A classic case of WT dishonesty.

by caspian 73 Replies latest jw friends

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Yadirf,

    Good to see you again. It's been really boring around here lately.

    : The fact is that God DOES have a name, and it isn't "LORD".

    I have a few troubling questions about that.

    Did call give himself a name when there was nobody around but him?

    If yes, why? Was he afraid he might be referring to someone else but him when there was only him to refer to?

    If no, then when did he name himself?

    If he named himself after the Creation of others, was he already afraid that he had to distinguish himself because other so-called "gods" might pop up?

    If yes, then he foresaw the future and knew well in advance that he would have competitors.

    If no, then why did he have to name himself?

    Isn't the jealous protection of one's own name the ultimate display of vanity?

    Why didn't he toss us a few of the correct vowels so we could get his name right if it was so darned important?

    Did he even toss us the right consonants? If yes, where's the proof?

    Why is that God so stupid, anyway?

    Farkel

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    To substitute a title (LORD) in place of a name (JHVH) that they don't feel sure about the translation has the effect of changing the word of God. There is ample reason given in the Scriptures for not doing such a thing.

    And vice versa, surely? Why is it OK for the translators of the NWT to do it, and not anybody else?

    Edited by - funkyderek on 15 August 2002 13:39:58

  • simwitness
    simwitness

    yardrif,

    Translators are irresponsible when they replace the Tetragrammaton with another word ("LORD") that veils the fact that God has a personal name.

    So is it also true that translators are just as irresponsible when they replace the Tetragrammaton with any name that may/may not be God's personal name?

    Is it just as irresponsible when the translators insert bracketed words "[other]" that do not appear in the original text, and only serve to change the original intended meaning of a passage?

    Is it just as irresponsible when writers of publications intentionally misquote sources in an effort to prove a point?

  • julien
    julien

    My mom and dad also have personal names but I consider it disrespectful and emotionally distancing to call them by those.

  • crownboy
    crownboy

    Putting LORD in place of the tetragramatton does not change the meaning of the text. We all know which deity the bible is referring to when it uses the term. It's like saying my referring to my mother as MOM instead of by her first name (which pronounciation is not in question ), somehow changes the dynamic of her personhood, or obscures who she is. That simply isn't true. Also, as Farkel brought out in his post, if the exact pronounciation of the Tetragramatton was such a big deal to your god, don't you think he would have made sure it was preserved? And to top it off, in every bible translation I have read, the translators always make it clear that the term LORD is a substitute for the Tetragramatton, which could be pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah, but which pronounciation is not truly known (hence the reason for the term LORD). There is no conspiracy to take god's name out of the bible as the JW religion would have you believe; alot of people are aware of Yahweh or Jehovah. The translators just choose not to be presumptious on the issue.

  • Yadirf
    Yadirf

    Farkel, my all-time favorite apostate:

    Just think, Farkel, if God hadn't given himself a name he would forever be the ONLY soul in the Universe that was nameless. It would be like me always responding to you with "Hey man!" ... because you would have no name. So it seems fitting to me that God would also have a personal name, even as every angel, man, and pet animal is given a name.

    Did God give himself a name when there was nobody around but him?

    No.

    If no, then when did he name himself?

    I would speculate that he did so right after he created his first son, whom he named Michael.

    If he named himself after the Creation of others, was he already afraid that he had to distinguish himself because other so-called "gods" might pop up?

    If no, then why did he have to name himself?

    I think that me quoting my opening words should answer this. I said:

    Just think, Farkel, if God hadn't given himself a name he would forever be the ONLY soul in the Universe that was nameless. It would be like me always responding to you with "Hey man!" ... because you would have no name. So it seems fitting to me that God would also have a personal name, even as every angel, man, and pet animal is given a name . -- Friday.

    Why didn't he toss us a few of the correct vowels so we could get his name right if it was so darned important? -- Farkel.

    He doesn't need us, we need Him. Personally, I'm thankful for the Bible the way it is.

    Did he even toss us the right consonants? If yes, where's the proof?

    That's the same as asking, "Where is the proof that the Bible is the Word of God?"

    Isn't the jealous protection of one's own name [God's name, that is] the ultimate display of vanity?

    Not when the eternal peace and security of the entire Universe rests upon the reputation of THAT name.

    Why is that God so stupid, anyway?

    All life issued from "that God". Is he "stupid" for that too?

    My puppy is here at my chairside pawing at the arm of the chair wanting attention.

    Good messing with you, Farkel.

    Friday

    .
  • ThatSucks
    ThatSucks

    Hey yadirF.

    Boy, you've given me a good laugh today. It was a pretty sorry day today until I read this thread. Now I am laughing my tutkis off.

    Thanks, I really needed it.

    Hope things are well with you.

  • Yadirf
    Yadirf

    Funkyderek,

    To substitute a title (LORD) in place of a name (JHVH) that they don't feel sure about the translation has the effect of changing the word of God. There is ample reason given in the Scriptures for not doing such a thing.
    And vice versa, surely? Why is it OK for the translators of the NWT to do it, and not anybody else?

    The translators of the NWT didn't substitute the title "LORD" in place of the Tetragrammaton, Derek. Seriously though I know what you are getting at -- the fact that they added vowels to the 4 Hebrew consonants. Well, I would say that's at least an improvement over substituting a word, such as "LORD", in place of the name. Why? Because the 4 consonants, which represent that name in the Hebrew text, is preserved in the name JeHoVaH. Besides, as once explained by You Know (an outright scholar BTW), there is good reason to be content with those being the right vowels.

    Friday

    .

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    No Friday, you don't know what I'm getting at. No form of the divine name appears in the New Testament in the original Greek. In the NWT it's there several hundred times where the original text had Kyrios (properly translated lord). What gives the translators of the NWT the right to make those changes?

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Farkel, my all-time favorite apostate:

    That's the last time you attend one of my barbie's incognito, Yadirf.

    Englishman.

    Edited by - Englishman on 15 August 2002 15:9:38

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit