Why Jehovah is not included in some Bible.

by homme perdu 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  gdt

  Narkissos, re your references and all the material available, for all differing positions on this subject, what are you really saying?

  That the name of God is... what? That your and my closeness to the Creator is not benefited by our respect for his name and our attempt to honour his name? That 7000 times a specific name was recorded in the hebrew scriptures and commands from God to praise and honour such specific name not really applicable? That the early Christians felt no closeness to the God of the Hebrews, of which they mostly were? That they were happy just to use descriptive titles for Almighty God, and the Messiah Jesus?

  You obviously know God made the message of truth go out to the nations to ' make a people for his name's sake' . Who do you feel is that 'people'?

  We could certainly argue about the variations of interpretation and all the 'experts' will differ, but the basic truth surely is that Jesus came to 'make your name manifest' as he said to his Father, in all its various ways, is it not? We would benefit from a few more Qumran's and Essene writings but most of all the actual originals....then all we have to do is be sure we understand that language terms and meaning of the particular time periods....easy!

  Cheers,

  geoff.
• 

  LittleToe

  Homme:
  Welcome to the board

  Archeologist discovered a wall with graffiti that said, "YHWH of Sumaria".

  Found in 8' high spray-painted letters?
  
• 

  City Fan

  gdt,

  That the name of God is... what?

  From my studies in this subject I have come to the conclusion that the original creator god of Jerusalem and the Hebrews, especially the northern tribes was 'El'. This personal name gradually became a noun meaning 'god'.

  Exodus 6:3 shows that Yahweh appeared first as El Shadday. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 show how originally El Elyon was head of the divine council and Yahweh inherited the Hebrews from him.

  "8: When the Most High (El Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (El).
  9: For the LORD's (Yahweh's) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."

  So El divided the people into nations and gave one nation to each son. Each nation had their own national god, chosen from this divine council. I think the idea that god still has a 'people for his name' is as wrong as those ancient tribal beliefs in a divine council and national gods.

  Eventually Yahweh came to replace El as the god of Israel, and took on the attributes of creator, divine warrior, storm god etc.

  The more I look at the words of Jesus, say in the gospel of Thomas, I see how far removed from the Old Testament view of god his teachings were, and in fact they seem more like eastern philosophy. Why give god a name and human emotions and attributes?

  "Tao is eternal, but has no name" (Tao to Ching: 32)
• 

  Narkissos

  Geoff,

  I do not want to hurt your feelings, but I really think the "name of God" as you have it is... a historical accident.

  Yes, Yhwh was an important god in Israel, and especially Judah... along with other gods and goddesses. We're talking about polytheism.

  But in the 6th century BC (2nd Isaiah) monotheism emerged within the exilic and post-exilic Judean Yahwist community. IOW, the god Yhwh became "God".

  As "God" he had no need for a personal name anymore. But the name remained as a quite embarrassing vestige of his polytheistic background. Whence the theological explanations, practical taboo (cf. my previous post above), and even secret magical use of the name.

  All the theological comments about God's "name" became increasingly figurative, not referring to an actual name but to the only God's "essence", "virtues", "person", "glory" and the like (cf. Philo above). This was the established situation in Judaism in the 1st century and the name of Yhwh was never an issue in Christianity. Had there been a debate with Judaism on this question there would be some trace of it (as we have on sabbath, sacrifices, and so on): there is absolutely none.
• 

  jgnat

  Oops.

  I stand corrected.

  Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modem scholarly research.

  Would it be more proper to say that the witnesses, who WROTE the gospels, wrote Greek?

  http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html
• 

  Narkissos

  Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modem scholarly research.

  Would it be more proper to say that the witnesses, who WROTE the gospels, wrote Greek?

  Evidently the canonical Gospels were written in Greek, not translated from a Semitic source (and I doubt the writers were "witnesses" of anything by the way; they were dependent on oral and/or written tradition).

  One important element is that Greek was widespread in Palestine too, especially in Galilee and in Jerusalem, alongside popular Aramaic.
• 

  Schizm

  jgnat,

  A quite simple answer accounts for this. Greek and Hebrew are different languages. Jesus spoke Greek Aramaic. He chose NOT to use a transliterated word for YHWH when he spoke to the people about God.

  Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here! *LOL*

  How is it that the pronunciations of the names of persons such as Moses, Abraham, and Noah remain unchanged in both the Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments, but then when it comes to God's name Jehovah you imply that it would need to be "transliterated" when quoting from the Hebrew?

  Sumpin' ain't right here!

  To repeat: We read about Noah in the Hebrew Scriptures. We also read about Noah in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The spelling didn't change! Why, then, would it be necessary to change the spelling of God's name in those places where it unarguably should appear in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

  Can you explain?

  .
• 

  Narkissos

  Schizm:

  I know your question was to Jgnat, but I'd like to understand (my English is probably deficient here). When you say

  Why, then, would it be necessary to change the spelling of God's name in those places where it unarguably should appear in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

  do you mean "God's name" actually should or should not appear in the CGS (NT)?

  Btw

  We read about Noah in the Hebrew Scriptures. We also read about Noah in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The spelling didn't change!

  In English, no. But the Hebrew Noach (ch as in German, or the Spanish j) was (approximately) transliterated into the Greek form Nôe. No such thing ever occurred with Yhwh in the NT, in any extant manuscript.
• 

  SpannerintheWorks

  The Bible is a fantastic fabrication. If you think I am wrong, please prove it. I am waiting.
• 

  Schizm

  Narkissos,

  Why, then, would it be necessary to change the spelling of God's name in those places where it unarguably should appear in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

  do you mean "God's name" actually should or should not appear in the CGS (NT)?

  Primarily, I'm merely questioning the logic of jgnat's argument. But I personally would see no problem with having God's name appear in the NT in those places where the writer is quoting from the OT where the name is there. If the name "Noah" can be spelled the same in the NT as it was in the OT, then why not deal with God's name the same way?

  .