by Dia 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
I've recently heard that - according to Jewish tradition? - God's name is never to be spoken or pronounced by humans.
The scholarly bible-bantering that takes place around this seems testimony enough to the soundness of the idea.
But I'm curious to know if anyone else is familiar with this tacit?
>>It seems to me that, from all that you say, that you really must NOT have any creditability as to what you say.<<
We'll see who's justified. Using men as making you credible I believe is your detriment.
>>You are anti-semite,<<
Look JUDGE, if you want to see the BIGGEST anti-semite of all, go read the OT.
>>...anti-Christian, ant-everything.<<
I am ANTI LIES. Which JEHOVAH is a BiG FAT ONE. So is Yahweh. Funny how you have to attack me instead of presenting your flimsy evidence now. Common tactic, if you can't disprove the evidence, attack the one presenting it.
>>At least Joseph does try to give an objective opinion. people will listen to him because of that. If you want anyone of any intelligence to listen to what you say, then you need to change your attitude and how and what you say.<<
I don't have to change at all. I stand behind what I say with COMMON SENSE LOGICAL EVIDENCE right from the Book. NO ONE can pronounce it,
>>How do you know that Yahweh or Jehovah is NOT the correct pronunciation? You don't.<<
JEHOVAH is a SURE FIRE LIE, the proof is in the Colon of Catholicism.
Jehovah = CATHOLIC INVENTION
Yahweh = JEWISH INVENTION
If God wanted a pronouncable name, the pronounciation would be KNOWN and it would be RECORDED IN THE BIBLE.
1. It is NOT known
2. It is NOT recorded in the Bible
3. That is God's truth. UNPRONOUNCABLE NAME.
>>By the way, there are a lot of writings still in existence today from that period of time and so, don't you think it likely that when the Jews stopped pronouncing God name can not be ascertained? Just because they stop pronouncing His name doesn't mean they stop writing the Name or removed His name from their writings.<<
As I have said WITH PURE LOGIC. If they know the time of non-usage, then they would have to know how to pronounce it in order to prove and show when it CEASED to be used. THAT IS COMMON SENSE.
>>If the Apostles and their immediate followers "kept to strict Jewish tradition", then why did they stop doing some of the traditions? Example being circumcision. This took place before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce and so shortly after the death of Jesus. There are other traditions that we know about that they did not follow and so why would they not continue to use the Name that even Jesus used. That is a fact that you can not deny. <<
Circumcision WAS NOT TRADITION FRIEND.
IT WAS LAW
>>Yes, Paul was instrumental in helping to change some of the traditions that were strictly Jewish.<<
Paul helped Hebrews cease practicing LAW not traditions.
>>But, it was until after that when Matthew wrote his Gospel more than likely in Hebrew wher he was quoting from the Septuigent. Yes, he quoted from the Septuigent which can be determined from the words he used.<<
Proving what? That God's NAME was a pronouncable entity then? Look it. I do not deny the symbol of God,
It is IMPOSSIBLE.
typos
Edited by - pomegranate on 23 August 2002 9:25:9
there are other traditions that we know about that they did not follow and so why would they not continue to use the Name that even Jesus used. That is a fact that you can not deny.
When did Jesus use the Name? If he did, it was never recorded in the Bible. Even where Jesus uses Kyrios (which the NWT mistranslates as "Jehovah") it is only when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. He always referred to God as "Father" and encouraged us to do the same.
But, it was until after that when Matthew wrote his Gospel more than likely in Hebrew wher he was quoting from the Septuigent. Yes, he quoted from the Septuigent which can be determined from the words he used.
So Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew but quoted from a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures? And then his gospel was translated into Greek and all evidence that it had ever been written in Hebrew was destroyed? A little far-fetched, don't you think?
The copy of the Septuigent that I seen a copy of retained the Hebrew letters where God names was and did not translate them into Greek. It wasn't until after the time of Jesus (which is an English word - not Hebrew) that the YHWH was removed from the Septuigent.
So, if Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and he was quoting from the Septuigent, it seems to me he would have also reatined YHWH in his writing.
Did Jesus ever use his Father's name when speaking (John 17:6 & 26)? By the way, I don't believe (I could be wrong) that there is a Greek word for YHWH.
pomegranate isn't even worth responding to for he just is not rational or reasonable. He has had a really bad experience and it shows in his replies. He hates Jews. More and sadly, he hates God and it shows. There isn't anything I (we) can say to help him. He has got to want to be helped first and its evident that he is not at that point.
Edited by - bchamber on 23 August 2002 9:51:8
funkyderek,
I think it can be shown that Matthew used the Greek translation of the Hebrew in several places. The problem still is did this translation contain the name as there really is no proof that it did. And most text read in the temple at the time were acrostics. This means that the texts contained the first word of a text and the first letter of each succeeding word, so that the reader would have to fill in the rest from memory. This is why some marveled that someone not educated in their shools could even read the texts in the first place.
John 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
The real evidence is that the name does not appear in any reliable manuscripts and another argument can be made that it was added in some obscure translations or copies instead of being deleted and so the argument never ends.
Joseph
>>pomegranate isn't even worth responding to for he just is not rational or reasonable.<<
I'm rational enough to stick to the topic rather than swing at the opposing messenger. Lack of rationality
and reasonableness would be shown clearly by YOUR actions of swinging at me rather than the topic.
>>He has had a really bad experience and it shows in his replies.<<
All JW's have really bad experiences. Some learn how to react, some don't.
>>He hates Jews.<<
Ps 101:5
5 Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret,
him will I put to silence;
You wouldn't want to take that LIE back now would you?
Ps 139:21
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O
I hate Jews that are liars and deceitful. I hate bchamber who is a liar and deceitful.
I love Jews when they speak the truth. I love bchamber when he speaks the truth.
Ps 119:113
I hate double-minded men,
but I love your law.
Ps 119:163
I hate and abhor falsehood
but I love your law.
Ps 50:16-17
16 But to the wicked, God says:
"What right have you to recite my laws
or take my covenant on your lips?
17 You hate my instruction
and cast my words behind you.
>>More and sadly, he hates God and it shows.<<
Ps 101:5
5 Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret,
him will I put to silence;
HA! So much to base your position on eh? No more man made OPINIONS for me to consider?
>>There isn't anything I (we) can say to help him.<<
I don't want or need your (we?) help.
>>He has got to want to be helped first and its evident that he is not at that point.<<
Your position is flushed. NEXT.
Edited by - pomegranate on 23 August 2002 15:2:9
Bchamber, dub deep cover special agent (ok, maybe you're not, but you're starting to sound like one)
Those thousands of bibles you've collected don't seem to have done much for you. All reliable greek nt manuscripts do not have yhwh in them, yet you reject their witness. The bible must be more of a compulsion for you, than a light pointing toward truth.
SS
Edited by - saintsatan on 24 August 2002 23:50:46
Right on!It is the Watchtowers insistence that it is a correct and proper way to pronounce it that is the real problem. Taken that way the arguments are of course valid and will continue to no end.
Those thousands of bibles you've collected don't seem to have done much for you. All reliable greek nt manuscripts do not have yhwh in them, yet you reject their witness. The bible must be more of a compulsion for you, than a light pointing toward truth. SS
Yes, I have approx. 1435 different English translations of the Bible and parts thereof and many non-canonal books as well. Is it just a compulsion for me? Well, read on and see for yourself.
Its true that my collection might be said to be several collections - - but where does one stop? What is the Bible? What are the limits of inclusion in the Bible? The Jews believe that the Bible stops with Malachi. But up to about 120 yrs. ago, when the Jew used an English version, they had to use the King James, or it and a few selections of corrections. What makes the Apocrypha a part of the Bible? The Catholics? Ah, no, the King James Bible always had its version of the Apocrypha. The King James Bible always included a version of the Apocrypha, even though most Catholic translations dont include 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The books that were not specifically included - - The Pseudepigrapha (Apocryphal, both the Old Testament and New Testament) - - need to be "available" in order to examine their important value in early Christian teachings and also to see why they were excluded.
Some ministers and lay people believe that paraphrases should not be included in this work, because some of these paraphrases take extreme liberties with the text. I have run across some that are pretty padded. So I classified Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" as a padded paraphrase of the historical portions of the Old Testament. Did I stretch his intention too far?
Where does the N.T. stop? The Syriac claim that Revelations and some short books preceding are not part of the canon. Some Church Fathers have accepted other titles such as the Shepherd of Hermas. And the old Uncials included 1st. Clement and others. Are we going to let Catholic councils refuse us the permission to examine the evidence?
What is Muhammadanism but an offshoot from Christianity? It refers to the Bible in places and seems to tell a different account of what happened in the few instances they "compare." If I "must know that much" surely accounts didnt stop there, that claim non-human origin. So, would it suit one better if I called it a Scripture in English collection?
"Bible History" as researched by modern scholarship dont do more than intrigue the curiosity. I want to examine the ancient written evidence myself. "Theology" doesnt interest me from modern viewpoints. I want to see what it is based on. If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it. What did they believe "then"?
Your reaction to all this may show you that I am not a Bible collector for collecting sake, but for understanding. I liked English little enough in school. I have no desire to be bogged down in the technicalities of the original languages. Variant translations seem the ideal way of understanding the opinions of what was originally written, though there is no full equivalency to be expected between languages. Therefore, we need translations that better reveal how the original expressed itself (literal), translations that express the thought that the translator "understood" and paraphrases which bring out the opinions of what scholars conclude was understood by the original readers.
"If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it." That statement should hold true for JWs as well.
Just because I don't agree with some on the topic list, does not mean that I am a JW nor that I don't know what I am talking about, etc.
Joseph
The real evidence is that the name does not appear in any reliable manuscripts and another argument can be made that it was added in some obscure translations or copies instead of being deleted and so the argument never ends.
Partly true.
"The real evidence is that the name does not appear in any reliable manuscripts..." What do you call reliable manuscripts? Is it just those that support your agrument?
"...another argument can be made that it was added in some obscure translations or copies instead of being deleted" conjecture on your side of the argument. Who is to say it was added in these "obscure" translations or copies? Yes, "so the argument never ends." There is no way in which to prove or disapprove just as their is no way to prove or disapprove how YHWH is to be pronounced.
I really do learn a lot from lists as this one and for that I thank you all who participate. Yes, even SS.
