Is it disrespectful to call GOD by his name JEHOVAH?

by foolsparadise 59 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  In the end it is truly about personal prefernce.

  Jesus taught us how to pray to God, "Our Father..." these were his instructions and as such, shoudl take precedent over anythign else, UNLESS one does NOT recognise the authority of Jesus.

  In a far more "personal view", the degree of personal relationship we have with God through Jesus tends to dictate how comfortable we are with certain terms.

  JW have no personal relationship with Jesus and God hence the choice of the term "jehovah".

  Anyone can call me Paul (My name) and when I hear Father I think "formal", but when my little ones call me "daddy" my heart melts.

  I can't help but think that it works the same way with our beloved heavenly father.
• 

  slimboyfat

  That's what I am saying Narkissos. This is the quote from Frank Shaw I had in mind:

  Before we proceed, it is fitting to mention an important pertinent principle: certain phenomena in antiquity had a kind of stability over time. For example, the use of chariots and domesticated animals, the realization of monotheism among Hebrews and Greek philosophers - these things, once established, remained; but they were also modified, developed, improved, and adapted by those using them, if physical object, or contemplating them if concepts. When we discuss the establishment of a practice such as the ancient Jews constructing meeting places in order to gather together on their weekly sabbaths for religious instruction and worship, or their pronunciation (or lack thereof) of God's name, we must be careful not to lump all the antique data together into one mass, being oblivious to the fine points of chronology and changes that took place over time and in different places at different speeds, perhaps being unwittingly seduced by the idea, concept, or practice's aforementioned stability or our extant hodge-podge evidence.
  Yet this is frequently what has been done in scholarly writings on the use and disuse of God's name [footnote: General statements often create this effect; cf those quoted or cited in nn. 124, 125, and 132 supra. Similar is the incomplete and thus inaccurate impression given by Stern who, in commenting on Diodorus' use of IAW, states that the name "does not occur in the Septuagint, having become a vocabulum ineffable for the Jews," GLAJJ, 1.172. As discussed in chapter 1, Stegemann, Skehan, and evidently others believe IAW, hardly a vocabulum ineffable, was the original representation of the divine name in the LXX. Related to this is the notion that because there is evidence that one part (or even several parts) of Judaism did not pronounce the name, it is safe to extrapolate this finding to all Judaism. Even Howard apparently participates in such thinking, The Tetragram," 69-70.] and in investigations of how the Jewish God was preserved by gentiles, especially in the matter of whether they knew his name or perceived him as "nameless". It is instructive for those wanting to establish the facts carefully and accurately to take a cue form archaeologists and others who study the ancient synagogue. They note that reading the high level of development in art and architecture so prominent in synagogues from the third, fourth and later centuries AD back into those that existed in the first would be anachronistic. In fact, those of the earlier time frame were simpler structures, as research has shown. Thus we too need to be attentive to not falling into the trap of anachronizing the data on the use and non-use of God's name...
  Certainly by the time of the creation of the onomatica, probably in the third century BC, the name seems to have been fairly widely used. If Stegemann and Skehan are right about this form of the name being the original representation for the Hebrew tetragram in the LXX then this likely confirms the third century as our earliest recognizable period for its use. That the onomastica were copied for centuries down till the time of our extant MSS shows that this name continued in use, at least in some circles, well into the Christian era. Now one might conclude that this form of the name was actively employed only briefly, say, in the third century BC, but then this pronunciation died out, and the name's instances in the Qumran MS and the onomastica are simply relics that visually preserve this formerly active verbalization, but are not real evidence for the name's continual pronunciation past, say, the original pronunciation of the onomastica, or some period shortly thereafter.
  However, the classical sources would then be difficult to explain. It certainly appears that Diodorus intended his audience to understand who the God of Moses and the Jews was, just as they understood the gods of the Egyptians, Persians and Getae. When we add the fact that Varro, at quite a physical distance from Egypt and Palestine, knew this name as the Jewish God, and that at least some of the possible other Pagan sources likely were aware of this God's Greek name (Philo of Byblus, Valerius Maximus, his sources, or those involved in preserving his text, the emperor Gaius, and native Egyptians who could invent, add to, or help preserve a joke about the Jewish God by noting that his name was similar to their word for "ass"), the case that the name was merely a relic does not fare well.
  In addition, the data collected and presented in chapter two of onomastic entries containing instances of IAW become quite significant here, for some of the names explained in the onomastica occur only in the Prophetic books or even the Writings. This fact has powerful implications against the above-mentioned supposition that the appearance of IAW in the onomastica is just a vestige of an earlier use. Rather it indicates a living use of IAW into those periods when the books found in the Prophets and Writings became available for study in Greek translation, and the compilers of the onomastica included the name of biblical characters from those books.
  A further point should be made here. IAW was, just as Stegemann and Skehan have pointed out, a pronounced form of the divine name. It was always a vocalized appellation for the Jewish God. It started out and continued as such, right down to its most well-known existence in the mystical sphere. The whole point of calling upon Iao in its many instances in the papyri and other such texts is that by vocalizing the name, supposed power can be obtained. It cannot have had some pronounced existence during the early centuries of the Common Era, as is attested by Gnostic usage, magical papyri, amulets, and so forth, while not having already had such in the centuries prior to that.
• 

  AwSnap

  I have a question, correct me if I'm totally off base here: The witnesses think it's perfectly okay to translate YHWH (I guess they combine it with one or two other words, right?). When I asked a jw why they do this &, more importantly, why doesn't every person simply say YaWeh instead?- the reply was something like 'because everybody has a different language. Your name would be totally different in French or German.'

  Right, except we're not talking about MY name. We are speaking of the Most High, Almighty, Supreme Being ....right? Check this out:

  http://www.howtosayin.com/Io+bevo+Coca-Cola.html If you notice, there will be about 25 boxes with all sorts of different languages. Click on any of them and they will teach you how to order a coke correctly. Why does every single person on this crazy earth know the name of a soda , yet the jw's refuse to use the proper name of GOD (or the closest they know to it's original pronunciation)?! Ok, done.
• 

  PSacramento

  The issue is that we DON'T know what God's name is, we can SPECUALTE, but we don't know.

  We do know that the masorites took the vowels of the terms Adonai or Elohim, that were added to the Consonants of the tetragrammation (YHWH) and came up with "Jehovah" ( The J being used in place of the Y that didn't exist in Greek).

  We know that "JAH" is a short form for God's name because it apears in "Hallelujah" and other names that Have "jah" in them.

  Doesn't change the fact that:

  1) We do NOT know for sure what God's name is

  2) Jesus TOLD US to pray to "Our Father" and that should be good enough for ANY Christian.
• 

  cantleave

  Did Jesus not tell us in Matthew 6 to let gods name be sanctified? He also said that he had made his Father's name known. If the name was never to be pronounced why would he make these statements? In addition the 10 commandments stated that the Israelittes should not take Gods name in vain so it wasn't the pronunciation of the name but the context that was important.

  In the world of the old testament the Gods all had names. Molech, Dagon etc. To refer to a being just as God would be meaningless in that context. Therefore it would be appropriate for the almighty God to have a name that would distinguish him from others.

  I feel that it is important how we use God's name and treat it with a degree of respect. Using his name as punctuation in prayers is not treating it with reverence. But stating it at the beginning of a prayer helps to direct the prayer to the specific deity even if all the other gods are false gods. Whether using the name Jehovah's Witnesses is correct use of the name I don't know.

  In the Bible Jehovah seemed to indicate a willingness to be close to individuals, he also uses his name on numerous occasions to prefix statements in the old testament record. It was men who said it was too sacred to utter.

  can't leave's Wife.
• 

  PSacramento

  Cantleave's wife, in regards to Jesus making God's name know and sanctifiying it:

  Even if we ignore what "name" means ("Name of the law, name of the king, etc) and just look at IF Jesus truly meant the actual name of God in the verses you mention ( and we put aside that he TOLD us to pray saying "Our Father"), lets see what John says about this in far greater detail than Matthew:

  John 12:23, Jesus says the hour has come for the son of man (Jesus) to be glorified he continues on and asks that the father glorify His name and God responds that he has and will do so again.

  Notice that Jesus ask for himself to be glorified and for the God to glorify his ( God's) name, notice the association.

  Go on to John 17:1-5

  17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

  “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
• 

  PSacramento

  Teh other issue, cantleaves wife, is that even the WT in their book "The name that will endure" admit that "Jehovvah" is not the name, probably not the way it is pronounced and that they use it because it is familar and represents to them, the OT God that they wish to be referenced to.

  Obviously having issues with the NT God and the views of the New Covenant.
• 

  Heaven

  Monty Python's "Life of Brian" - Stoning segment - need I say more:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
• 

  cantleave

  Thanks PSacremanto.

  That still does not answer the question. Using the term "Father" is fine, but within the family setting the term "Father" or "Dad" is used because everyone understands their relationship with one another. The father figure acknowledges their paternal reponsibilities to the children and accepts the designation. Outside the family he is not refered to as father or dad he is referred to by a specific name. If we use the term father it pre supposes that God has acknowledged his responsibility toward us and we have accepted his fatherly oversight. I don't have a problem with using father with reference to God but I still think that it doesn't fufill the requirement of separting a Christian god from any other deity.

  If there was no need to use the name at all why include it in the Bible anywhere? We are arguing about pronunciation and appropriate use of the name but why is it there? The WT argues that we dont know the correct pronounciation of Jesus name, and as some feel that he is of the same status as god, why do we use his name?

  Surely Jesus would have used his father's name, even if he were only reading it from Hebrew texts, he surely would have known how to pronounce the name even if his peers did not.

  There is no Biblical instruction not to speak the name only not to take it in Vain.

  Are you indicating that there is a difference between the NT god and the OT god. If so please explain, I have always been taught that Jesus worshipped the same god as the Jews.
• 

  cantleave

  The Name Jehovah is a Translation mistake..

  Made by a 14th century Catholic Monk..

  .......................OUTLAW

  Could someone elaborate on this comment.