women rather than just show them appropriate honor and respect. They place religious and political leaders, sports figures, entertainment stars, and other celebrities on pedestals, often considering them to be almost superhuman. . . . However, JehovahÂ’s Witnesses refrain from treating religious leaders as ones who merit extraordinary honor, even though those leaders may expect it.
Due to the problem of people worshiping Charles Taze Russell as if they were in a cult, up until at least 1931, Rutherford did all he could to separate from that type of mentality and move that kind of adulation to the theocratic organization itself, rather than a human being. You may have already seen the discussion on this topic linked here:Charles Taze Russell: Was he recently "canonized"?
The Watchtower itself claims that the Watchtower was in error (at one time or another) with respect to almost every prophecy they have ever attempted to explain. It's only the current version of the explanation of any of these same prophecies that is considered not to be in error, unless of course, they also go back to one of the previous explanations and say it was correct after all, which has also happened.
I'm sure you think yourself a good judge of what degree is "fine" and what degree is "NOT fine" in this regard. However, there is no scripture that says that God inspires, entrusts, or commissions the GB to understand scripture for our benefit. I accept that they do understand scripture for our benefit, but there is no such commission by God specifically for the GB to do this. We accept their leadership in this regard because it works for unity and peace and consistency in our teaching, which therefore allows for the efficient distribution of Bible-based publications with a common message we can all support whole-heartedly. Every religious group realizes that some can preside better, some can speak better, some can manage better, and some can teach better. Among true Christians today these are considered "gifts in men" where such ministries combine to help to maintain peace and unity in the worldwide congregation, just as they would in individual congregations. So there is nothing unbiblical and nothing wrong with accepting the services and benefits of a Governing Body. But they are not inspired and there is no Biblical commission for this specific group of brothers to teach and understand the Scriptures for us.
I am pretty sure I don't claim to share in the "anointing of the holy spirit" in the same way that you and others here might claim to share. This might not have been addressed to me, but since I chose to respond I thought I should clear up the fact that I certainly don't claim to be one of the 144,000 anointed.
I agree that there is more to say on these topics, but I think the info about God's name is more relevant to the topic at hand, so I'll bring those points up in my next post.

This makes me wonder if we all watched the same film.....

I always wondered about that. Thanks!

Your focus was probably on the reason for this practice, which I gave as "because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out." The source you gave didn't include any reason different from the one I gave, but this new answer referring to the idea of an Israeli chemistry teacher gives a different reason which is worth considering. He evidently said it was because as you said: " The word in Hebrew for existence is a form of the name of God, and is not used as it is in English." Then the person who made that comment added the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah  which says nothing of the sort.
So we could easily consider whether the "zero copula" is due to this particular reason. One point to consider is that after reading the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula we notice that there are many languages that do the same, including Arabic, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, Maori, Ganda, Irish, Welsh, ASL, and several Native American languages. Again it's mostly done for the present tense in these languages, too. There are several situations in which we follow this practice in English, too. And we surely don't do it because it's a form of God's name in Hebrew. And these languages with no relationship to Hebrew surely don't do it because of an issue in Hebrew or any similar issue in their own language.
It might also be worth considering that even when the name of God was spelled out in Hebrew at a time when there were no prejudices against using the name out loud, the zero copula was already in effect. We see this in at least 350 places in the Hebrew text. One obvious example is the twenty-third Psalm which says "Jehovah [blank] my shepherd I shall not want"  יְהוָה רֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָֽר
So the practice could not very well have started because it is a form of God's name.
Even in the context of Exodus 3:12-15 the same practice is found:
It's found in the future tense in 3:12 and "famously" found in the present tense in 3:14, of course, but is left out of the surrounding verses:
(Exodus 3:13-15) 13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is [blank] his name?’ What should I say to them?”  . . . 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is [blank] what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is [blank] my name forever, and this is [blank] how I am to be [blank] remembered from generation to generation. Wherever you see an italicized "am," is," or "are" in the OT of the KJV (hundreds of times) you are mostly likely seeing the "zero copula."
I have no problem with sarcasm in general. It's not usually necessary, but can sometimes help to make a point. It was just that, in this case, you said you were using sarcasm to make a point different from mine,  and then immediately quoted someone who apparently agreed with me 100%, so the sarcasm lost its effect.

Were it not for the flood of hateful remarks directed at theocratic authority, I would most likely agree with you. But like pus from a wound, it is everywhere. Maybe there is a place for someone from us who spills the dirt before the scoundrels do.
Online there are endless persons who spill dirt on God's organization. Often it is true dirt, or it is based upon something true. 'No human is able to exercise perfect self-control,' today's Watchtower says. Same with other qualities. Therefore there will always be dirt. Opposers misrepresent and exaggerate and always always always impute wrong motive. Eventually, John Q Publisher comes across it, and because he has been exposed to not a hint of it, he is floored - and in many cases he swallows it along with the negative spin supplied - and the spiritual consequences are dire. Therefore it may not be a bad thing if someone spills dirt in a 'loyal' context. You could almost liken it to a vaccine - exposure to a little bit of the crap by a physician better prepares one for when they encounter it in the wild. At any rate, you can do nothing about it, so you may as well adapt.
I don't think it is great, either, but there may be a practical use to it. People spill all kinds of confidential stuff here. It amazed me at first. Then they say where there is secrecy there is tyranny. The remark is not completely wet, but it is misplaced. 'Confidential' is not the same as 'secret.' Nor is it the same as 'not intended for public distribution.' John gave the reason that not everything is intended for everyone, and it reveals no ill intent whatsoever. Quite the contrary. 'I have many things to say to you, but you are not yet ready to bear them,' Jesus said. "Oh yes we are," says everyone on this forum (including me). I can picture some (if they dared) combing through all the stuff Jesus held back so that they could post it online in order to to fill our 'right to know.' Still, since the liars abound,  'loyal' ones can put a proper spin on the dirt they reveal.
Though I don't like to see confidential things displayed online, they yet serve to strengthen general confidence in the organization God uses. Shiwiii, for example, posted that confidential letter in which Bethel reminded local publishers to donate timely. He was hoping I would be outraged at the greedy Watchtower. Instead, I feigned outrage at the greedy Bible writers, for it was clear everything the organization did was based upon scripture. Even when you don't like the general direction in which godly counsel is heading, you nonetheless have to concede that it is godly - supported scripturally - and thus you can ask yourself: 'to what degree am I willing to be 'taught by Jehovah?' even as the ones publishing it ask themselves the same question. 
I will go out on a limb here and risk being presumptuous, but I'm not sure the brothers know what to do with the pure deceit that is so readily spewed online by many. I think they probably reign in some instincts on how to respond because that is what the Bible says they should do. Maybe I should too, and others here. But we get clobbered by apostates and one wants to do something about it, if at all possible. "I am stronger than you, and I thank God for it," says Miss Pross to the wicked foreign woman who would cut her throat. She fights not for herself, but for someone to whom she is loyal. It is the first century playing out all over again. There is not a NT writer who does not deal with it. The apostate issue was fueled by same thing then as it is today: a contempt for authority. (Jude 8) It's hard to know how to deal with it. 

1. Ministerial Servants are not allowed to see the program for elders. (This is so important it is bold)
2. Any elders who receive the program early should not discuss the information with other elders.

October 4, 2017 TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS AND MINISTERIAL SERVANTS Re: Kingdom Ministry School for the 2018 Service Year
PROGRAM FOR MINISTERIAL SERVANTS
MINISTERIAL SERVANTS
References needed during the Kingdom Ministry School:
Ministry School book—main points will be taken from pages 118-120, 128-130
Organized book—main points will be taken from chapter 6, paragraphs 3-12
 
PROGRAM FOR ELDERS
ELDERS
References needed during the Kingdom Ministry School:
Shepherding textbook—main points will be taken from chapter 3, paragraphs 1-10, 22
Ministry School book—main points will be taken from pages 118-120, 128-130
September 1, 2017, letter to all bodies of elders regarding protecting minors from abuse
May 15, 2017, letter to all bodies of elders regarding regular pioneers
July 13, 2014, letter to all bodies of elders regarding appointment and deletion of elders and ministerial servants
 

This is the first time I've seen this video. (About 3 AM this morning.) I watched it because I think it's something I should have seen before. Someone mentioned it a couple years ago, but I never went looking for it. Actually I think you still had to pay for it back when I first heard about it, so I figured I'd wait until it came out on cable or Netflix.
Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, where the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control.
Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.)  I know that Poppenberg helped with other JW related projects, but I'd guess it's only because they already know he will. The production end of this video need not have been done by people with any JW interests. Nehemia Gordon gives several interviews to Christian "Jewish" Messianic outreach organizations, even though he also makes fun of some of these same groups on the side.
The following is not completely checked out, but I've found info so far that confirms some of it, and nothing that disconfirms any of it.
----------------WARNING: some parts picked up from ex-JW sites-----------------
A Common Bond's Response to the Documentary Knocking - part 2
Where the Money Came From
On May 22, 2007, a documentary program entitled Knocking was shown on some Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations throughout the United States as a part of their "Independent Lens" series of programs. Because PBS does not accept commercial advertisements, programming on this network is paid for through grants from various corporate sources, public and private foundations, and individual funding. Programming on PBS always discloses the sources of funding for it's shows at the time of the
program's airing, as well as on the PBS website. An examination of the PBS website lists the following as providing major funding for Knocking:
Walter Zaremba
Gunther Reibling
New York Community Trust
A further examination of the Knocking website shows the following list of supporters at the bottom of each page:
Independent Television Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Reibling Foundation
Note the name "Reibling" on both sites as a major contributor for the production of this program. A quick search on the internet found a
connection between Gunther Reibling, the Reibling Foundation, and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on the Boston College website. Further research reveals the establishment of the Laura and Lorenz Reibling Family Foundation of Boston, Massachusetts as a charitable organization some time after Knocking had been funded. According to the website of Taurus Investment Holdings, Lorenz Reibling is the brother of Gunther Reibling. Unconfirmed sources we consider trusted and reliable believe both Reibling brothers to be practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether or not this is true, the Reibling family does associate with people who have close ties to the Watchtower. An online bio of Lorenz Reibling states the following:
Lorenz Reibling, Chairman, Taurus Investment Holdings
Lorenz is Chairman and a principal of Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC. As cofounder of Taurus, Lorenz has been responsible for the acquisition and/or development of over 100 commercial real estate projects throughout the United States since 1976. He regularly participates as co-investor in Taurus-sponsored real estate transactions. In 1966, Lorenz completed an apprenticeship as Industriekaufmann at Obpacher AG, a Weyerhauser-affiliated, Munich-based printing and publishing plant. Lorenz subsequently graduated from Munchen-Kolleg and attended Technische Universitat and Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat, earning degrees in Cybernetics and Psychology. His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients was conducted at
University Hospital Munich Grosshadern. After immigration to America he received a MS from Boston College in Organizational Management with focus on maximizing intellectual capital. He has attended and completed specialized courses at MIT and Harvard on real estate related subjects. Mr. Reibling's early career included employment with multinational corporations such as Hoechst (Cassella Riedl), American Hospital Supply Corporation, and CPI Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. specializing in sophisticated cardiac stimulation appliances. Mr. Reibling is a full member of the AHI Angel Healthcare Investor Group, The Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Kunstakademie Munchen, and supporter of numerous philantropic organizations. He was appointed to the advisory board of MIT/CRE (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Center for Real Estate). As a collector of 15th-16th century Bibles and Reformation literature, Mr. Reibling has initiated and co-sponsored significant research and exhibition projects, such as "The Art of the Book: A journey through a Thousand Years" and "Confront: Resistance against Nazi Terror." He is fluent in German, English, Spanish and Italian. His residency is in the United States with homes in Massachusetts and Florida. He is married for 26 years with three adult children.
It is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants" at around the same time that the Watchtower was teaching that organ transplantation was a disfellowshippable offense due to it's being considered cannibalism and a risk for the patient taking on the personality of the donor. Some time later, the Watchtower lifted the restriction against organ transplants, but failed to invite back the disfellowshipped members who had "sinned" by having life-saving surgery, but "went ahead of Jehovah" by doing so before the ban was lifted. Another way to trace the Reiblings' association with the Watchtower is by doing an internet search on the other name that appears on the PBS website as a provider of major funding: Walter Zaremba.
A search on the internet revealed the docket of a federal court case:
BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba:
From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio..
----------------
Westbrook declined to comment, but public records show the company paid $60 million for the 12-story building overlooking the Brooklyn Heights Promenade with views of the city. The Watchtower Society of The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 169 Columbia Heights for $50 million in 2007 to the Boston-based Taurus Investment Holdings, which converted it into 94 luxury apartment rentals shortly thereafter. [Taurus Investments is a Reibling company] ------------------
Then again, these amounts are only a small percentage of the real estate deals the Reiblings have been involved with. I found this in the New York Times:
NYT: But building is not without risks, according to Lorenz Reibling, who came here from Germany a decade ago, and whose company, Taurus Investments Group of Boca Raton, Fla., typically averages one $5 million deal a month, bringing German and Swiss equity partners into American real estate. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/15/realestate/in-the-nation-foreign-investors-step-into-more-active-roles.html?pagewanted=all Don't know if you can still do this, but after Knocking came out, I looked up names on LinkedIn for the companies involved and was able to confirm a network of JWs involved.
 

I would have never known he even existed were it not for JW Insider. You can just google his name and go to Wikipedia which gives pretty concise info. about him. His name has also been mentioned in our publications, but easily overlooked. He wrote the two articles in WT 2011 about when was ancient Jerusalem destroyed, if I'm not mistaken. Of course there is a lot more interesting stuff, as he is a big supporter of the 607 B.C. question. One can even contact him via a blog. (I think JW Insider had discussions with him)

Yes, I didn't want to mention this though so it wouldn't bias anyone, and left it up to them to do the research if they wanted. It was sent to me as an "independent, secular documentary". Of course, as soon as I spotted Furuli I became suspicious it was not, and then the contents. Just a little search of the names in the credits after the film brings out lots of other info. Many involved are Witnesses but not all. The director Fritz Poppenberg doesn't seem to be a JW, but obviously a JW apologist, Nehemiah Gordon is a Karaite Rabbi (never heard of the Karaite Jews, very interesting) and the sound director Peter Kaizar doesn't appear to be one. There is a website (obviously biased against JW) that analyses the documentary and the involvement of JWs....(but that's not where I got my info from).
I was hoping you would see this post as I was as sure you would have plenty to say (). I look forward to reading your critique later, and respond. 

Keep @JW Insider away from museums. #NoMuseums

Just had to comment on the point at 23:55 in the video: "In a well-known Bible translation we can read, 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' " The video won't say, of course, what translation this is, but we already know it's the old NWT:
(Exodus 3:14) At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Of course, this was changed in the 2013 revision:
(Exodus 3:14) 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become (AHYH) What I Choose to Become (AHYH).” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become (AHYH)has sent me to you.’” Oddly, the new 2013 translation got rid of the verb form "prove to be [this or that]" in about 300 places, leaving only a few exceptions which seem now as if they are just accidental, vestigial remnants of the old translation. But it's also odd that in the new translation Jehovah CHANGES his name in the middle of this verse, leaving out the idea of "CHOOSING" even though it was never in the Hebrew to begin with. In the Hebrew there is a different "tetragrammaton" here "AHYH" and it never changes between the first two uses and the third use. (Using "A" for the consonant "ayin") It's actually just a form of the word "to be." It's the same word found here:
(Genesis 3:1) 3 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals. . . (NWT) (Judges 20:12) 12 Then the tribes of Israel sent men to all the tribesmen of Benjamin, saying: “What is this terrible thing that has happened among you?  (NWT)
 
Hebrew, like some other Semitic languages, does not always need the verb "to be" (or "am") especially in the present tense, because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out. It's used more often when it's useful in producing a non-standard "tense" of a verb. It's definitely given special significance in Exodus 3:14, but not so much that it requires various ideas to be added to the translation.
 

Just had to comment on the point at 23:55 in the video: "In a well-known Bible translation we can read, 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' " The video won't say, of course, what translation this is, but we already know it's the old NWT:
(Exodus 3:14) At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Of course, this was changed in the 2013 revision:
(Exodus 3:14) 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become (AHYH) What I Choose to Become (AHYH).” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become (AHYH)has sent me to you.’” Oddly, the new 2013 translation got rid of the verb form "prove to be [this or that]" in about 300 places, leaving only a few exceptions which seem now as if they are just accidental, vestigial remnants of the old translation. But it's also odd that in the new translation Jehovah CHANGES his name in the middle of this verse, leaving out the idea of "CHOOSING" even though it was never in the Hebrew to begin with. In the Hebrew there is a different "tetragrammaton" here "AHYH" and it never changes between the first two uses and the third use. (Using "A" for the consonant "ayin") It's actually just a form of the word "to be." It's the same word found here:
(Genesis 3:1) 3 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals. . . (NWT) (Judges 20:12) 12 Then the tribes of Israel sent men to all the tribesmen of Benjamin, saying: “What is this terrible thing that has happened among you?  (NWT)
 
Hebrew, like some other Semitic languages, does not always need the verb "to be" (or "am") especially in the present tense, because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out. It's used more often when it's useful in producing a non-standard "tense" of a verb. It's definitely given special significance in Exodus 3:14, but not so much that it requires various ideas to be added to the translation.
 

Most (perhaps all?) of the known people associated with the sponsor of the video (Reibling Foundation) are Witnesses, too. If they are trying to hide this fact they have not done a good job. Obviously, the language and expressions in the video also indicates that it is from Witnesses.
There are some huge logical gaffes in the video.
Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW) and it is the "Moabite stone "Mesha stele" (from the 9th C BCE) that is the oldest known use of the tetragrammaton example we have in writing. (The Moabite stone, the first tetragrammaton, is nearly 500 years younger than the older trigrammaton.)The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise.
On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.). This is argued from its supposed rarity as a standalone name. But Furuli says it's found 20 times in hallelujah, and 19 times as a standalone name, which totals 49 times (20+19=49). His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices. Of course, the name "Yah" is also embedded in many proper names of individuals in the same way that this video had already shown that others like Nebuchadnezzar, Ramses, etc, included the name of their god(s) in their names. This gets discussed starting at minute 21 of the video.
Then they show Furuli and Gertoux disagreeing about the importance of the final H, where Gertoux says it means the pronunciation was like the a in "ah" but Furuli correctly points out that it was only "very often" and could also stand for either "A" or an "AE." He indicates through his pronunciation that "AE" means either a short "eh" sound or the vowel sometimes represented by the term "schwa").  Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't. See also http://creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/6-ah-eh.pdf for a different point on the vowel to be included with the ending "H".
On the point that the vowels for ADONAI (Lord) were attached to the Tetragrammaton the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH. (YaHoWaH vs. YeHoWaH). But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known. This is the place in the video where Gertoux tries to apply the age-old conspiracy theory that scholars know something but don't want to upset their fellow colleagues. This happens under centralized power structures all the time, but this of course is in direct contradiction to the parallel claim that scholars are always in competition for something new and will sacrifice their own mother for gaining a bit of attention in the academic world. In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories.
6 of the 60 Masoretic manuscripts are known to have the full vowels corresponding to Yehowah. (Note minute 46 of this interview with Nehemia Gordon, the same person interviewed in the Reibling video in your original post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLMPZrFom3Q  )
 
"Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy. (18:52)
What they have left out here which is very important is that the vowels roughly corresponding to Adonai were NOT the only vowels that the Masoretic texts applied to YHWH.
In the portion of the video about embedding the divine name as part of an individual's name assumptions are made about the vowel pronunciation that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew. (Gordon sells books based on the premise that Hebrew was a resurrected language, not spoken for 2000 years, which allows him some extra freedom for "discovery.") There are also known differences in initial vowels that were long and become short based on the pronunciation of the second vowel in a word. Contractions based on syllable emphasis are common and are even seen in the various verb forms. An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted.  It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions.
(Ezra 10:15) 15 However, Jonʹa·than the son of Asʹa·hel and Jah·zeiʹah the son of Tikʹvah objected to this, and the Levites Me·shulʹlam and Shabʹbe·thai supported them. This only covers some problems from the first half of the video, which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study. I'm sure we shouldn't discount the possibility that "Jehovah" (from "Yehowah") is one of the possible alternatives. If however, the entire point of the Masoretic text was to produce vowel-pointed pronunciations that helped readers avoid the true pronunciation, then they did a terrible job by supposedly giving away the true vowels in some places but not others. I believe I wrote a note to the Librarian here once that had some evidence about this in the Masoretic texts. I'll see if it's still here and post it.
 

So you reject the Biblical support I have given you so that you can continue to argue that a king announces himself. 
Like I said, sure there may have been one or two who have announced themselves, but like anything else there are exceptions to the standard. But you hold fast to the notion just because I do not agree with you. ok, you're right....sheesh. 
Shall I post this three times so that I one up your double posts for emphasis? lol