God's Name Discussion

by garyneal 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    This is such a can of worms to open with a JW.

    If you have time, open this one: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/bible/should-the-name-jehovah-appear-in-the-new-testament.html

    Otherwise, simple and to the point. WTS assumes that "Jehovah" was removed because the NT references the OT which contains the name. Either God can protect His own word or not. But the scripture at the end of Revelation warns against adding to or taking away from the scriptures. WTS assumes something that is not at all supported in any of the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no evidence of a massive conspiracy to remove 'Jehovah' from all the Hebrew texts, yet it isn't there.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    PSacramento....Jews spoke Aramaic rather than Hebrew, so the Hebrew hllwyh was borrowed both into Aramaic and Greek as a loanword (much like "Hosanna" was). But since Hebrew is related to Aramaic, it is possible that the etymological meaning of the word was salient. OTOH in usage it was pretty much a fixed expression.

    So, if John knew what it meant, then IF he wanted to use YHWH in his writings he would have ( But he didn't, in any of his writings) and IF the divine name was removed from the NT, why was it left here?

    Of course it may be the case that John though of it as simply an expression ( which calls into question the "divine inspiration" of his work(s))and it may be the case that the "sabateurs" of the NT that changed and rewrote it, removing YHWH from it, didn't know what Alleluia meant.

  • trebor
    trebor

    According to Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2, page 5 under the heading, 'Jehovah' the following is stated:

    "Correct Pronunciation of the Divine Name.
    “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te•tra-, meaning “four,” and gram'ma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are ???? and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH)."

    The Divine Name brochure on page 7 under ‘God’s Name – It’s Meaning and Pronunciation’ makes the following statements:

    “How Is God’s Name Pronounced?
    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."

    According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, (1991) under the heading 'Yahweh', here is how this name came into being:

    "The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew word Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being."

    Despite the name Jehovah being nonexistent in the original Hebrew scriptures, it really started to become mainstream around 1270 A.D. due to the work of a Roman Catholic Spanish Monk, named Raymundus Martini. There is no J or V in the Hebrew alphabet. 'Jehovah' is a Latinized or anglicized transliteration. It is not an accurate one.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    The author uses it because it is liturgical and appropriate for depicting heavenly worship and praise of God. The book is not interested in using the DN (hence "Lord God" and "Lord God Almighty" drawn from OT forms), although the Alpha and Omega title may possibly allude to the Greek form (Iaó).

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    Good comments everyone, I am definitely taken all this into account. Since I am hitting a deadline for a project completion date, I decided to postpone (again) that meeting with that 'brother' to discuss this subject. Now I have more time to think things through.

    I do plan to stick with my original point in that the divine name was inserted 237 in the NT where it did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. He may try to get around it anyway he can but in the end he must either admit or deny that assertion. If he denies it, then I need proof. There should be some interlinears that he can use to prove the assertion, provided of course that it is valid.

  • Chalam
    Chalam

    I do plan to stick with my original point in that the divine name was inserted 237 in the NT where it did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. He may try to get around it anyway he can but in the end he must either admit or deny that assertion. If he denies it, then I need proof.

    The NWT study type bible (I forget the official name) has all the insertions listed in the back and the original words that "Jehovah" has been changed from. Almost universally these are kurios (Lord) theos (God).

    Any verses contain these words that relate to Jesus are generally left as they untouched. The WT certainly do not want things like "Jesus is Jehovah" to be rendered in the NWT, see here Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3 or anything that would point to Jesus being God.

    Blessings,

    Stephen

  • STILLINWANTOUT
    STILLINWANTOUT

    Personally,I have always chafed at the idea of potecting Jehovahs name. I wondered how a god could cause a flood but cant kill a few men for taking out his oh,so holy name!

    -I came I saw

  • Open mind
    Open mind

    Hey there STILLINWANTOUT!

    WELCOME TO THE BOARD!!!!

    om

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    He really doesn't give a toss what the Bible says, or what any references say.

    Jehovah chose THEM to have the Truth, and any evidence you have to offer will be viewed in light of that 'truth'.

    Have fun.

  • garyneal
    garyneal
    He really doesn't give a toss what the Bible says, or what any references say.

    Yeah, that's what I figured. That's all the more reason why I don't want to go through with this. Frankly, if he is not open minded enough to read any viewpoint different from his, the discussion is over.

    I've managed to put it off for weeks but he cornered me yesterday during the meeting and I just want to get this over with. He may be receptive... but I doubt it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit