Quick update on sharing TTATT with my friend
by Gojira_101 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Oubilette: Wt 1980 2/1 pg 11-13 WT 1950 12/1 pg 469-474
-
Gojira_101
Oubliette: The WT I was referring to is this....
WT 1980 2/1 pg 11-13:
Gojira
The
THAT the divine name was used in early history is beyond question. But what about later times? Why have certain Bible translations omitted the name? And what is its meaning and significance to us?
Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book PugeoFidei, published in 1270 C.E.—over 700 years ago.
In time, as reform movements developed both inside and outside the Catholic Church, the Bible was made available to the people in general, and the name “Jehovah” became more widely known. In 1611 C.E. the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible was published. It uses the name Jehovah four times. (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4) Since then, the Bible has been translated many, many times. Some translations follow the example of the AuthorizedVersion and include the divine name only a few times.
In this category is AnAmericanTranslation (by Smith and Goodspeed) with a slight variation of using “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” Yet, one may ask: “Why have the translators done this? If using ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Yahweh’ is wrong, why put it in at all? If right, why not be consistent and use it every time it appears in the Bible text?”
Against the preceding historical and factual background, let us now examine what the translators say in answer.
Says the Preface of AnAmericanTranslation: “In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh.’ ” But by following “the orthodox Jewish tradition,” did the translators realize how harmful it can be to ignore God’s clear determination that his ‘name be declared in all the earth’? Moreover, Jesus condemned man-made tradition that would invalidate God’s word.—Ex. 9:16; Mark 7:5-9.
The Preface of the RevisedStandardVersion states: “The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows . . . the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue.... For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, wasdiscontinuedinJudaismbeforetheChristianera and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Italics ours.)
The translators made a great mistake in following the example of the KingJamesVersion and Jewish tradition. Did they really think it was God’s will that his name should be kept in the background? Is the divine name something to be ashamed of so that it should be left out of the Bible?
An interesting fact is that the AmericanStandardVersion, published in 1901, uses Jehovah’s name right through the Hebrew Scriptures. In contrast, the RevisedStandardVersion, published in 1952, makes only a very brief reference to the Tetragrammaton in a footnote (at Exodus 3:15). During that period, Jehovah’s Witnesses were proclaiming God’s name world wide. Could it be that the omission of the divine name in certain translations was caused by prejudice against their witnessing activity?
That this could be so in some cases is indicated by the following statement appearing in the KatholischeBildepost (a Catholic magazine of Germany): “The name of God, however, which they [Jehovah’s Witnesses] have changed to ‘Jehovah’ is simply an invention of the sect.” (August 24, 1969) This statement smacks of religious prejudice. It also reveals poor research since, as already mentioned, the first writer to use the term “Jehova” was a Catholic monk—obviously not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses!
“The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” says the Preface of the RevisedStandardVersion. But what word does “accurately represent” the divine name in Hebrew? Some prefer “Yahweh,” others “Yehwah,” others “Jave,” and so on. The problem is that when writing ancient Hebrew only consonants were used, and even experts admit that it is a matter of conjecture as to which vowels made up the complete divine name.
One could also ask those objecting to the form “Jehovah” why they do not object to other names such as “Jesus” or “Peter.” Why do these critics not insist on using the original Greek forms of those names (Iesoús and Petros)? Are these individuals not guilty of applying a double standard in rejecting “Jehovah”?
Many translations, of course, do use “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or some other representation of the Tetragrammaton. Moreover, there are about 40 vernacular translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”) that use a vernacular form of the Tetragrammaton such as Iehova (Hawaiian) and Uyehova (Zulu).
To answer this, a historical flashback is appropriate. When he was commissioned by the Most High to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, “Moses said to the true God: ‘Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, “The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,” and they do say to me, “What is his name?” What shall I say to them?’ At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.’ And he added: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.”’” (Ex. 3:13, 14) This means Jehovah would carry his own grand purpose to completion in vindication of his name and sovereignty, and this helps us to understand the memorial name “Jehovah,” given in verse 15. According to the Hebrew root of the name, it appears to mean “He Causes To Become” (or, “Prove To Be”) with respect to himself. Thus God’s name has real significance to thoughtful persons. That name reveals him as being One who unfailingly fulfills what he promises and is perfectly in control of whatever situation may arise.
What a deep, sacred meaning the divine name has! It is the name par excellence of the universe, a glorious name. The term “Lord” is pale and inexplicit in comparison. Jesus loved and respected his Father’s name and once said to him: “Father, glorify your name.” The account continues: “Therefore a voice came out of heaven: ‘I both glorified it and will glorify it again.’”—John 12:28.
If Jesus had been a Bible translator today, would he have omitted his Father’s name from new translations? Hardly! Without a doubt, Jesus, of all persons, had the right attitude toward Almighty God and His name. So what should be our attitude toward God and his name?
The
BibleinLivingEnglish (by Steven T. Byington) also uses “Jehovah” right through the Hebrew text. In his Preface, Byington says concerning “Jehovah”: “The spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a personal name.” Yes, the name of the most exalted Person in the universe is unique, exclusive, incomparable, sublime.
WHAT
DOESTHISUNIQUENAME
MEAN?
OTHER
TRANSLATIONS
DOUBLE
STANDARD
RELIGIOUS
PREJUDICE?
THE
TRANSLATORS’
ANSWER
THE
NAME“JEHOVAH”BECOMESWIDELY
KNOWN
-
Gojira_101
Sorry for the screw up on the copy. I can't fix it the formatting because I'm not sure what goes where.....but at least read the highlighted part and if you go to this http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/251494/2/HA-Take-that-Watchtower-One-less-Borg-for-you there is more info Newly Enlightened (A.K.A my mom) posted.
Gojira
-
ABibleStudent
Hi Gojira_101, you are doing a fantastic job of helping your friend to critically think for herself!
About the only thing that you could do differently is to help her to overcome her fears of doing internet research for herself. Have you shown your friend how to use Wikipedia to get a broad brush view of the WTBTS, its leaders, and its changes of doctrine and then look up WTBTS's references to confirm that Wikipedia is accurate? Once your friend starts to trust Wikipedia as a reference source, then she might be more willing to do online research (i.e., checking out Raymond Franz and Steve Hassan) using a web browser.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
-
Gojira_101
Abiblestudent: I'm sorry to disagree with you but Wikipedia is not a good reference source and I myself do not trust Wikipedia because ANYONE at anytime can go in and change it. Has that changed recently and I didn't hear about it??
I've been working in college classrooms, at a university and community college for 7 years and every single teacher/instructor/professor will not accept any citations from wikipedia. These professionals all say the same thing tha wikipedia is not creditable
My friend has attended this same community college and she knows how unreliable wikipedia is. So I'm not telling her to go to wikipedia.
The thing is since she isn't baptized yet she knows nothing about old WT doctrine and really she would have no idea where to even start looking, there is just too much...so that is why I'm guiding her and giving her little bits of info at a time. I don't want her to get overwhelmed and shut down and stop questioning. I like to think of myself as a strong person and well grounded, but when I learned TTATT, I was devastated and there was some times where there was just so much info coming at me I put up a wall and would stop listening......My brain could not keep up. So when telling my friend TTATT I have to be considerate to the fact English is not her native language, and I need to take it slow with her. I have all the time in the world. She is doing some research and I gave her specific websites to look at.
Plus WT own literature damns them, so why not use it...yes it's more work for me, and it would be easy to tell her to go "here" or go "there", but I feel it loses the personal connection telling them to just go to the websites. There is so much info on the Internet, at least if I'm here, I can help her not to be overwhelmed. It is more work for me, but my friend is worth it.
I'm not saying everything on wikipedia is false or wrong...I just personally don't trust it.
Gojira
-
ABibleStudent
Gojira_101 - Abiblestudent: I'm sorry to disagree with you but Wikipedia is not a good reference source and I myself do not trust Wikipedia because ANYONE at anytime can go in and change it. Has that changed recently and I didn't hear about it??
I've been working in college classrooms, at a university and community college for 7 years and every single teacher/instructor/professor will not accept any citations from wikipedia. These professionals all say the same thing tha wikipedia is not creditable
My friend has attended this same community college and she knows how unreliable wikipedia is. So I'm not telling her to go to wikipedia.
Hi Gojira_101, I like Wikipedia to help me find references to do further research by locating the citations at the end of the Wikipedia articles, finding those references online or at a library, and then reading the information that I find. Only after reading the referenced information do I make a decision. To me Wikipedia just saves me time finding information by reading the referenced material. It is not a stand alone authorative reference. I do not believe that I wrote not to read the WTBTS's propaganda. In fact I believe that I wrote use Wikipedia to locate the WTBTS's propaganda to read the referenced material.
I also graduated from two colleges so I do know how to do research. I like to always read the oldest referenced source because later authors can/do put their own spin on material that they reference.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
Oubliette
Thanks for the references. I thought maybe there was some more "New Light" regarding God's name ... oh wait, there is:
God's Name is: The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses!
-
Newly Enlightened
Good job Sweetie! Proud of you!