Posts by rawe

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi Sarahsmile,

"Personally I think all bibles should place the tegtagramanon back."

It depends on what the Bible translator is attempting to accomplish. There is little question the tetragrammaton (YHWH) appears thousands of times in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we have. Likewise we know later copies replaced the tetragrammaton with Adonai (Lord). The Jehovah-to-Lord replacement also happened to the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT.

A big problem one has in translating the Bible is simply that it is not one book from one author at one time. It is a collection of books that were not stable on this issue. One of the problem in using the oldest Hebrew text for OT is that it creates a hybrid translation looked at from the Christian perspective. Thus when Paul says this...

All Scripture is inspired of God - 2 Timothy 3:16a

What exactly does he mean by 'Scripture'? I think it is safe to conclude he means the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and here is why...

Hebrews 1:6 says this: But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance (sic) to him.”

The "All God's angels" is an OT quote from Deuteronomy, but look how it reads...

Be glad, YOU nations, with his people, For he will avenge the blood of his servants, And he will pay back vengeance to his adversaries And will indeed make atonement for the ground of his people. - Deuteronomy 32:43

The puzzle is solved when one looks this up in the Septuagint...

Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people. - Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX)

So... as a translator, I think it would be very legitimate to create a translation that did not include the divine name in OT, if the purpose was to create a Bible translation that reflected the religious text as used by the early Christian community. That text would be the LXX, which by that time had the name Jehovah replaced with Lord. This theory is supported by the following facts: (a) Christians writers wrote in Greek and thus would have relied on a Greek translation of the OT, (b) no extant manuscripts of NT include the tetragrammaton, (c) the quote of Deuteronomy in Hebrews shows the LXX was the source (d) and we know that later copies of the LXX had replaced Jehovah with Lord.

Cheers,
-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

hi mP,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai
Shaddai as a theonym [edit]

According to Exodus 6:2, 3, Shaddai (???????) is the name by which God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The name Shaddai is again used as a name of God later in the Book of Job.
Here is the text of Exodus 6:2, 3 from the NWT...

And God went on to speak to Moses and to say to him: “I am Jehovah [YHWH]. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty [EL SHADDAI], but as respects my name Jehovah [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them. - Exodus 6:3

I added brackets to reflect El Shaddai reference. I will need to read over some more text, but I tend to see "Jehovah" as the later, somewhat forced, addition to the text and this explanation here at Exodus 6 reflecting that. I found the Wikipedia article interesting too, with the explanation that 'Shaddai' may mean 'destroyer' and thus comes out as 'Almighty'. Certainly the idea that the God that belonged to a people could help them in war comes out in OT writings. The circumstance of NT writers was entirely different, part of a Jewish sect that was opposed both by Jews and Romans. Not likely they would make a connection between God and nationalism.

Cheers,
-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi mP,

"If you read a few verses earlier it says that Abrahams god was not calle djehovah but had a diff name. The text you mention is only saying this because god had a diff name earler."

What verse are you referring to? It sounds like we may be in agreement. My argument of couse is the author of this material in Exodus is plainly saying Jehovah was the God of their forefathers and it is possible that would be a new thought to the Israelites of the time period. This attempt in Exodus to explain who Jehovah is, to me, shows the idea must have been unfamiliar.

Cheers,

-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi Phizzy,

"The original God that appears in Genesis is El. The exponents of Yahweh retrojected the name into the texts probably post-exile (Babylonian)."

That is a good way of expressing what is most likely true. I tend to think of Jehovah as one of the Gods that has gone through death and restoration cycles. Thus it is possible some original Bible authors and redactors saw Jehovah as the original God and thus injected him in the text. That would make the text read the way it does, "this is my name... I was not known, now I am... it was 'Jehovah' that said..." If this is the correct view, they would have done this against a backdrop Elohim already holding a position in much of the text and a superstition that one should not say "Jehovah" aloud.

I think of this as the first restoration cycle. Convinced Jehovah was the original, these authors and redactors restored him to the text the near 7000 times we now see, right along side Elohim whose position could not be removed. But it wouldn't last, Jehovah would die off so completely that by the time Bible writing starts up again in the Christian era he is nowhere in sight, save JAH (Hallelujah) references in Revelation...

After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: “Praise Jah, YOU people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God - Revelation 19:1

Jehovah's Witnesses have in modern times attempted another restoration of Jehovah based on the belief he is the one true and original God. However, by doing so, they've created a confusing mix of pre-Christian and Christian ideas.

I know that it has been said on this thread already, but it bears repeating. This is just no evidence Paul, the gospel writers or other NT authors ever wrote "Jehovah". The 237 times Jehovah appears in the NT portion of NWT is simply without support. That is a minor point that backups up a much larger one... namely the focus of the NT is not Jehovah at all, but entirely aimed at establishing Jesus as the Christ. God and Father of course appear in the NT, so the NT is not a departure of received OT text and religion of the day, but rather an expansion that focuses on the role of Jesus. Jehovah is not there, because... he had died in the centuries proceeding this era. Indeed the Greek translation used by NT authors already had "Jehovah" removed from the text in much the same way as many Bible translations do today.

Cheers,

-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi Sarahsmile,

"Many internet sites claiming that GOD'S names is Jehovah. Do you believe it is the name of God?"

Hmm... I'm not sure one can answer that question without making some assumptions. Jehovah is the English form of Hebrew name YHWH and that is the name of the primary God one finds in OT writings. However, Baal, Ashtoreth and Molech are the names of Gods in the OT as well. It also seems clear from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 where one sees 'God' (Elohim) only to see the switch on 2:4 to 'Jehovah' that more than one idea of Almighty God was in play, likely because these books combine material form different sources.

If you're asking if 'Jehovah' is a good English translation of YHWH, I would argue that it is reasonable, given that similar names like Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Jephthah and Jochebed are considered good English translations.

When you see the earlier books of the Bible as a combination of different sources with different ideas, it makes more sense. The idea that Jehovah was adopted and promoted can been seen in how the text reads. Consider this bit about Abraham...

Later he moved from there to the mountainous region to the east of Beth′el and pitched his tent with Beth′el on the west and A′i on the east. Then he built an altar there to Jehovah and began to call on the name of Jehovah - Genesis 12:8

I see this as an adoption of "Jehovah" by Abraham. Yet as you move down in time, the Israelites seem to be ignorant about who Jehovah might be. The famous "I AM THAT I AM" quote where Moses gets his assignment reflects that...

Nevertheless, 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?” - Exodus 3:13

Isn't that odd? Moses' mother's name Jochebed contains part of the name Jehovah -- yet Moses expects to be asked what is the name of the God that has sent you. Here is the answer he gets...

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 .’” - Exodus 3:14

This too is odd, a direct answer is not given at first. Instead this full name expansion lands in the text. Reflecting the belief, it seems, that a name has power. Power within itself, intrinsic, just say it and things will happen. The text continues on to make the direct statement...

Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to YOU .’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation. - Exodus 3:15

Here I imagine an ancient Israelite reading this and say, "ah, oh, 'Jehovah' was the God of Abraham, therefore 'Jehovah' is my God too." Perhaps one of the strongest clues is this explanation given to Moses...

I am Jehovah. 3 And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them - Exodus 6:2, 3

What the heck? How could it be that Abraham "began to call on the name of Jehovah" at Genesis 12:8, yet Jehovah did not make his name known? As Jehovah's Witnesses we were told the text at Exodus 6:2, 3 is speaking about the name Jehovah in a special way. The power behind the name to vanquish Pharoah. That is probably the best one can come up if you wish to insist the OT ideas about God are consistent. To me though it makes much more sense in the light of the documentary hypothesis. Consider this theory, some of it backed up by the Bible itself...

Various pre-Biblical ideas about God develop and are repeated. Many ideas about God exist and many Gods are local and not so cosmic in nature. Eventually a relatively unified idea of God gets codified. The first command of the new God in town is no-other-Gods-in-my-face (monotheism). The Hebrews carrying these ideas are split by political forces, into north and south. The split groups now develop different ideas about God. Then the north group is attacked and flees south as refugees, bringing their ideas and pre-Bible writings. By the time Jeremiah is on the scene he is faced with the task of combining material from the north and south and few other places into one consistent text that will help unite the people. He may also wish to warn as well as bring comfort to people that have Babylon breathing down threats.

The OT Biblical text may have been redacted somewhat after the Babylonian exile. If so, no doubt, to strenghten ideas that would warn future generations as why the exile happened (idol worship, non-obedience to Sabbath law, etc).

Here I use weasle words "may" and "if so", because there is no way to know these things for certain. Alas, all we can do is struggle for the most reasonable explanation.

Cheers,

-Randy

123

Who is the "True God of the Bible" ?

by Phizzy in

i decided to ask this on the back of "lost"'s thread about yhvh etc.. quite often on here we get bible believers trying to tie the whole mess that is the bible together, and maintaining that it tells us about just one "true" god.. who is this "true" god, and what is the proof that he is true ?.

was he the god of abraham and melchizedech ?.

the god of the ordinary jew before the babylonian exile ?.

rawe

Hi Phizzy,

Your thread raises a good question. I have not read all the posts in this thread, so please forgive me if some of this is a repeat.

There are two main God's of the OT. Jehovah and Elohim who are sometimes blended into one. You can see the separation of these most clearly in Genesis where Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 uses Elohim exclusively and at 2:4 Jehovah appears. The documentary hypothesis speaks more about how these two different dieties differ.

The OT writers are often concerned about rival gods such as Baal, who clearly people believed in as real at the time.

There is no question the development of 'God' continued after the OT writing ended. By the time the NT gets penned "Jehovah" by name completely disappears, although one NT writer use "Jah" in Revelation as part of the HalleluJAH phrase. I see three Gods in the NT.

There is the God of Jesus, who he called "Father"

There is the God of Paul, who he called "God"

And Paul also made Jesus Christ into "God"

Beyond the Gospels, it is Paul's letters that make up the bulk of NT writing. And they are filled to the brim with Jesus-speak -- he is the creator of all, all knowledge and wisdom is in him, Jesus this, Jesus that, etc. When modern day Christians go on and on about Jesus they are reflecting that mindset. To be clear, I don't think Paul or any other NT writer succeeded in defining the Trinity, but I see Paul more than any other laying the foundation for this post-Biblical doctrine.

Cheers,

-Randy

19

Chance?

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

No matter how we look at it we have a boundary problem. Over the years I've grown comfortable to simple say, we don't know and it may be impossible to know. Logic and reason for example applies only in our universe. We're trapped in the box we're trying to explain. I will say this, if going back to a singularity is a problem, Rodger Penrose book Cycles of Time gave me pause by thinking in the other direction. So, what happens if we imagine the universe going on expanding into the far future. According to Penrose you eventually lose all the identify of the universe, including matter, space and time. And... this might be the setup for the next cycle, the next big bang event. I found the model very interesting if mind warping! Because one needs to let go of what you would normally think of as the "singularity."

The BB tends to make us think of a single point, not something that was vastly spread out in the prior cycle. But... if I've got the gist of Penrose, a vastly spread out universe would eventually lose the concept of space and time and would then be from the perspective of the other side a singularity.

Not wanting to pump too much into this thread all at once, but aw, what the heck... last week I watch a Lawrence Krauss video on A Universe From Nothing. The main point as I understood it had to do with the values that would regulate the expansion of the universe we see and that such is consistent with the energy of empty space (i.e. "nothing"). That there are actual solid mathematical reasons to say the universe came from nothing. The problem I have with both Penrose and Krauss is my own ability to comprehend is limited. I listen and try and aborb, but I don't have any sense I really get it.

Cheers,

-Randy

19

Chance?

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

"I’m talking about the origin of existence itself. The beginning of all beginnings, if there is one?"

To me the best way to think of orign of... questions is a matter of running the clock backwards and seeing where that takes you. For example, the origin of earth is throught to be tied to a giant dust cloud that was in orbit of the Sun much like the rings orbit Saturn. The fact that all the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction and on the same plane tends to support that idea.

The origin of the universe likewise is often a question of running the clock backwards. Since the universe is expanding, it stands to reason the universe in the past was a smaller and hotter place. Just how far back can you take this? Alas, not all the way! As you go further back and get the universe into a smaller and smaller and hotter and hotter space the calculations begin to break down. We must then say, we don't know. All we know is that the universe is here.

Calling it "chance" doesn't seem to help in my view. In fact all the words one could use, breakdown and make little sense. You can't talk about "before" the Big Bang, because "before" relates to time and time doesn't exist until after the Big Bang event. You can't talk about "cause and effect" because, again, that is an artifact of our universe. So, the best word we can come up with is "nothing." Although such a word seems odd, as far as I can tell, it has been chosen to reflect that fact that what is being discussed is exactly not anything within the physical universe.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. In regards to the JW thing, I was just responding to simplistic dismissive use of the word "chance" one finds in Awake! and The Watchtower.

19

Chance?

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

"Does anyone really think that chance created existence?"

Your question seems to falls into a category of "origin of..." questions. I am not sure what existence you're talking about, is it origin of life? Or origin of the Universe? Origin of anything that exists, such as a rock or lake or river?

The word "chance" is often used in Awake! and The Watchtower when the subject of the origin of life is under discussion or the theory of evolution. The odd thing about the role of "chance" is physics and biological systems is that it is not unconstrained and arbitrary. The "chance" of the exact sperm fertilizing the exact egg that became you is extrodinarily improbablle event -- but clearly it did happen. On the other hand, once fertilized, there was no "chance" your mother would give birth to a mouse.

What is though is unconstrained and completely arbitrary? Of course that is the actions of a divine being. When the Canadian Bethel was under construction and in need of a larger water storage tank, Jehovah arranged for it take place according to his will. Yet when the Lillelid family tried to witness to a group of young people at a rest stop, rather than bless their effort, Jehovah looked on as the family was murdered. What exactly causes Jehovah to act in the first case but not the second? Or in any case for the matter? I personally believe the answer is a simple as Jehovah does not exist. But if you really believe he exists and acts, then it really would be a belief in a profound sense of chance happening.

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Frankiespeakin,

Thanks for that BBC Horizon video! David Attenborough does a much better job of explaining population dynamics than I do. I also was struck by his point about family size and educating girls. I know Christopher Hitchens made a similar point how atheism can be helpful compared to the charity supported by religion. Atheist tend to speak up for education, whereas some aspects of organized religion make a virtue of ignorance. In the worse cases religion is used to block girls from getting an education. Yet when girls have equal opportunity to be educated and especially if it is valued within the culture, they tend to be older before getting married and then have fewer children. In the documentary David Attenborough highlighted an area in India where this true.

Cheers,

-Randy