Help finding a video of GB member saying that Jehovah may not really be God's name

by mamacita29 47 Replies latest jw friends

  • johnamos
    This is news to me. You're saying in 1899, all denominations of Christianity used "Jehovah"? Then in 1900, they suddenly stopped? I hadn't heard that before. Learn something new every day.

    Martin Luther in a sermon which he delivered in 1526 on Jeremiah 23:1-8, he said, "The name Jehovah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true God."

    The name "Jehovah" first appeared in an English BIBLE in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the Chumash (the first five books of the Bible).

    The name Jehovah was used in the Spanish VALERA version of 1602, in the "Authorized" King James version of 1611, the Portugese ALMEIDA version of 1681, the German ELBERFELDER version of 1871, and the American Standard Version of 1901.
  • ScenicViewer

    Mad Irishman: Some you you have let your hatred rot your brain out from reality, history, and common sense. Jehovah is the English translation of YHWH. Before the 20th Century all Christians of every faith used Jehovah as the English name for God. It isn't a witness thing!

    It wasn't anyone here that said the form JEHOVAH wasn't the most accurate pronunciation of God's name, it was the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by Geoffrey Jackson. He said....

    Why do we use the name 'Jehovah' in English? Is it because it is the most accurate pronunciation? No. It is because it is the most widely accepted. Does this make sense? Yes.

    It is JWs themselves that acknowledge there is a more accurate pronunciation. So why do they go with the less accurate form, Jehovah? Because it's more widely accepted by the world and by Churches.

    This has nothing to do with hatred, rotten brains, nor deviation from reality, history or common sense (Could you ease up on the name calling a tiny bit?). It has to do with accuracy of translation, which Jehovah's Witnesses normally make a big issue of, but for some reason in this case they are taking the opposite approach.

    Embracing what is commonly accepted is usually rejected by JWs on many, many topics, which they say is evidence they have the truth, that they are separate from the world and from apostate Christedom. Why would they now support the commonly accepted view knowing it isn't the most accurate?

    You would think that getting the Divine Name right, or at least as close as can be determined, would be important to JWs since they claim to be the only true representatives of God on earth.

    Mad Irishman: It isn't a witness thing!

    Exactly. It's a worldly thing. That's the problem.

  • OutsiderLookingIn

    Leaving quietly--yes, it's all mountains out of molehills with the Watchtower. That and hypocrisy. The issue is not for most people is not how The Name is pronounced. It's that the Watchtower hangs it hat on the idea that it's so important to use His name in worship and yet revert to what other Christian denominations have used (and still use) because it's widely accepted. JWs do not have the monopoly they think on the word Jehovah. That's why their high-falutin' claims are especially obnoxious and hypocritical.

    Another issue is that one of their pet verses (Matthew 6:9) says the Father's name should be sanctified (or other translations say: hallowed). That does NOT mean Jehovah should be used all the time. To the contrary, it means His name (the Person) is set apart and holy. That's not to say we should never say the name Jehovah, but JWs could certainly be accused of overuse.

    Some think the Name is unimportant and others say it should be known and spoken. I won't weigh in either way except to say: be consistent. A major issue with JW theology generally is that Jehovah can only mean the Father. I think it's the main reason the Watchtower has taken it upon themselves to add Jehovah to the New Testament even though the Tetragrammaton is NEVER used. The only time it might be justifiable to insert Jehovah is when the Old Testament is quoted but even there, that's not the word used. The Greek word is kyrios/kyrion, which is translated "Lord" and was applied to Jesus.

    The only motivation I can see for adding Jehovah where the Tetragrammaton is not for clarity, but rather to create a false distinction between Jesus and Jehovah/Yahweh. Romans 10 is a good example because in the span of a few verses, it shows kyrion referring to Jesus (Romans 10:9) and then in Romans 10:13, kyrios is used again in quoting Joel 2:32 but this time it's translated as Jehovah. Did Paul get confused as he was writing and dare to use the same word to describe Jehovah, maker of heaven and earth and Jesus, a mere created being? As in everything else, the Watchtower's translation choices on where to use Jehovah instead of Lord (thus implying Jesus) are determined by its predetermined conclusions. The Watchtower Bible Detract Society strikes again!

  • johnamos
    Joel 2:32 And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah

    We all agree that this verse above contains the YHVH in the Hebrew Scriptures.

    Now look at when they translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek they replaced the YHVH with Κυρίου (Lord)

    5 And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved:

    5 καὶ ἔσται, πᾶς, ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου, σωθήσεται·

    Now Acts 2:21

    21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    21 καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου σωθήσεται.

    So being that in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) in a place where you know the YHWH was but was replaced with Κυρίου (Lord) it is no surprise to find that they did it there in the New Testament when quoting a Scripture from the Old Testament.

    So who can claim that the YHVH never appeared in the original writing of the New Testament at least in every place where Old Testament Scripture are quoted? And who can claim that the YHWH was not in additional places in the New Testament and not just where Old Testament Scripture are quoted?


    Luke 10:27

    27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

    27 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν·

    Exodus 15:2 My strength and my might is Jah, since he serves for my salvation.
    This is my God, and I shall laud him; my father’s God, and I shall raise him on high.

    Psalm 104:35 Bless Jehovah, O my soul. Praise Jah, YOU people! 105 GIVE thanks to Jehovah, call upon his name,

    Revelation 19:1 After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: “Praise Jah, YOU people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God,

    Also see:

    Most English Bibles, even those such as the Jerusalem Bible which has Yahweh in the Old Testament, do not use Yahweh in the New Testament. This is because the Greek New Testament manuscripts are quoting the Septuagint, where the Hebrew word YHWH is translated by kyrios.
  • leaving_quietly

    So who can claim that the YHVH never appeared in the original writing of the New Testament at least in every place where Old Testament Scripture are quoted? And who can claim that the YHWH was not in additional places in the New Testament and not just where Old Testament Scripture are quoted?

    No one can. At the same time, no one can claim it was there, either. That's kind of the point, isn't it? Neither side can prove, beyond doubt, their claim. Of course, now we're getting into the topic of whether the NT should have YHWH in it or not. Based on other people's research, none of the ~5000 extant manuscripts of the NT had YHWH in it. You'd think at least one would, but none do, according to multiple people who have researched this topic. (The shortened form of God's name did appear, as you mentioned. I believe it was twice in Revelation, but I could be wrong about that.) The Greek Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OT, as it was written in the 2nd or 3rd Century BCE. There is some evidence that the Septuagint did indeed contain the tetragrammaton. See here and here.

    Personally, I'm not entirely sure what to think of the entire debate of whether the tetragrammaton should or should not be in the NT. It SEEMS reasonable that where the OT is quoted, it should be there. But, what of the places where it is NOT quoted? One of the major criticisms of the NWT is this exact point. Of the 237 places in the NWT where Jehovah is inserted, according to this write-up, only 112 are actual quotations from the OT. That entire site appears to be devoted to exploring the use of the tetragrammaton in the scriptures, with special focus on the NWT.

    All this said, I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove.

    Is the English translation of God's name Jehovah? Yes. Is that in dispute. I don't think so. Is it the closest pronunciation? No. Are there closer, more probable pronunciations? Yes. Does anyone know the real pronunciation? No. Is this worth getting worked up over and dividing into two camps? Not in my opinion.

    The real issue, as I and others have stated, is that since there really are closer, more probably pronunciations, and since JWs have taken it upon themselves to restore Gods name in their bible, and since they are quite vehement about the use of God's name, then why choose the one that is simply a translation instead of a closer, more probable explanation, simply because it's "widely accepted?" Considering that most of their doctrines and practices are not widely accepted, this particular choice makes little sense. I have personally even heard JWs (my own mother, even) deride others who prefer Yahweh over Jehovah. Given that Yahweh is one of the closer pronunciations, that makes very little sense to me, either.

    My take on it is this: call God by the name you're comfortable with if it's acceptable. Just don't push the idea that your way is the only way. (By "your", I mean, in general, not specifically you, johnamos.)

  • freemindfade

    I am not going to jump into the back and forth debate about this, but just point something out.

    All this convoluted discussion about the name of the supposed goat herder God of everything in the universe who is suppose to want us to know him and use his name just shows how god damned stupid "God" and "religions" (especially those of "abrahamic" origin) are. It's a total clusterf-ck.

    Hi my name is Freemindfade, that's my name here, and I just told it to you, how about you god, what's your name? Keep digging for those "nuggets" of truth there kids :)


    I think a more interesting discussion and research project is the origins of the name.

  • Finkelstein

    I think this importance of what name to call or address god is irreverent.

    Even when the JWs use the interpretive Latinised version of YHWH.

    One could quite easily quote a Scripture out of the bible to support their own subjective bias,

    Johnamos and JWS will do this all the time.

    It would appear that the ancient Hebrews would not openly address god by Yahweh out reverential respect, rather to use Adonai (Lord).

    What is more important is how certain men like the leaders of the Watchtower Corporation exploits the power of the almighty and complacently puts it their own hands, this is where the real problem lies.

  • Bonsai
    It's too early in the morning to look it up (eyes are still crusted together), but I think I read somewhere that the man-made, superstitious title for god, "Adonai" was used and the vowels of this title were infused into the tetragrammaton to provide the vowels that give us the name Ye (ai) ho wa. Can anyone clarify or verify that? Thanks.

Share this