FredVB
Regular Member
- Mar 11, 2010
- 4,529
- 925
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You are right, I should have looked explicity at this version first, I now have. Here is what I have found.
1) The "translators" and their religious affiliation is unidentified. This is a concern.
2) The "translators" make many identical, historically inaccurate, arguments about why the spelling Jehovah was chosen, why Jehovah was inserted ("restored?") into the NT, etc... as do the JW's
3) Some of the widely know NWT issues like Jn. 1:1 and Jn. 8:58 do not affect this bible, but both instances in 1 Pe. provided in my prior post do affect this version. They have OT quotes (about Jesus) that used the name Jehovah. This is a serious issue that is reflective of JW Christology because it creates a distinction between God the father and Jesus that is NOT present in the text.
If they change some references of Lord to Jehovah (when they refer to God the father, and leave others as Lord (when they refer to Jesus his son), it is a very serious theological error because it creates a distinction between the Father and the Son that is not present in the text.
Additionally, while I have no problem with an OT that uses the name Jehovah/Yahweh for יהוה, I am far more troubled by those who would want to change the inspired text of the NT to include a reading not present in any existent manuscripts of the NT or quotes of the NT in any extra biblical writings. To claim to be "restoring" the divine name in the NT when there is ZERO evidence to support the claims that it has been removed is very suggestive of a JW backing; this is the very same fraudulent argument put forth by the JW's.
To address the claim that the OT has been changed to "hide" God's name, lets start by providing some facts:
1) In the preface of every bible is a description of how יהוה is translated into English and how it can be identified in the English text.
2) The choice of using "LORD" follows the historical tradition followed by the Jewish people beginning centuries before the first century. When the OT was read (or is read today) in Hebrew by the Jews, the name is always verbally substituted with אדוני (my Lord).
3) This tradition was evidently followed by the Jewish NT authors who used the Greek Equivalent Kurious and, because they did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we should respect that choice in our NT translations.
As far as the claims made on the site for the about why the transliteration of Jehovah was chosen, here is the real story about where Jehovah comes from. As mentioned above, when the biblical text is read in Hebrew, the name יהוה (Yahweh) is verbally substituted with אדוני (Adonai). When the Masorites (in the 5th-7th cenuries AD created the pointing system (vowels) that were added to the text they took the vowel pointings from אֲדוֹנָי and added them to יְהֹוָה looking right to left, the one difference you will see is underneath the אֲ that begins Adonai there is a small horizontal line (called a petah) next to the 2 vertical dots (called a sheva) that is not present under theיְthat begins Yahweh. This difference is due to a Hebrew grammatical rule i.e. certain guttural letters (including the אֲ) cannot take only a sheva and when the grammar requires a sheva, they must have a helper vowel included to aid in pronunciation. Reading right to left, the sheva, the holam (dot at the top) and the qamats (the small T at the bottom) are the same vowels as Adonai. The reason the Masorites used these same vowels (which are grammatically incorrect) was to remind the reader to verbally substitute Adonai whenever they saw the name Yahweh as had been their tradition for many, many centuries before. One additional note, in Hebrew the sound "J" is not valid, if this word is incorrectly pronounced as pointed it would be "Yehovah." While there is some debate about what the correct pronunciation was for the name יהוה really is, there is no scholar who suggests that Jehovah was the correct pronunciation. Does it matter that an incorrect pronunciation is used in the bible translation? NO! Many of the transliterations of names in our English bibles are equally invalid i.e. Jesus, Joshua, James, Jeroboam, etc... they reflect a long history of how these names have been written in English but they do not sound like the names did in Hebrew; not a problem, just a point of information. However, it does reveal a whole lot about the motives of the translators when they make invalid arguments in order to justify using this particular transliteration. While I have no problem with the use of Jehovah (In the Old Testament), I have serious problems with the inaccurate arguments used for placing this form into the text. Because the name יהוה is present in the OT texts, I am not opposed to translations that use transliterations of that name in the OT, but I do understand why and can accept the reasons why the name LORD has been chosen in many English translations of the OT.
I have said previously I hold to all the Bible teaches, not dismissing something from it.
This which I have communicated before is all I want to say about the name of God, there are no new doctrines that are being involved with this.
There is Exodus 3 to consider what God said
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, Yahweh the God of your fathersthe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacobhas sent me to you. This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation."
When God says this is my name for ever, in Exodus 3, what is the name being referred to? With many translations, although the ones that come to mind I respect as very good translations, you would easily conclude that I AM is the name referred to. Keep in mind though the knowledge that these translations follow a long tradition, certainly influenced by a push of Jewish leaders on their followers, and render the name Yahweh as LORD, and if you read it while seeing it would be the name Yahweh in those places, in this passage it would become rather plain that the name Yahweh is the name referred to. Of course, God's name is tied up with his answer to Moses for the Israelites that he said I AM THAT I AM and I AM sends Moses. We know there is meaning we can grasp in God's phrase I AM, it is used by Jesus so giving testimony to divinity, and the name of Yahweh certainly has a similar sound to the Hebrew phrase for I AM. So deep meaning this way is tied by this revelation from God to his name.
I would say following Jewish tradition of the time that Jewish leaders pushed followers to not pronounce the name of God is not a good idea without Biblical basis. In old testament times, it is clear from many passages that people of God freely used the name of Yahweh, in speaking of him and to him, and not speaking his name in vain, which would be the case if not really speaking of him or to him. The commandments should really have us speaking Yahweh's name, but not without an attitude of reverence to him.
I am not part of any movement that would have us think that to be saved we need any thing other than to believe and put our faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. But we should believe the Bible for the meaning of what was originally written, not settling for anything replacing any actual word, translated or transliterated.
Jesus rejected traditions of men that were not supported by anything in the Bible. God had told Moses, when he first called him and Moses questioned how he could tell Israelites God had sent him and not have the name of God, Tell them, Yahweh, God of your fathers, has sent you... This is my name, for all generations.
As it was to be remembered, for all generations, and Jewish tradition was going to permit it to be forgotten by not being spoken, but this later than the time the Hebrew scriptures were written, those who promoted the tradition were disobedient to God. Jesus would have nothing to do with this disobedience, and didn't.
God would not possibly be mistaken in saying that it is for all generations. There is no other Bible portion that negates this position from the Bible.
If we agree scripture called for the name to be spoken... and pronounced... regularly, why should it become not permissible, when that would not come from scripture, but rather the traditions I mentioned? If you say that because we do not know how it is pronounced, why presume to know it? That is very much something I am referring to about being forgotten, even if Jews can know the four consonants. I do not know about when Christians were forgetting it, but it was not forgotten among the first Christians. But my point is that if God said it was for all generations, as God would not be mistaken about it, and knowing all the history yet to come, it is logical the name with its pronunciation was not totally forgotten, even if most Jews will not use it, even with saying that the pronunciation is forgotten, although generally not for that reason. There is ancient Greek writing that is known that puts the pronunciation with Greek letters. As God knew what he was saying, it is reasonable to conclude this preserved pronunciation is the true one, with is no likely contender.
I have just seen two reproductions of God's name as the ancient Greeks could write it in their writing, and it was with the Greek letters. I happen to be fluent in another language, and I know there are consonants in speech that are not used but with difficulty by those using another language. My own last name would give no English speaker difficulty but comes out with difficulty and is not spoken quite right by those only speaking the other language I know. I say this to portray that, as the ancient Greeks did not have the consonants used in their language for Y, J, V, or W, any of which are thought to be part of God's name, the Greeks writing the name would use Greek sounds that they would think came closest to it. Vowel sounds of languages are universal. It can be noticed that vowels in the Greek writing, first 'alpha' and then 'eta' or 'epsilon', would give the vowel pronunciation for the name. As the four consonants of God's name are known anyway in Hebrew, the pronunciation should not be a mystery and thought of as something incapable of being settled. As I said, God said his name was to be remembered for all generations, and as God could not be mistaken to tell us that, we would necessarily have access to that pronunciation. Our rendering of it in our language as 'Yahweh' makes total sense on the basis of knowing about the Hebrew consonants and the Greek rendition in their writing.
Upvote
0