• 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. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single

    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 fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has 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.
     
  2. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    There are several problems with these arguments for putting Jehovah into the NT.


    1) The inspired authors of the NT didn't do it. Nor is this done in any ancient translation, even in languages like Aramaic that use the same alphabet.

    2) Most copies of the LXX use kurios and all quotes from the LXX in the NT use kurios.

    3) Greek translations of the LXX that use Greek letters to represent the name Yahweh do not do so in the way you have described. These manuscripts used either pi, iota, pi, iota because this letter combination looks like the Hebrew letters but sounds like "pipi" or iota, alpha, omega because it sounds like yahwoh (not Jehovah). Again these are all OT translations! Some copies of the LXX also include Hebrew letters for Yahweh; sometimes in a paleo-Hebraic script and sometimes an Aramaic script. Reminder: only OT!
     
  3. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I have seen that there was the spelling I wrote of in Greek letters for pronouncing Yahweh, it was not to say these early writings were the LXX translations. I also have seen the account of the attempt to preserve the appearance of the tetragrammaton with Greek letters, this was evidently when there was regard for the writing of it as sacred.

    I do not think the LXX to be especially preferred for reliability over the Masoretic manuscripts for for having what the old testament of the Bible said, I know of some problems with it. It is good for some things in question. But if argument is made for the name of God appearing in the quotations of what had it when in the new testament, why not be critical of the all capitalized LORD which is specifically for the name being placed in those quotes. I also say the original pronunciation was not Jehovah, but have argued why it would be Yahweh, but I make no dispute with those preferring their other pronunciation,it at least is not substituting something for the name.
     
  4. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    But it's generally the LXX that's quoted in the NT.

    And, I must say, I'm not impressed at people trying to change the NT -- no matter how pious their motivation sounds. I believe Rev 22:18-19 applies.
     
  5. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    What are the Greek sources? JW's often provide references that are meaningless in biblical studies i.e. many of the "manuscripts" they reference in support of their position are really 19th and 20th century translations and have absolutely no baring on NT scholarship. I have provided you every variation of which I am aware in early Greek manuscripts. If you know of another early variation in any manuscript then present the reference.



    Then what was it? Until the 2nd century A.D. there wasn't any other Greek translation of the OT and the Tetragrammaton does not appear in ANY NT manuscripts.

    That was the PIPI example I provided above; when it is read backwards it looks sort of like YHWH.

    The Masoretic text is the OT written in Hebrew and every instance of YHWH is written as יהוה to answer the question of how this is translated we must look at a translation (like the LXX written in Greek) not the MT!

    Because an equivalent tradition is seen in the writings of the NT and early church.

    Good. I hope you understand that there is more merit to some suggestions for an original pronunciation than there are to others and pronunciations like Jehovah are simply impossible in the Hebrew tongue.
     
  6. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    There is no call to be impressed with people. As far as we know new testament manuscripts use LXX translations. But as asked a few times why is there not criticism with the thinking expressed of use of all capitalized LORD in quotations that appear in the new testament in versions that use that in the place of the name? It amounts to the same thing bring done.

    I have seen the spelling of the name in Greek letters in encyclopedias and so think anyone can learn it but it will take time to see how to find it online. This is not saying they were the early translations of the Bible, and there are other writings.

    Giving argument for what Jehovah's Witnesses do does not apply, I do not refer to anything they are saying, just using straight thinking with the Bible, and do not disregard things as is done. I indeed have shown there is basis for God's name pronounced Yahweh over other alternative pronunciations that are used, but any of these pronunciations are better than neglecting his name with a substitution of saying Lord for him, though he is Lord.

    Yes, J was not used in Hebrew, so the pronunciation Jehovah was not used then, neither the name Jesus.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  7. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    If the references are not in early writings or bible translations then they really add nothing of value to this discussion. In modern Hebrew I can phonetically spell a word that sounds like "Jehovah" but that doesn't help at all in understanding the validity of making this change to the NT texts.

    As far as the OT texts are concerned this a valid opinion but there are also valid arguments against it. However, I can see no valid arguments for making the reverse substitution in the NT; there is no historical basis for this at all.
     
  8. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single






















    "The Masoretic text is the OT written in Hebrew and every instance of YHWH is written as יהוה to answer the question of how this is translated we must look at a translation (like the LXX written in Greek) not the MT!" Why? The LXX is a translation, but not itself exclusively the basis of translation of words. The Masoretic texts are translated, with general knowledge of its Hebrew, and reliable sources for that knowledge are used. Greek sources that show the pronunciation are appropriate. You show knowledge, that "YHWH is written as יהוה ", "YHWH" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew letters, it was written throughout the old testament of the Bible, and you show knowledge that the pronunciation may be shown as Yahweh, this knowledge is from what is known from ancient Greek writing.


    "The Tetragrammaton does not appear in ANY NT manuscripts" because that is the preserved Hebrew form, which would anyway not be in the Greek writing from which we have the new testament. The name may occur in another way, as it does in "Halleluyah".



    There is merit as said to pronouncing the name given to us for all generations close to what was originally revealed.



    I have posted that tradition is not good as a basis for changing scripture (Christ our Lord showed that). I have not said that the new testament should be changed, but quotes from the old testament of the Bible in it had the name of God, and the Bible is already changed, in that "LORD' is in place for "Yahweh" in many translations (based on tradition), and many of them showing "LORD" for "Yahweh" show it is that in those quotes. As there is questioning of the name, that should be questioned.



    Again, our translations have "Jesus" (I am fine with that), but the pronunciation was not that originally. This is good basis for me not to judge those preferring the pronunciation "Jehovah", even though we agree when "I indeed have shown there is basis for God's name pronounced Yahweh over other alternative pronunciations".



    When it is said "but there are also valid arguments against it" about remembering the name of Yahweh, which he said to do, I have not seen what I think to be such, even though there are those being argumentative. I could say I see no valid basis for substituting the name with "LORD" or "GOD" where it did occur, anymore than substituting for other words in what was written of the Bible (as said tradition is not a valid basis).
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  9. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Yes you have.

    No they didn't, since the quotes are from the LXX.
     
  10. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Some NT quotes are from the LXX, but not all. And some versions of the LXX had the actually had the name of God in the text in Hebrew letter; some versions of the LXX had a Greek representation of the Hebrew name, etc...

    No, I don't think any of this justifies the use of the Hebrew name in the Greek NT Scriptures because the NT authors were not inspired to put it into the NT text. However, I do think it is important to be accurate about what was in the LXX.
     
  11. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    True, but most are.

    Those don't seem to be the ones being quoted.
     
  12. Keachian

    Keachian On Sabbatical

    +243
    Baptist
    Single
    The Hebrew word שם has more meaning than just name, someone's שם is basically who they are, how they are to be recognised, in the case of YAHWEH this extends to his renown and fame, what he has done for the people of Israel, if we look further into the actual etymology of God's personal name then I don't think we can come to the conclusion that the four letter שם is more important than that of the wider concepts and actions that are his שם. Especially considering that his name translated into English is "HE WHO IS" In fact considering that I am of the firm belief that the idea of forgetting the שם of YAHWEH is more as a warning towards his people to not forget what he has done, which if you know your Biblical history is quite a condemning command as throughout the history of the People of God we have forgotten all that he has done
     
  13. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    How would anyone know? The texts are identicle except for God's name.
     
  14. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    But the NT does not use the tetragrammaton.
     
  15. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    This is true even when they quoted directly from the MT (where it is ALWAYS present); so it is clear that the NT writers had no intention of placing the tetragrammaton into the NT text even when it was present in the text they quoted from.
     
  16. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    It wouldn't appear in any case in what was Greek writing, as what it refers to is Hebrew writing.
     
  17. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I have heard this argument, that it is not really about his name, from others, but it is an excuse not to acknowledge what was actually said, if there is basis for it being said meaning some other things than his name, there should be that said in scripture, which is not. The name does occur well over 6800 times, everywhere "LORD" or "GOD" appears in usual translations, and Yahweh God did say, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: "This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations." Even though honoring and respecting God with what is due him is called for, there is not suggestion that the name he revealed is to be forgotten after all. It being revealed as his name to be remembered for all generations it is not just a word or phrase, even though a phrase is used to be associated with it. He says through out scriptures, "I am Yahweh", for what he say to be established as truth, with him shown sovereign. Nothing in the Bible dismisses that, or even that Christ made his name known.

    Again, this is not involving any doctrines to be promoted, and I promote truth from the Bible.
     
  18. Radagast

    Radagast is no longer on CF Supporter

    +7,438
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Some versions of the LXX have either a four-letter Greek substitute for the tetra, or four Hebrew letters -- but the NT never does.
     
  19. benelchi

    benelchi INACTIVE

    693
    +136
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    And sometimes they used the pre-captivity paleo-Hebraic script and sometimes the Aramaic script (that is commonly used today) in the LXX but the NT writers never used any of these methods for preserving the tetragramaton in the NT even when the quoted directly from a Hebrew text.
     
  20. FredVB

    FredVB Regular Member

    +487
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    A Hebrew tetragramaton for the revealed name of our God which he gave for us is not in the new T, but his name can appear in another way, as it does with the expression Halleluyah.
     
Loading...