Even "Jah" is a mistaken translation of "Iah" (pronounced and originally spelled "Yah"). Some nearsighted goober from the Prespectacle Era mistook a serif on the I and called it a J and the rest is history.
Should we use the form Jehovah Today?
I always thought it was "Jah" with the "Yah" pronunciation, I didn't know about the scribal error.
Brief summary of the meaning, origin and etymology of the word "Jehovah":
This pronounceable form of YHWH was introduced in 1520 by Galatinus but immediately strongly contested. Because the Hebrew script only has consonants, the vowels had to be inserted when the text was read out loud. When the language ceased to be used, the Masoretes devised an ingenious vowel-notation system to preserve the pronunciation. However, the name YHWH was deemed so holy that it shouldn't be pronounced. Instead, the reader would say (adonai), meaning My Lord, from the untranslated root ('adon 27b).
Hence the Masoretes superimposed the vowel-notation of [adonai] on to [YHWH] and the word Jehovah was born.
An even briefer summary: The word "Jehovah" is an amalgamation of the Tetragrammaton (consonants) and "Adonai" (vowels), making a BRAND NEW WORD.
Wasn't it Joesephus that said that the name of God have 4 vowels/sylabulls?
Isn't the letter 'J' the last addition to the English alphabet - about 500 years ago? If that is so then how could his name be Jehovah? I agree with the above posts that it has much more to do with reputation than a name that has to be repeated over and over and over . . . . as if that means true worship. It is much more respectful to use father - I don't call my father by his name - that would be disrespectful. Jesus did not mention his father's name in his model prayer. I guess the FD&S knows better how to address God than did his son.
Jesus did not mention his father's name in his model prayer. I guess the FD&S knows better how to address God than did his son.
That's just it isn't it?
Jesus taught us how to pray and give thanks, and he said to address the prayers to OUR FATHER ( through him of course) and that would have been the ideal time to name a name, ANY name, but he did NOT.
In ACTS he tells his disciples that they will be witnesses to HIM, JESUS, through out the world.
In Acts Peter says that there is salvation in NO ONE else and that Jesus is the name above ALL names.
PSacramento: Aren't they great at ignoring plain scripture? They twist everything.
An interesting side note - why does Revelation say this?:
And upon her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.
Hmmmm . . . .
The WT and the JW's are "old covenant" followers, they may pay "lip service" to Jesus and the New Covenant, but at their core and by vertue of their doctrines and teachings, they are the "Pharasees" of today.
Forgive me but I have a negative feeling towards that name.
I won't argue whether it is or is not accurate historically but am turned off at the memories of it being thrown around by a presumptuous and tyrannical group of people who mess with everybody's heads and use it as spiritual and emotional blackmail to enslave people.
The negative use of the name comes from the crass way that the JW community uses it.
When you listen to a JW read his scriptures, there is no beauty in the translation. Everything is rendered in its most basic components, as if the translation was done by people who don't have much experience in translation. The psalms, which are supposed to be flowing and soothing, are rigid and Spartan.
BTW, what's the official Bible called these days? We always called it the Green Dragon.