• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Divine Name King James Version????

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Lyssah, Jul 11, 2012.

  1. Lyssah

    Lyssah Newbie

    37
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    I prefer the KJV, NKJV. But recently, I ran across this new Divine Name King James Version on the web. They put the name 'Jehovah' in the OT over 6000 times where LORD appeared, where the Tetra was. Okay. That's one thing. But there's something else about it that makes me uncomfortable.

    It adds the name 'Jehovah' into the New Testament. They have no biblical merit to do this... all 5,000 plus copies of the Greek never have the tetra in it. Not even once. And on top of that, and bible with an 'anonymous translating team' makes me nervous. Also, they say that they 'restored' the name Jehovah into the NT "as to not confuse who 'God' is and who the 'Lord' is.":eek:

    I want to know anyone's thoughts on this, and if they've ever heard of this version before.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    +65
    Anabaptist
    Private
    To each their own. Personally, I prefer a translation better than KJV and NKJV.

    To each their own. Personally, I prefer “YHWH.”

    Mine follow.

    They use the divine name in those places where the Old Testament is being quoted, not the places where kurios refers to Yeshua.

    They have every biblical merit—the Old Testament is being quoted. And in the Old Testament, the Hebrew is the divine name.

    This issue was already discussed recently. Go here for more: http://www.christianforums.com/t7112917/

    Go here for more: http://www.christianforums.com/t7112917/

    To call them “translators” would be an error. They merely replaced English words with others that better align with their preferences. If people want to read a bible with “Jehovah” instead of “LORD” or with LORD instead of kurios in all the places where the Old Testament is quoted, to each their own.
     
  3. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    It's a standard anti-Christian/anti-Trinitarian trick. The NT uses kurios ("Lord") both for the tetra (in quoting the OT, following the LXX) and for Jesus (in some cases, actually applying the OT quote to Jesus, as in Romans 10:13). So when you selectively translate some uses of kurios by 'Jehovah,' you remove an implied claim for the deity of Christ.

    I would avoid such translations.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. Lyssah

    Lyssah Newbie

    37
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    See, I agree. This is what I'm saying... I don't quite understand how a translation like this exists and they say that they can add the tetra when they have no merit to, whether quoting the OT or not. It seems that if the writers of the NT wanted to make a distinction between YHWH and 'Lord', they did a terrible job! lol :p In fact, they did the opposite.
     
  5. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    +65
    Anabaptist
    Private
    Again, it's not a translation. They may be fools, but they're not translators. What they are doing is making a bible with English words that they prefer more than others.

    And, again, they have every merit to. The name of God is YHWH (or some form thereof), not lord. And those are quotations of the Old Testament where the name of God is used. Moreover, all the oldest Greek versions of the Old Testament we have use the Tetra or some form thereof. One example: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//lxxjewpap/tetragram.jpg

    As for the NT writers not making a distinction--they didn't have to or need to. Everyone who read what they wrote would know that the god being talked about in those texts was the god of the Jews and that the name of that god was not the common Greek noun "lord."
     
  6. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    +65
    Anabaptist
    Private
    It's a logical fallacy to confuse the beliefs of the people who do a translation or revision with the principles of a translation or revision. Whether it is standard or not for anti-Christians or anti-Trinitarians to use that principle has nothing to do with the rightness or error the translation principles in question. If I were to use your own fallacy, I would claim that since you're Trinitarian, you're changing the text to only read "lord" so that you can support what you believe. But I, at least, do not deal with logical fallacies.

    I disagree emphatically. What it actually does is it shows clearly and unambiguously a link between YHWH and Yeshua that is not evident when all you see is "lord." Seeing an Old Testament quote that says YHWH (or Yahweh or Jehovah or LORD, etc) being applied directly to Yeshua in the NT forces the reader to see Yeshua as deity.
     
  7. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Exactly! Because Jesus is also Lord!

    Those are quotations from the LXX where kurios is used. And in many cases those quotations are being applied to Jesus.

    Paul, for example, is talking about Jesus being God.

    When people alter the text in line with a particular dogma, then it's fair to say the altered text reflects that dogma.

    I support NT translations that reflect what the original Greek says.

    The application to Jesus lies in the use of the word kurios in most cases, so what you say makes no sense. Selectively translating some uses of kurios by 'Jehovah' hides the link, which is of course why non-Trinitarian groups (like the JWs) do it.

    But then, I've noticed that you've systematically supported non-Trinitarian versions of the NT on this forum.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2012
  8. Lyssah

    Lyssah Newbie

    37
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    Yes, good points about the 'translation'. I really should refrain from calling it that because it is careless to do so.

    Now, about the tetra in the NT.... I looked at the link you sent. Thank you for that. But where is the Tetra in these in the NT? Could you point out which ones you're speaking of? I see that the images are of the OT.

    As long as I've been researching this, I've never seen a biblical scholar, archaeologist, or biblical historian ever agree that the Tetra was ever used in the NT. It never appears. Do you agree that we should stay true to the Greek the way it was intend?

    Out of curiosity, what Bible version do you prefer?

    Thank you all for your thoughts, my friends. :)
     
  9. Lyssah

    Lyssah Newbie

    37
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    Yup.

    I can't quite understand how anyone can 'change' from the original Greek. If we stick to what it directly says, then nowhere, anywhere, ever in the NT Greek Scriptures was the Tetra used. I mean, I could see if there was at least one copy of the NT with the Tetra in it. But even then, it would be overwhelmingly in the minority.

    The fact is, that it was never written. If I am to stay true to how the Bible was originally written, then I must accept that the Lord used in the NT is applied just the same as the LORD in the OT.

    Whether it makes sense to me or not.
     
  10. Lyssah

    Lyssah Newbie

    37
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    Also, I noticed that the NWT was quoted in one of the forums that was sent as a link.

    For many reasons that would be too long to explain, I happen to know a lil something about the JW's and the NWT.

    Well... okay.... more than a 'little'. ;)ssh

    The NWT was made by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah Witness theology.

    Their translation is only used by them. They also add the name 'Jehovah' in their NT saying that there was a 'conspiracy to take out the Divine Name.'

    I considered this at one point, ---at a very uneducated point---but the lack of evidence for such a conspiracy is not only massively unsupported and unpopular, but it's quite a leap to use this as a reason to add the name to their Bible.

    Just thoughts.
     
  11. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I for one am a trinitarian Christian, and with orthodox beliefs that I know to be based on scriptures of the Bible. I still recognise the name of Yahweh occuring in the original writings of the scriptures, and though without access with adequate knowledge to the writings of the original languages, I go with reading the name of Yahweh where LORD or GOD is placed for it in the translation of the Bible. The name does occur originally well over 6800 times throughout the original of the old testament writings. It is not in the original Greek from which there are translations of the new testament. But that has quotations from the old testament, and where translators still put in the form with all capitals LORD where the name of Yahweh occurred in the old testament, I continue with the practice of reading it with the name. I have read a translation with the name of Yahweh used where the name originally occurred, I came to prefer other transations, certainly including NKJV.

    I have the view that there is advantage to using the name that Jesus is shown through this to be the one and the same God. I have used argument as this before.

    Jesus is returning, and in a wonderful way if we look at it scripture shows us that this returning Jesus is Yahweh coming according to prophecy.

    Consider the prophecy in Zechariah 12v1-10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
    inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
    supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have
    pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for
    his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one
    that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
    Notice it is about Yahweh in the end time who is pierced.
    This prophecy is referred to in John 19v33-37 and is
    applied to Jesus:
    But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and
    forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw
    it bare record, his record is true: and he knoweth that he
    sayeth true, that ye might believe. For these things were
    done, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him
    shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith,
    They shall look on him whom they pierced.
    and so is Revelation 1v7:
    Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
    and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the
    earth shall wail because of him. Even so, amen.
    The end time is referred to in Acts 1v10-12:
    And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went
    up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which
    also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
    heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into
    heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
    go into heaven.
    It describes Jesus return to the Mount of Olives. You
    can see in Zechariah 14v1-4 that in the end time it is
    Yahweh that sets his foot on that mount:
    Behold the day of Yahweh cometh, and thy spoil shall be
    divided in the midst of thee. For I gather all nations
    against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken,
    and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half
    the city shall go into captivity, and the residue of the
    people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall
    Yahweh go forth, and fight against those nations, as when
    he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand
    in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before
    Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall in
    the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and
    there shall be a very great valley; and half of the
    mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it
    toward the south.
    This can be seen to be the same event for Jesus returns
    in that great battle as depicted in Revelation 16v13-14
    and 19v11-21.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
  12. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    +65
    Anabaptist
    Private
    I support NT translations that reflect what the original Greek means.


    [​IMG]
     
  13. childofdust

    childofdust Newbie

    +65
    Anabaptist
    Private
    Translating uses of kurios that come from the Old Testament that refer to YHWH with something like "Jevohah" makes the link evident, clear, and plain. It doesn't hide anything. Rather, it hides the link to translate it "lord."

    Logically fallacy #1. The personal beliefs of translators and the principles of a specific translation are not the same. To think they are or to argue on the basis that they are is a logically fallacy. To argue against a translation, one must refer to its specific principles of translation, something that has been done nowhere on this thread.
     
  14. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I have no substantial issue with KJV or NKJV as translations, and I have no issue with the name of Yahweh being in places of passages from the old testament where it originally occurred, which those transations might well have done, as a few other translations have done, with the name having originally been the most frequent way to refer to the uniquely true God. Jesus Christ also went about making the name of God known in what he said in his messages.
     
  15. ebedmelech

    ebedmelech My dog Micah in the pic Supporter

    +633
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Hi Lyssa,

    It's always good to read the "Forward" to these translations of the bible because they reveal the purpose of the translation. That doesn't mean you have to like it but at least you know their intent.

    This link is to the DNKJB translators frequently asked questions (FAQ), and maybe it'll answer your questions about it:

    The Divine Name King James Bible FAQ


    Me myself, I'm content with the translations I have. :cool:
     
  16. Keachian

    Keachian On Sabbatical

    +243
    Baptist
    Single
    reading that FAQ specifically the bit about the choice of Jehovah quelled my qualms about this being another Sacred Namer translation.

    However looking at one of my favourite verses of the NT Paul's intention is missed:
    But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    Following what I believe Paul's intention is it should read
    But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Jehovah Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה ׀ אחד׃

    Hear Israel, Jehovah your God, Jehovah is one!
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  17. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Yes, in the old testament passage there is the meaning as expressed that Yahweh is one. Although the new testament from the Greek originals have the term meaning the Lord for where the name of Yahweh occurred in passages which are quoted, I do not see why one lord should mean the name of Yahweh in rhat new testament passage occurring with Jesus being identified, even with him being the one and same Yahweh, as well. It is like where the term Lord occurs with Jesus Christ being named, as he is our Lord, that having its meaning besides the fact of Jesus being Yahweh. But it is for that that we have one lord, because Yahweh is the one Lord.
     
  18. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private

    I haven't seen this version but I have seen the New World Translation that does the same thing. If this is produced by the JW's, like the NWT, then there are probably a whole lot of other serious issues. I am personally very uncomfortable with any translation that would insert the name Jehovah in place of the Greek Kurios (Lord).

    IF the JW's are involved in this translation, here are some other things you will find.


    1) John 1:1 will read "and the Word was a God"

    2) In Jn 8:58 [FONT=&quot]ἐγώ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εἰμι[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will read something like "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have been[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" instead of "I am" to avoid Christ's claim of divinity. Note: the JW's correctly translate [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]εἰμι[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in every verse that doesn't impact Christ's claim of divinity. Here is a list of all of the verses in the NWT in the book of John up until 8:58. Not one example deviates from the normal translation until we get to 8:58: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jn 3:28; Jn. 4:26; Jn. 6:20*; Jn. 6:35; Jn. 6:41; Jn. 6:48; Jn. 6:51; 7:28; 7:29; 7:33; 7:34; 7:36; 8:12; 8:16; 8:18; 8:23; 8:24; Jn. 8:28;[/FONT]

    3) They claim to use the name Jehovah when any OT quotes originally had the name יהוה or any of several NT Hebrew translations use אדונינו ,יהוה or האדון but the fail to follow their own guidelines when these instances clearly refer to Jesus. Some examples:

    [FONT=&quot][and,] as newborn infants, form a longing for the unadulterated milk belonging to the word, that through it YOU may grow to salvation, provided YOU have tasted that the Lord is kind. Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God, YOU yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it is contained in Scripture: “Look! I am laying in Zion a stone, chosen, a foundation cornerstone, precious; and no one exercising faith in it will by any means come to disappointment.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (1Pe 2:2-6 NWT)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]אִם־אָמְנָם טְעַמְתֶּם כִּי־טוֹב הָאָדוֹן[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] (1Pe 2:3 17 J17)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]טַעֲמ֣וּ וּ֭רְאוּ כִּי־ט֣וֹב יְהוָ֑ה[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Psa 34:9 MT)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    Taste and see that Jehovah is good,[FONT=&quot] (Psa 34:8 NWT)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Here the OT quote, the Hebrew NT translation and the NWT OT translation all meet the requirements that the JW's require the NT to be amend Lord to Jehovah. But this instance refers to Christ so it remains "Lord"[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Here is another example of a verse that meets all of the requirements used by the JW's for the replacement of Lord to Jehovah but because it refers to Christ they fail to change the name in this verse:[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

    But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts (1 Pe 3:15 NWT)


    [FONT=&quot]אֶת־יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים אֹתוֹ תַקְדִּישׁוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot](1 Pe 3:15 J17)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]אֶת־הַמָשִׁיחַ אֲדֹנֵינוּ אֹתוֹ תַקְדִּישׁוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot](1 Pe 3:15 J18)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]אֶת־יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת אֹת֣וֹ תַקְדִּ֑ישׁוּ [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Isa 8:13 MT)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Note: all of the NT Hebrew translations mentioned are relatively new i.e. within the last few centuries, and are used here because these are the manuscripts on which the JW's have used to justify their replacement of Lord with Jehovah. The Identification of these manuscripts is the same as used in the JW's interlinear study bible.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
     
  19. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    The whole argument here starts off with, I haven't seen this version but if ... . So an argument against the NWT does not yet apply, if only the name of God being used in quotations from the old testament where it really did appear, where they occur in the new testament, is the issue. It may amount to the same thing as translations using all capital letters LORD, or GOD, for the name, also having exactly that in the quotations in the new testament.

    It is not justified to be critical of the name being used in a quotation because it will refer to Christ as Lord. He is still Yahweh who was being referenced in the old testament original statement and it would still apply to him.
     
  20. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
Loading...