Is God's name Jehovah, Yaweh, or simply Lord?

by pr_capone 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Do you think Ie in Iesous is one syllable or two (can't recall the name for it being one... dipthong or something)?

  I'm not sure this can be answered categorically, but by the usual rules of transcription from Hebrew to Greek I would say one, the iota in this case standing phonetically for a semi-consonant (just as the y in ye). To have two syllables it would have to be construed as a diaeresis of two full vowels (i-è), which would clearly depart from the Hebrew where yod is a consonant and perhaps call for a dieresis sign (ië), at least in minuscule script, which is not the case. If I find something on this issue (never wondered about that before) I'll tell you.
• 

  Sheepish

  Cygnus, lol, as a matter of fact I have made a friend of a Sacred namer, as you call them. Your comment is true (and hilarious). There is a lot of what they believe that reminds me of the Witnesses.

  When ever I hear a debomination talk about having all the truth, or being the only ones who are going to make it, I immediately go into my nodding and smiling mode till I get the whole story. It is the old story of the blind man and the elephant. Someone gets a bit of truth or insight, and the next thing you know, they think that is what it is all about, and they are the only ones who have it, and they start a new denomination. I remember my mom telling me all these things only the Witnesses knew, when in fact, a lot of Christendom knows them as well-some doctrine exactly like the witnesses.

  Thanks Narkissos for the additional info. What is it's source if I may ask? It will take me a couple of readings of it to understand what you're saying, but I will give the old college try!
• 

  Narkissos

  What is it's source if I may ask?

  As far as vowels are concerned, this is easily verifiable from modern editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (reproducing manuscripts with vowel-pointing from the 9th to 11th centuries AD). The most usual is the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) which exists in searchable versions, based on the Leningrad Codex (early 11th century). Leolaia (in the post I linked you to) referred to an alternate vocalisation as vowel pointing differs according to manuscripts.

  As far as the older script (without vowel-pointing) is concerned (to check that the divine name is consistently yhw or yw as a prefix, yh as a suffix, for instance) this is clear from all mss (including the Dead Sea Scrolls). But the easiest way is to check the entry "Yahweh" or "Yhwh" (or perhaps "Jehovah") in any good Bible Dictionary which will provide a summary of evidence, not only from Bible manuscripts but from further epigraphy. I have the French Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible before me, with an excellent article from OT scholar E. Lipinski; I guess you could find all you need in the Anchor Bible Dictionary for instance.
• 

  RevFrank

  I read the report...I read the link(s) after the link(s) after the link(s)....I'm telling you...I'll make it simple.....

  A 15th century catholic Monk put J in for jehovah and it was established. Since the watchtower hates the Vatican with a passion why in the world does the Watchtower insist that Jehovah is the name?

  As for the NT( greek Scriptures) theos replaces from Hebrew to Greek. It get's the watchtower so excited when scholars disagree with the watchtower.

  In the green new world translation of the Holy SCriptures 1970 Revised translation; on page 1455 according to Isaiah 1:24 ha-A-don or A.don is the true God, yet it is refereing to the Christ in MALACHI 3:1......

  And to top it off no where in the greek scriptures does the word, "jehovah," come up.

  It's the watchtower fantasy dream that man took the name out of the greek scriptures.

  The watchtower does not back up it's bible---that is if it's a bible....the watchtower gets the poor JW to defend it and they can't.

  Every Bible...and every translation that was put in print is supported by the publisher and all of it's scholar. Not the watchtower.

  If the watchtower's new world bible translation committee is so accurate, why can't they defend it? There story won't hold water when they say they don't need these translators don't want to be reconized, because of their so called unworthiness. That's bull.

  "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but to according to their own desires, because they have itching ears they will heap up for themselves teachers and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned asise to fables."(2 TIM 4:3-4)

  PEACE....................
• 

  Narkissos

  RevFrank

  A 15th century catholic Monk put J in for jehovah and it was established.

  If you refer to Raymundus Martini it was in the 13th century (Pugio Fidei was published in 1270).

  As for the NT( greek Scriptures) theos replaces from Hebrew to Greek.

  If you refer to the translation of the Hebrew Yhwh in the LXX and then in the NT kurios ("Lord") is by far the more common substitution word.

  -----

  As to the question whether the NWT is a Bible... of course it is.

  Reading the NWT (if you can bear with the terrible style) is like reading another Bible translation in 99.9 % of cases -- provided you do read the complete texts and not only refer to isolated verses at the WT's command.

  The occasions where the NWT destroys the meaning of the texts are rare -- nonetheless serious. This is the case of some unwarranted substitutions of "Lord" by "Jehovah" in the NT, especially in Paul (e.g. Romans 10 and 14). I mean: the substitution is always unwarranted (there is no ancient manuscript evidence to back it up) but it doesn't always destroy the argument.

  Other regrettable twisting of scripture are evident, e.g. the quotation marks added to "Samuel" in 1 Samuel 28, "a god" in John 1:1, the insertion of "[other]" in 1:3 etc., the substitution of "in" with "in union with" in 6:56 etc.... Those do change the exact meaning but not the overall argument.

  Globally I would say: if only JWs read the NWT instead of turning over and over again to the same "proof-texts" it would be great.
• 

  Utopian_Raindrops
• 

  Utopian_Raindrops
• 

  Frogleg

  Yawn!
• 

  Jeffro

  To the other queststion, the Christian name for God is Lord. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever pronounced YHWH out loud. Remember that Jesus would have be stoned for blasphemy if anyone heard him say YHWH. No known ancient NT documents have ever been found that contain the name of God.

  Lord isn't a name. It is a title. The title LORD was substituted for god's name in the bible. The reasons why are irrelevant because 'lord' is not god's name. If you believe in God, and if you think you should refer to him by something remotely based on his name, you can call him Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever suits your particular language. If you want to refer to him by a title, you can call him god or lord or father or whatever. But to say that God's name is Lord is just plain wrong.
• 

  Narkissos

  Jeffro,

  Still the view that God's name was kurios, "Lord," was a common assumption in the Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora, hence an essential part of the NT background:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99702/1716937/post.ashx#1716937

  I would suggest that strictly speaking Yhwh was only the name of "God" during a relatively short period: after the god Yhwh became "God" and before the whole idea of a name for "God" began to sound really absurd. Let's say 4 or 5 centuries at most. And if it lasted that long it is probably because the "pure" monotheistic doctrine didn't become popular quickly (e.g. Elephantine).