Their is no J in Hebrew the later Yud replace by J
Jehovah is a misspelled Hebrew word for "lord"
by biddie 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
jwfacts
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation CHAPTER 9: YHWH Sabaoth: “The Lord Almighty” Kenneth L. Barker
There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh.2 Probably the name means literally “He is.
In the Hebrew Bible the Jews wrote the consonants of the Tetragrammaton as YHWH, but out of reverence for the sacred name of God (or out of fear of violating Exod. 20:7; Lev. 24:16), they vocalized and pronounced it as Adonai or occasionally as Elohim. It is unfortunate, then, that the name was transliterated into German and ultimately into English as Jehovah (which is the way the name is represented in the American Standard Version of 1901), for this conflate form represents the vowels of Adonai superimposed on the consonants of Yahweh, and it was never intended by the Jews to be read as Yehowah (or Jehovah).
I have an article about Jehovah at http://jwfacts.com/index_files/Jehovah.htm
What I found most surprising is that YHWH has never been found in any NT manuscript. To include Jehovah in the NWT is its single biggest flaw, and significantly changes the words of Jesus. If no manuscript ever included it, then Jesus most likely did not utter the word Yahweh, which means using Jehovah is not what is important.
All this leads to the understanding that most Christians have, the important thing is recognising the value of Jesus Ransom sacrifice. -
jwfacts
Honesty,
that was a really good point. To most people the name Jehovah has not been honored, it is just a joke that represents a bunch of cult members, held in similar derision as the likes of Mormons and Hare Krishna's. -
Will Power
Hebrew for 'hovah in Strong's Concordance - word #1943 is MISCHIEF
How come no one ever comments on this?
I think it is quite disturbing.
Just think, every time you call on the God of the Hebrews ...
Like calling people a doomkuff (spelled phonetically cause I don't know german)
without realizing what the translation means, or even caring enough to find out. (not a very good example but you get what I mean)
wp -
Undecided
I don't see how it makes much difference how you say some entity's name. Evidently he doesn't care enough to let mankind know how to pronounce his name. You should just call him daddy like we do our sperm provider.
Ken P.
-
Forscher
I find the thought that the masoretes replaced the correct vowels with the vowels for adonai wierd when one thinks of what they were trying to do by inventing the vowel points in the first place. It seems that they were not real great champions of tradition. They were in conflict with the Rabbis of their day over some of their teachings. The Rabbis had a habit of reading the Hebrew scriptures and mispronouncing key words conflicted with their thoughts in a way to make the scriptures say whatever they wanted them to say. So the masoretes decided to do something about it. They devised the vowel point system and included it in the manuscripts they produced so that there would be no doubt as to what the correct pronounciation was. Does it make sense that they would change the vowels for the tetragammaton just to legitimize a rabbanical tradition? It just doesn't make sense to me that they would.
When we look at compound words which include the divine name, such as, Jehonadab, Jehu, Joshua (in Hebrew Jehoshua), the vowel points are consistent across the board with those used in the tetragrammaton. Do we see any scholar proposing that they did the same thing with those words to keep the divine name from being pronounced? I haven't seen it.
By the way, although I am not fluent in Hebrew, I do speak it. And in listening to several dialects spoken (there are at least two, Sephardic and ashkenasic, from Spain and Eastern Europe.) I have noticed the sound represented by the English "J" present in one. Though it didn't seem to be associated with the letter yod, it was there.
Forscher
By the way, there is a reason why I often post and then don't get to respond promptly if ever. We have only one computer in my home connected to the net which, of course, must be shared among the whole family. So my time is often limited and I try to get a look at as much of the forum as I can in the time I have. So the occasions that I can stick around and interact are fairly rare. And maybe that's to the good considering what happened the last time I was able to stick around. -
Forscher
Excuse me. That was Yehoshua, not Jehoshua.
Forscher -
jaffacake
One cannot seriously believe similtaneously in the authenticity of the Bible, and also belief that the Tetragrammaton ever existed in the Greek Christian Scriptures. My study using JW Bibles was inspired by the (non apostate) book The Tetragrammaton & the Christian Greek Scriptures: In my opinion this is the biggest scandal of all. Any derivative of the Tetragram, such as Jahweh or Jehovah belongs in the Hebrew scriptures (OT) but not in the Christian Greek (NT). Its use in the NT contravenes God's purpose, if like me you are a Christian who accepts the authenticity of the ancient manuscripts. http://www.tetragrammaton.org/itm00007.htm
TETRAGRAMMATON STUDY
Reasoning from the Scriptures*** rs p. 64 pars. 1-3 Bible ***
A report published in 1971 shows that there are possibly 6,000 handwritten copies containing all or part of the Hebrew Scriptures; the oldest dates back to the third century B.C.E. Of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are some 5,000 in Greek, the oldest dating back to the beginning of the second century C.E. There are also many copies of early translations into other languages.
In the introduction to his seven volumes on The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used . . . But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts.”—(
It is true that some translations of the Bible adhere more closely to what is in the original languages than others do. Modern paraphrase Bibles have taken liberties that at times alter the original meaning. Some translators have allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings. But these weaknesses can be identified by comparison of a variety of translations.
The Bible – God’s word or man’s *** gm chap. 5 pp. 59-60 The “New Testament”—History or Myth? ***
Is the Text Trustworthy?
9 Is it possible that these eyewitness testimonies were accurately recorded but later corrupted? In other words, were myths and legends introduced after the original writing was completed? We have already seen that the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures is in better condition than any other ancient literature. Kurt and Barbara Aland, scholars of the Greek text of the Bible, list almost 5,000 manuscripts that have survived from antiquity down to today, some from as early as the second century C.E. 8 The general testimony of this mass of evidence is that the text is essentially sound. Additionally, there are many ancient translations—the earliest dating to about the year 180 C.E.—that help to prove that the text is accurate. 9
10 Hence, by any reckoning, we can be sure that legends and myths did not infiltrate into the Christian Greek Scriptures after the original writers finished their work. The text we have is substantially the same as the one that the original writers penned, and its accuracy is confirmed by the fact that contemporaneous Christians accepted it.
NWT Jehovah References
92 direct quotes from Hebrew Scriptures
20 indirect references where the context includes the Divine Name
112 in total are proper quotations of the Divine Name
That leaves 125 instances not quotations of Hebrew Scripture. Of these NWT claims 58 contained a subject or parallel thought reference and another 6 where the cross refernce merely includes other subjects related to the Greek Scripture verse. (64 in total)
This leaves 61 insertions in NWT with no cross reference source of any kind to a Hebrew Scripture quotation source.
237 instances (26 modern Hebrew versions versus >5000 ancient Greek manuscripts)
Canon of Scripture closed at the beginning of the second century CE.
Insight on the Scriptures Vol I *** it-1 p. 409 Canon ***
By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed…
P410 *** Multiple Articles ***
With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end, and so with the Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his epistles, the Bible canon closed.
Watchtower 1963 April 15 p. 248 Early Catalogues and the Christian Greek Scripture Canon ***
reference is made to the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and (A.D. 397), where catalogues of books were formulated. The opposite is true, however, for the canon was already settled by then, not by the decree of any council, but by the usage of Christian congregations throughout the ancient world. Says one authority, “It goes without saying that the Church, understood as the entire body of believers, created the Canon . . . it was not the reverse; it was not imposed from the top, be it by bishops or synods
WHAT LANGUAGE DID GOD CHOOSE AS THE VEHICLE OF COMMUNICATION FOR THE LATTER PORTION OF THE BIBLE (CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES)?
Koine Greek
FOUR QUESTIONS:
- Do the majority of the earliest extant Christian Scripture manuscripts show the Tetragrammaton or a reasonable derivative embedded in the Greek text?
- Do any of the early and abundant extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures show evidence of the Tetragram’s removal?
- Do the enormous volumes of writings by the early church fathers record any debate ensuing from the Tetragrammaton’s removal?
- Do any early non-canonical writings include reference to the Tetragrammaton?Is the Tetragrammaton identifiable in Christian Scriptures written in the Hebrew language during the early church era? Eg link with Shem Tob recension?
All Scripture…*** si p. 319 Study Number 6—The Christian Greek Text of the Holy Scriptures ***
28 Evaluation of Textual Transmission. What, then, is the net evaluation as to textual integrity and authenticity, after these many centuries of transmission? Not only are there thousands of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the Greek text back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a dependable Greek text in refined form. Note the evaluation that the former director and librarian of the , Sir Frederic Kenyon, put on this matter:
29 “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.
THE STUDY
The Sources:
- Translation Reference Edition (NWT RE)
- Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT)
NWT RE Appendix 1D page 1565
-
Narkissos
When we look at compound words which include the divine name, such as, Jehonadab, Jehu, Joshua (in Hebrew Jehoshua), the vowel points are consistent across the board with those used in the tetragrammaton.
Nope. Yeho as a prefix in theophoric names is the vocalisation of yhw (=> w stands for the vowel "o" as a "mater lectionis"). In the form Yehowah which accidentally results from some instances of Masoretic vowel-pointing (other instances would give Yehwah, pointing to a reading shema', or Yehowih, pointing to a reading 'elohim) Yeho would be the vocalisation of yh (the w would function as a consonant and the "o" would have to be inserted before it, without any "mater lectionis").
By the way, although I am not fluent in Hebrew, I do speak it. And in listening to several dialects spoken (there are at least two, Sephardic and ashkenasic, from Spain and Eastern Europe.) I have noticed the sound represented by the English "J" present in one. Though it didn't seem to be associated with the letter yod, it was there.
It is associated with the letter g (gimel), as in Arabic. Nothing to do with yod.