the Bible from a Jehovah's Witness perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.

Plaidback

2nd 2 n1 in 1 2nd
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Points
0
JW organization rejects flat out any chance of accepting truth that
Jesus Christ was the God,( or any other name you please to call God )
alive in flesh for 33 years.
This is John 14:6-7, Jesus to Thomas and others: " I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except trough me.
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on,
you do know Him and have seen Him. "
And continue in 14:9-10
" Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say " show us the Father " ?. Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me ? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather , it is the Father,
living in Me, who is doing His work. "

OK, they ( JW's ) are not feeling that, that's fine. But then I wonder :rolleyes:
knowing their Belief of People living here on Earth with the God, Forever ( whenever that happend ).
Now if Jesus wasn't the God, Who is then " Son of Man " that He refered in
Luke 21:27, 36 ?
Now, it is either Jesus was Liar, or " Lucky Ones " will witness two separate
Gods,(or I am not sure what would that mean), maybe Three, thanks to Jews.

Did I mention, my wife is JW :)
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Plaidback said:
JW organization rejects flat out any chance of accepting truth that
Jesus Christ was the God,( or any other name you please to call God )
alive in flesh for 33 years.
This is John 14:6-7, Jesus to Thomas and others: " I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except trough me.
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on,
you do know Him and have seen Him. "
And continue in 14:9-10
" Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say " show us the Father " ?. Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me ? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather , it is the Father,
living in Me, who is doing His work. "

OK, they ( JW's ) are not feeling that, that's fine. But then I wonder :rolleyes:
knowing their Belief of People living here on Earth with the God, Forever ( whenever that happend ).
Now if Jesus wasn't the God, Who is then " Son of Man " that He refered in
Luke 21:27, 36 ?
Now, it is either Jesus was Liar, or " Lucky Ones " will witness two separate
Gods,(or I am not sure what would that mean), maybe Three, thanks to Jews.

Did I mention, my wife is JW :)
if your wife is one of JW then i am quite sure she can put you right about what we believe, you only have to ask her,
 
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mee said:

Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. This retains the essential elements of God’s name from the Hebrew original......as an example lets think about the name of Jesus

Would it be showing honor to Jesus to remove all mention of his name in the Bible and by removing it from our biblesreplace it with a mere title like "Teacher," or "Mediator"? Of course not, We can relate to Jesus when we use his name the way it is commonly pronounced in our language


In the New Testament, Jesus was referred to as "Lord" quite a bit and "God" on one occasion that I can think of off the top of my head (doubting Thomas seeing the Ressurrected Lord). I'd almost be willing to bet that Christ's preferred title is Lord or Master, just like you would call your teacher or professor by their title in school. Also, Christ is the Master Teacher...

Here's another twist that I'll throw in for kicks. Would it matter if we referred to Jesus as Joshua? It's basically the same name, isn't it, just derived from two different langauges? Both are correct, yet we use the Greek form Jesus as his English Equivalent. Interesting, eh?

I think it IS important how we refer to deity, but we shouldn't be hesitant to use their respectful titles either. There's much scriptural proof that it's okay to refer to God as Father...in fact, it could be even more endearing than calling him Jehovah or Elohim. We here on earth refer to our fathers as Dad and rarely call out to them by their name. It's because we have a bond to them that others do not. God, as father or our spirits, has that bond with us (actually moreso than our earthly fathers and mothers). These are just my feelings on the matter.
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Awesome Possum said:
In the New Testament, Jesus was referred to as "Lord" quite a bit and "God" on one occasion that I can think of off the top of my head (doubting Thomas seeing the Ressurrected Lord). I'd almost be willing to bet that Christ's preferred title is Lord or Master, just like you would call your teacher or professor by their title in school. Also, Christ is the Master Teacher...

Here's another twist that I'll throw in for kicks. Would it matter if we referred to Jesus as Joshua? It's basically the same name, isn't it, just derived from two different langauges? Both are correct, yet we use the Greek form Jesus as his English Equivalent. Interesting, eh?

I think it IS important how we refer to deity, but we shouldn't be hesitant to use their respectful titles either. There's much scriptural proof that it's okay to refer to God as Father...in fact, it could be even more endearing than calling him Jehovah or Elohim. We here on earth refer to our fathers as Dad and rarely call out to them by their name. It's because we have a bond to them that others do not. God, as father or our spirits, has that bond with us (actually moreso than our earthly fathers and mothers). These are just my feelings on the matter.
yes i quite agree , they were known by various names should as the ones you mention , but we have to leave the original consonents in the bible just as they were in the original , we cannot leave them out or change them that would be changing the word of God thats why the NWT leaves them in so we are getting back to how Jehovah put it in the first place, and when Jesus , and the new testament bible writers ,refered back to the hebrew scriptures and spoke about the God in the hebrew scriptures then the name should be retained
And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them...john 17;26

(Matthew 6:9) "YOU must pray, then, this way: "‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified


(John 17:6) "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word

 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Location
Maryland
mee said:
yes i quite agree , they were known by various names should as the ones you mention , but we have to leave the original consonents in the bible just as they were in the original , we cannot leave them out or change them that would be changing the word of God thats why the NWT leaves them in so we are getting back to how Jehovah put it in the first place, and when Jesus , and the new testament bible writers ,refered back to the hebrew scriptures and spoke about the God in the hebrew scriptures then the name should be retained
And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them...john 17;26

(Matthew 6:9) "YOU must pray, then, this way: "‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified



(John 17:6) "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word


Hmm, the Aramaic term for father is "Abba". The consonants to be left in the Bible (which I agree), are not pronounced as "Jehovah". That is an English translation or interpretation. The actual sound is _____ that's right, soundless. God's name was and is not mentioned out loud. The four letters are YHWH, but the word is not supposed to be spoken at all.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Quahom1 said:
Hmm, the Aramaic term for father is "Abba". The consonants to be left in the Bible (which I agree), are not pronounced as "Jehovah". That is an English translation or interpretation. The actual sound is _____ that's right, soundless. God's name was and is not mentioned out loud. The four letters are YHWH, but the word is not supposed to be spoken at all.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

i agree on the yhwh spellling, i know hebrews at some time, maybe even now, know the pronunciation of his real name. jehovah is in very old latin speaking bibles, but thats a variation of the correct and original jewish way just like jesus is a variation. although gods name not being spoken at all? i dont think god told us not to call his real name, any reason not to is probably man-made. that goes back to what i was saying earlier, different languages are going to change the original jewish title in to something else in their native language. so the only thing that concerns me is whats behind the different pronunciation. jw's "jehovah" has different characterstics and meanings as mainstream christianity's "god" or islams "allah".
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Location
Maryland
BlaznFattyz said:
i agree on the yhwh spellling, i know hebrews at some time, maybe even now, know the pronunciation of his real name. jehovah is in very old latin speaking bibles, but thats a variation of the correct and original jewish way just like jesus is a variation. although gods name not being spoken at all? i dont think god told us not to call his real name, any reason not to is probably man-made. that goes back to what i was saying earlier, different languages are going to change the original jewish title in to something else in their native language. so the only thing that concerns me is whats behind the different pronunciation. jw's "jehovah" has different characterstics and meanings as mainstream christianity's "god" or islams "allah".

Jehovah is nothing latin. It is English. Blaze, the Jews created the name, or had the name written down for them. They never speak the "Name of God". They don't even whisper the "Name of God", but once a year, within the inner chambers of the temple, and only by a "priest". My point is the term "jehovah" does not exist in the earlier testaments or scripture. Yahweh, was how it was pronounced by the gentiles, to the chagrin of the Jews. Jehovah is a modern concept, and a bastardization of the name of God.

Hey, I call a spade a spade. JWs are only a century note and fifty bucks old...they don't have all the answers.

It doesn't matter how you spin it...YHWH does not spell Jehovah...not even close, yet the JWs insist that the "FOUR Letters" be put back into context into the bible. Fine. Still does not spell or pronounce "Jehovah". If so, then JWs should be calling God YHWH, or perhaps Yahweh.

I don't know...what do you say about this Mee?

v/r

Q
 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
let me clear that up, i was looking at some old 50's spanish bible and the word jehovah was in it, thats all i meant. and that was just a translation of the english king james bible, not the latin bible. thanx for pointing that out. but i did go look up the oldest Latin bible the Latin Vulgate that many spanish bibles are translated from and instead jehovah it uses adonai in the following verse. [size=-1]

This is the Latin Bible, or 'Vulgate'. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic by Jerome between 382 and 405 CE: [/size]
exodus 6:3
"qui apparui Abraham Isaac et Iacob in Deo omnipotente et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis"
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Quahom1 said:
Hmm, the Aramaic term for father is "Abba". The consonants to be left in the Bible (which I agree), are not pronounced as "Jehovah". That is an English translation or interpretation. The actual sound is _____ that's right, soundless. God's name was and is not mentioned out loud. The four letters are YHWH, but the word is not supposed to be spoken at all.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
no where in the bible does it say that Gods name should be soundless in fact quite the opposite ,the bible tells us that he wants his name declared , the people who claimed to worship the true God made the rule up themselves that Gods name should not be spoken imbroidering the word of God by going one step more than God intended .yes we should not take up the name of God in a worthless way ,to use it in a disrespectful way, but no where does Gods word the bible say we should not make it known
That people may know that you, whose name is JehovahYou alone are the most High over all the earth....psalm 83;18....

But, in fact, for this cause I have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing you my power and in order to have my name declared in all the earth...Exodus 9;16

(Malachi 1:11) "For from the sun’s rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my name will be great among the nations," Jehovah of armies has said

(Romans 9:17) For the Scripture says to Phar´aoh: "For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth

It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky´ri·os (Lord) or The·os´ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name



 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Quahom1 said:
Jehovah is nothing latin. It is English. Blaze, the Jews created the name, or had the name written down for them. They never speak the "Name of God". They don't even whisper the "Name of God", but once a year, within the inner chambers of the temple, and only by a "priest". My point is the term "jehovah" does not exist in the earlier testaments or scripture. Yahweh, was how it was pronounced by the gentiles, to the chagrin of the Jews. Jehovah is a modern concept, and a bastardization of the name of God.

Hey, I call a spade a spade. JWs are only a century note and fifty bucks old...they don't have all the answers.

It doesn't matter how you spin it...YHWH does not spell Jehovah...not even close, yet the JWs insist that the "FOUR Letters" be put back into context into the bible. Fine. Still does not spell or pronounce "Jehovah". If so, then JWs should be calling God YHWH, or perhaps Yahweh.

I don't know...what do you say about this Mee?

v/r

Q

The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants—not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God’s name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants.​

While ancient Hebrew was an everyday spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation "Ltd." represents "Limited" and "bldg." represents "building").

Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word ’Adho·nai´ ("Sovereign Lord"). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in everyday conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God’s name was eventually forgotten.

In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, both vowels and consonants were written down, and the pronunciation as it was at that time was preserved.

When it came to God’s name, instead of putting the proper vowel signs around it, in most cases they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ’Adho·nai´. From this came the spelling Iehouah, and, eventually, Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. This retains the essential elements of God’s name from the Hebrew original.

 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
since we are talking about god, the question is "should gods name ever be changed from its original langauge? think about it. unlike "house" which in spanish is "casa", but we are not talking about these things, we are talking about gods name.
1917 hebrew bible "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name YHWH I made Me not known to them."

and once we know the true name (and i would believe hebrew scholars before i would believe some dude from pennsylvania) then is it disrespectful to use his name constantly? shouldnt we be praying in jesus' name?
 

Quahom1

What was the question?
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Location
Maryland
BlaznFattyz said:
since we are talking about god, the question is "should gods name ever be changed from its original langauge? think about it. unlike "house" which in spanish is "casa", but we are not talking about these things, we are talking about gods name.
1917 hebrew bible "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name YHWH I made Me not known to them."

and once we know the true name (and i would believe hebrew scholars before i would believe some dude from pennsylvania) then is it disrespectful to use his name constantly? shouldnt we be praying in jesus' name?

Good point. And yes it does state God's name is not to be used or abused. His titles are a different matter, but His name is sacred.

When I hear the word "Jehovah", I think of a title for God...I do not think of it as God's name. YHWH, is the name of God as originally written, and I do not speak the name, in public.

To call one by name implies possesion or ownership of a sort. It is a familiarity that is reserved for those who wish to allow one to "own" a piece of them. For example, I address each person I meet by their familial name, until I am invited to call them by their personal name.

In my occupation, I do not allow subordinates to address me in public by my personal name. Nor do I take it upon myself to address my superiors by their personal names. Even if given license to do so...for the sake of those around me, I decline.

Why? There is power in a name. Granting authority to use that personal name is granting authority to give away some of that power.

Hence, Jehovah is not God's name. It is merely a title, like so many other titles He goes by. Just like Jesus. That was His name as a man, but His title is Christ (Christos), Messaiah, Savior. When we call upon Jesus, we call upon the part of Him that is Man, but when we call upon Him as "Christ", we are calling upon God, who's title is "Savior".

I think that is about as clear a case as can be made. YHWH never invited us to call Him by His personal name.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
And think about this... The Priesthood after the order of the Son was eventually named the Melchizedek Priesthood to prevent overuse of name of deity. So even the title, "The Son" as in "The Son of God" was a high title of Christ. Jehovah, being God's name, is probably even more sacred than the title of "Son of God"...I would say God's prophets knew best and if they tried to not overuse the name of deity, it was probably a good idea. Some things we men just cannot understand right now, but we can be guided by the Holy Ghost to know what's right.
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Quahom1 said:
Good point. And yes it does state God's name is not to be used or abused. His titles are a different matter, but His name is sacred.

When I hear the word "Jehovah", I think of a title for God...I do not think of it as God's name. YHWH, is the name of God as originally written, and I do not speak the name, in public.

To call one by name implies possesion or ownership of a sort. It is a familiarity that is reserved for those who wish to allow one to "own" a piece of them. For example, I address each person I meet by their familial name, until I am invited to call them by their personal name.

In my occupation, I do not allow subordinates to address me in public by my personal name. Nor do I take it upon myself to address my superiors by their personal names. Even if given license to do so...for the sake of those around me, I decline.

Why? There is power in a name. Granting authority to use that personal name is granting authority to give away some of that power.

Hence, Jehovah is not God's name. It is merely a title, like so many other titles He goes by. Just like Jesus. That was His name as a man, but His title is Christ (Christos), Messaiah, Savior. When we call upon Jesus, we call upon the part of Him that is Man, but when we call upon Him as "Christ", we are calling upon God, who's title is "Savior".

I think that is about as clear a case as can be made. YHWH never invited us to call Him by His personal name.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
so then, would you think it was right to take away from the bible what God put there in the first place (the consonants)? because many translaters have done this, and changed the word of God to there own thoughts , the Tetragrammaton(YHWH) Should be retained,but no they have taken it out and put (Dominus)Lord instead, but thankfully there have been ones who have tried to put it right down through time
The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible. In this he included the name of God, usually spelled Iehouah, in several verses, and in a note in this edition he wrote: "Iehovah is God’s name

From this the practice arose of using Jehovah’s name in just a few verses and writing "LORD" or "GOD" in most other places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text ,yes there have always been some around who are more concerned with getting back to what the truth of Gods word is rather than going along with false things.

In 1611 what became the most widely used English translation, the Authorized Version, was published. In this, the name appeared four times in the main text. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) "Jah," a poetic abbreviation of the name, appeared in Psalm 68:4. And the name appeared in full in place-names such as "Jehovah-jireh." (Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24) However, following the example of Tyndale, the translators in most instances substituted "LORD" or "GOD" for God’s name. But if God’s name could appear in four verses, why could it not appear in all the other thousands of verses that contain it in the original Hebrew? still its good to know that there is now a bible around that does include it throughout (NWT) and other bibles as well . But most are translated with LORD orGOD .so the KJV has the name Jehovah in it but not as often as it should, i wonder what Jehovah God thinks about that ,removing his name

Some widely used versions that include the name are the Valera translation (Spanish, published in 1602), the Almeida version (Portuguese, published in 1681), the original Elberfelder version (German, published in 1871), as well as the American Standard Version (English, published in 1901). Some translations, notably The Jerusalem Bible, also consistently use God’s name but with the spelling Yahweh







 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Awesome Possum said:
And think about this... The Priesthood after the order of the Son was eventually named the Melchizedek Priesthood to prevent overuse of name of deity. So even the title, "The Son" as in "The Son of God" was a high title of Christ. Jehovah, being God's name, is probably even more sacred than the title of "Son of God"...I would say God's prophets knew best and if they tried to not overuse the name of deity, it was probably a good idea. Some things we men just cannot understand right now, but we can be guided by the Holy Ghost to know what's right.
so you agree that Jehovah is Gods name then? and yes this is a most sacred name not many do give it the respect he deserves ,still the bible tells us that he will sanctify his great name
And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations, which YOU profaned in the midst of them; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among YOU before their eyes.... Ezekiel 36;23

"‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth....matthew 6;9-10

Yes, God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ will sanctify God’s name and also bring good conditions to this earth. It will eliminate wickedness and take away war, crime, famine, sickness and death.—Psalm 46:8, 9; Isaiah 11:9; 25:6; 33:24; Revelation 21:3, 4...bring it on

 

E99

Well-Known Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.K.
Apart from us JW's wedging our reinforced footwear in the householders door, most of the criticism of Jehovahs witnesses comes about because of the translations taken from the bible that many love to hate… the New world translation bible. There are a few websites that criticise the NWT. The 'attacks' are quite prolific on religious forums, This one is generally passive. Forums, where you'd expect more decorum, like christianforums.com, are fairly aggressive. 'Unorthodox' religions such as the LDS get a regular pasting.

People picking out bits and pieces from anti NWT sites end up promoting half baked truths about our beliefs, and also fractured ideas about the scriptures, but the truth can be found by looking at Gods own scriptural texts...especially so, by looking at the usage of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and the grammar used.


YHWH: Transliteration to the name Jehovah:


Taken from the tetragrammaton.... YHWH. The name Jehovah has been taken up by Jehovahs witnesses, however, the Anglicized or Germanic variation of the name was used in the form 'Jehovah' in many other bibles prior to the NWT.
The name Jehovah is not a barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name, of the covenant God of Israel. There is no other word which can compare with it.

Scripturally, there has never been any question as to the name of the true God. When God spoke to Moses, explaining that He would use him to take Israel out of Egyptian slavery, Moses asked a question:
"When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is His name ? What shall I say to them ? " God answered: "Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: The Lord [Hebrew, = YHWH = Yahoweh, or, since the 13th century C.E., Jehovah], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, this My appellation for all eternity."
Jehovah is making a distinction, who He is, wanting to define Himself to those that Moses was going to approach, by making a recognition by usage of His name. Similarly, we recognise his name today. He wishes this to be so...to recognise and use "My name forever".



Gods name was virtually wiped out of the scriptures. However, In time, it gradually came back into use. In 1278 it appeared in Latin in the work by Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk. Raymundus Martini used the spelling Yohoua.
Centuries prior to this there are a number of references to the name of God, e.g. In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states:

"The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho'ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He.

Within this sentence is Gods name, and apart from other sources, it gives a reason as to why Gods name was omitted from the NT. It is commonly recognised that Gods name was taken out of the bible. We have reintroduced it.

Regarding the other form of Gods name that many recognise is... Yahweh. "Yahweh" is not the correct pronunciation at all, but that the Anglicized form "Jehovah" is quite in line with the common practice of pronouncing biblical names whose pronunciation is unknown. In English, Yahweh is not of use if communicating to an English audience which is of importance in an English translation, It has been shown that the original was not bisyllable "Yahweh" but a trisyllabic one "Yehowah."... A Hebrew approxiamation. Jehovah then would be a correct English trisyllable transliteration of the original.

A two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" would not allow for the o vowel sound to exist as part of God’s name. But in the many biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms, as in Jehonathan and Jonathan. Thus,
Quote:
Professor Buchanan says regarding the divine name:
"In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as ‘Ya,’ but never as ‘Ya-weh.’ . . . When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was ‘Yah’ or ‘Yo.’ When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been ‘Yahowah’ or ‘Yahoowah.’ If it was ever abbreviated to
two syllables it would have been ‘Yaho.’(not Yahweh) -Biblical Archaeology Review.
The name Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah are not questioned. "Jeremiah" or "Isaiah" have become so familiarised to such an extent, that we can say it is not being misrepresentive to use Jehovah, just as it is not being misrepresentive to use names such as "Jeremiah"

Translating names of other foreign gods in the scriptures as examples, Baal, Ashtaroth, Dagon, or in the translation of a classical author, we would not be troubled by using the names Jupiter, Zeus or Artemis which would be the Anglicized renderings of the names of these gods, and why then should the name of the Only True God Jehovah be any different ?


Jehovah wanted us to use his name, so as to identify the people that have got close to him. Jehovah is a proper name. God is a title, not much unlike president. That is why the term god can be linked to angels, and even humans in the bible, and of course to false gods. His name was to be recognised and to be defined from the title of god, as can be seen in the 'lords' prayer, Matthew 6:9: Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name." .... The father, God, wanted his name to be made known, used and honoured.

The English form reasonably preserves the Hebrew four letters YHWH in English. The name "Jehovah" then would be the best form for an English Bible to use as it would mean something to, be logical, of sense to the readers, and hearers of it in English.
Would it have been God's desire that when His Word, the Bible, was to be translated into other languages that his name should be obliterated, unused because it might offend or lose its meaning ?

There is no indication that this is the case, when God Himself confused the "tongues" of post-flood Man he set the scene for his name to be known with different names, hence, by a different pronounciation and form than He was originally known.

How can we show honour to the one true God and creator that is named Jehovah in his inspired writings ? By using his name, as he has always intended us to do.

Shalohm.


 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
"The name Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah are not questioned. "Jeremiah" or "Isaiah" have become so familiarised to such an extent, that we can say it is not being misrepresentive to use Jehovah, just as it is not being misrepresentive to use names such as "Jeremiah""

i understand your point, but then it contradicts itself, try to understand my point..

true, peoples names get translated into different languages and have a different spelling and pronunciation, but to say gods name and peoples names get changed in the same sentence is not right, especially when you say hallowed by thy name. i mean some dude, just changed this hallowed name from its original form. this isnt about some dude named jeremiah, this is about gods name. whatever is gods name in its original language should stay that way. if it is yhwh and the true spelling has been lost, then so be it. if it is yahweh, then it should stay that way.
 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
also, to put this in perspective. i know this is a forum, so thats what we do, discuss. however, we should try not to lose sight of the fact that believing in jesus christ and asking for forgiveness is the most important thing. the world is not going to start calling god by his correct name today or tomorrow, or next week. so there comes a time to stop debating and just be kind and pray for each other.
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
BlaznFattyz said:
also, to put this in perspective. i know this is a forum, so thats what we do, discuss. however, we should try not to lose sight of the fact that believing in jesus christ and asking for forgiveness is the most important thing. the world is not going to start calling god by his correct name today or tomorrow, or next week. so there comes a time to stop debating and just be kind and pray for each other.

The evening before Jesus died, he was praying to God in the hearing of his disciples, and once again they heard him highlight the importance of God’s name. He said: "I have made your name known to the men you took from the world to give me." Later, he repeated: "I have made your name known to them and will continue to make it known."—John 17:6, 26, JB. so Jesus himself made known his fathers name , and as followers of Jesus christ we should follow the example of Jesus by making Jehovahs name known.

Father, glorify your name." Therefore a voice came out of heaven: "I both glorified [it] and will glorify [it] again.....John 12;28......so if it was Good enough for Jesus to use Gods name its good enough for me. so really there is no debate about Gods name , Jesus is clear about that, He wants it to be made known, and nothing or no one can prevent Gods purpose from being acomplished that is why he has taken out a people for his name.

Sym´e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name Acts 15;14 and Jesus himself told us how to pray

"‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified

Or, "be held sacred; be treated as holy. but most people do not even recognize Gods name let alone pray to him ,we should use Gods nameand use it in our prayers not forgetting to do this through the name of Jesus christ ,as Jesus is the mediator between God and men

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all— 1 timothy 2;5-6 so how can we pray to God if we dont even use his nameor even know what that name is?

 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
regardless if his true name is the holy name yhwh, if you are not sure, god knows this, he already knows what you are going to pray about, and what is in your heart. reciting things, making alot of useless body movements, calling him yahweh, or the incorrect or correct english translation of jehovah or just simply using universally accepted and mainstream god as both his name and title is not as important as fearing and loving him and believing in his son and asking for forgiveness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top