Jehovahs or Yawehs name ,JW's got it right?

by wozadummy 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wozadummy

  Ok I'll admit I just posted this to get rid of OBVE topic being stuck on the first page....but while I'm here I have'nt seen an explanation given here for whether the JW's are correct in putting Gods name back into the Old Testament.

  I just thought some here could voice their opinions on this for the benefit of new ones reading topics on this site.

  As for me ,It does puzzle me as to why all versions of the Old Testament don't have it in all 6000 odd places ,seems to me people here could be seen as ignoring the hard questions if good reasons are'nt given to oppose the standard JW stand ,if indeed that needs to be done?
• 

  carla

  If jw's have to insert things into the bible because they were 'left out' or the bible was somehow corrupted, then how can we belileve any of the bible? Maybe many other things were corrupted not just the name from1270 by Martini the Catholic monk. Is the God of the jw's so small He could not maintain the integrity of His book?
• 

  wozadummy

  I like your point CARLA ,I should have put the tetragrammaton though to clarify things
• 

  carla

  I have a number of books on the tetragrammaton and there are many helpful sites as well. I've had countless discussions with my jw about it and you will get nowhere with a jw. In the end if neither of you speak the original languages the jw will just keep saying,'well that's how you or Christendom interprets it' and they will stick with the wt no matter what. If one of you actually did know the biblical languages they would just label you an apostate, opposer and anti wt! It's like the quote somewhere where a jw says something to the order of , 'if the org tells us this black book is green, it is!" Sorry, it's too early and I can't remember exactly (from the Scottish case?)

  Try telling a jw you can insert any vowel into it and end up with jihvihi, johovoh and as annoyed as they may get they admit your right but......and they will pledge their allegiance to the org and continue to use the 'name' as a magic mantra.
• 

  greendawn

  I think the real issue is why do they bother at all using the name jehovah and above all why the made it so central in their religion, totally overshadowing the name of Jesus who is in fact the central figure in the Christian church.
  
  To me it seems like judaism in disguise with an over strong attachment to the old testament its spirit and attitude.
• 

  Narkissos

  Transliterating Yhwh one way or another where it belongs in the OT, like any other personal name, rather than substituting something else to it, is certainly the best solution, and the NWT imo cannot be criticised in this respect (except for the choice of the "classical" Western form "Jehovah" which is a secondary issue). But this is hardly a "restoration of the divine name" as many other Bible versions have consistently done so (e.g. the Jerusalem Bible, using Yahweh). It just happens that the most classical version in English (KJV) generally opted for substitution (with a couple or rather arbitrary "exceptions"). In Spanish and Portuguese, for instance, the classic Protestant versions (Reina-Valera and Ferreira de Almeida) consistently use Jehová and in those languages the NWT doesn't look nearly as "original".
• 

  Gill

  Jehovah is NOT right.

  They might have got away with Yahweh but not Jehovah even if God's 'name' is meant to be in certain scriptures.

  In that respect, they are calling God, Fred, when his real name is George.

  I suspect that angry, jealous bad tempered God of the OT would mind, and he might just mind a LOT!!!!
• 

  jwfacts

  I think it is neither right nor wrong to include Jehovah in the OT, and at the translators discretion.

  By Jesus day most versions of the Septuagint did not have YHWH in them. Jesus and the apostles appear to have quoted from these as they did not use the word Jehovah in their references. Neither did Jesus ever mention or criticise the removal of YHWH from the Bible. So it seems not to have been important to him whether or not it appeared or is used.
• 

  Narkissos

  I think it is neither right nor wrong to include Jehovah in the OT, and at the translators discretion.

  By Jesus day most versions of the Septuagint did not have YHWH in them. Jesus and the apostles appear to have quoted from these as they did not use the word Jehovah in their references. Neither did Jesus ever mention or criticise the removal of YHWH from the Bible. So it seems not to have been important to him whether or not it appeared or is used.

  The standards for "correct translation" have changed a lot since the LXX was made. The mere fact that the NT writers used the LXX, as important as it is, doesn't make it "correct" by modern linguistic standards. No more than the meanings that the NT writers read into OT passages qualifies as "correct exegesis" of the OT texts.

  Inasmuch as "meaning equivalence" remains the essential criterium in translation, no substitution is worth a transliteration as far as proper names are concerned. Take a common OT sentence like "I am Yhwh" -- a mere declaration of identity, like a signature. When it becomes "I am the LORD" something else is meant (close to "I am the boss") which is altogether absent from the original. The meaning of the text is not rendered, another meaning is created instead.
• 

  Hermano

  Why did God let anyone take anything out of the Bible in the first place?! Just another indicator that if there is a god, he's sleeping on the job.