That's what it appears like. We just find it interesting that according to the articles above, even the WTBT$ knows that Jehovah is not the proper pronunciation of God's name.
Newly Enlightened
JoinedPosts by Newly Enlightened
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Hi, Yeah I'm here. Had to do a repair on my dishwasher then realized it was almost 5 and had to fix dinner for Hubby.
What's up?
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Ok Everyone, here's another one that most JW's don't even know about.
WT 1950 12/1 pg 469-474:
An
OpenLettertotheCatholicMonsignor
Oct. 11, 1950.
To Matthew Smith,
Monsignor of the Roman Catholic Church in America,
c/o The Register,
Catholic Press Soc., Inc. Denver, Colo.
Before us is a copy of TheCatholicTelegraph-Register, Section Two, dated Friday, August 18, 1950, containing an article signed by you. It occupies parts of three columns in the lower left-hand corner of page one and continues on page four for two full-column lengths, and is entitled: “Listening In,” with the subheading, “Sect Rewrites Parts of Bible to Fit Beliefs.” Also before us is a copy of the identical article by you appearing in TheSt. LouisRegister of the same date, from which fact is to be gathered that your article was published quite generally in the 32 Diocesan editions of TheRegister published in as many cities. Your article therefore gained nation-wide publicity.
You open and close your article with a reference to the NewWorldTranslationoftheChristianGreekScriptures, released at Yankee Stadium, Wednesday, August 2, the fourth day of the International Assembly of Jehovah’s witnesses there. During the remaining four days of which Assembly 85,850 copies of this new translation were placed with the conventioners. We being the printers who have come into possession of the publication rights of this translation, we feel the obligation of making some answer to your article. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the general public who read your adverse article is expecting a published reply from us, and we do not want either to disappoint these or to fail in our obligation to the Most High God and his recorded Word.
Your article appears to be based entirely on what the news reporters had to say about the speeches and releases offered at the Yankee Stadium Assembly, and not upon a personal examination of the literature that was released. For instance, your remark (
¶ 17): “All this will be wholly different from the perpetual earthly happiness promised by the Witnesses. Their idea, if the newspapers are correctly quoting their leaders, is closer to a Mohammedan idea than to a Christian one.”
Hearsay (“Listening In”) is a very unreliable foundation on which to make such an assertion in the public press in criticism of a group of Christians, who, though a minority, have circulated their literature around the earth in more than 90 languages in excess of half a billion copies of bound books and booklets, besides hundreds of millions of free tracts and magazines.
Your article admits that in his public address of August 6 on “Can You Live Forever in Happiness on Earth?” the Watch Tower Society’s president N. H. Knorr answered the question in the affirmative. Following his lecture 250,000 copies of his speech, in a 32-page booklet, were distributed free to all in attendance, numbers taking many copies each, so that what Mr. Knorr said was freely available in print. You, with your Catholic means of obtaining information, could easily have procured a copy of this booklet. Those who heard or read this speech know that it has no resemblance to Mohammedanism but is based wholly upon the inspired Scriptures and the modern-day fulfillments of prophecy.
You say, “The idea of a perpetual reign of the saints on earth is repulsive to the majority of Christians,” “Heaven will not be a glorified earth,” and, “It is to be hoped, therefore, that Jehovah’s Witnesses will not place all their faith in the absurdity of an earthly kingdom that will never die.” (
¶¶ 15, 16, 22) In none of their speeches or publications have Jehovah’s witnesses taught that ‘heaven will be a glorified earth’; but it is you, Monsignor, and your religious system that teach that people of your faith will take their earthly bodies to heaven.
Jehovah’s witnesses, however, adhere strictly to the inspired Scriptures and believe what the apostle John says about those of the “little flock” of Christians who will go to the heavenly kingdom: “Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him: because we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2, DouayVersion) We believe with the apostle John in a distinction between heaven and earth, and we accept his vision of the future in which he says: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.” (Apocalypse 21:1, Douay) Certainly that new earth is to be populated with creatures of the earth, earthy, for Isaias 45:18 declares that the Lord God did not create the earth in vain: “he formed it to be inhabited.”
It is useless for you to counter with the argument that the apostle John saw only an apocalyptic vision. Not only the prophet Isaias speaks also of a new heavens and new earth (65:17; 66:22), but so does the apostle Peter. He describes the destruction of the present heavens and earth in which injustice dwells and then says: “But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.”—2 Peter 3:13, Douay.
In harmony with the infallible Scriptures, Jehovah’s witnesses teach that Christ’s footstep followers who overcome this world will reign with him, not in the “new earth”, but in the “new heavens”; and obedient mankind on the “new earth” will be blessed by the invisible, heavenly reign of Jesus Christ and his glorified followers, his bride. (Apocalypse 2:26-28; 3:21; 20:4-6) If this is “repulsive”, it is repulsive to the majority of professed Christians who do not accept God’s Word but who have been indoctrinated with religious traditions of men contrary to God’s Word. (Matthew 15:1-9, Douay) Your hopes, therefore, that we will not place our faith “in the absurdity of an earthly kingdom that will never die” are ill-founded and are needless. We do not hope for such a thing, but preach “the kingdom of HEAVEN” as the rightful government for all the universe. Modern events fulfilling sacred prophecy prove that this heavenly kingdom is at hand and will remove the Devil’s rule of earth; and because of this fact we can assure people of good will that they can live forever in happiness on earth under the heavenly kingdom of Christ and his glorified congregation. Then, in answer to the Lord’s prayer, God’s name will be hallowed and his will will forever be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
NO
REWRITINGOFPARTSOFTHEBIBLE
Your article (
¶ 2) states: “Newspaper accounts indicated that the ‘translation’ changed the texts to fit Witnesses’ doctrines.” Then, to make it appear that Jehovah’s witnesses are mutilating the Christian Greek Scriptures, you quote the New York Times’ report as saying: “Rejecting the idea of the Holy Trinity, the Bible society translation replaces the phrase ‘the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,’ used frequently throughout the King James version with ‘the spirit and the water and the blood’ (1 John v. 7).”
First of all, the newspaper report errs in saying that the phrase “the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” is used frequently throughout the KingJamesVersion. It is not so used even in the Catholic DouayVersion. The one place in the Scriptures where the phrase does occur, namely, at Matthew 28:19, the NewWorldTranslation renders the verse: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” In a corresponding passage, namely, 2 Corinthians 13:14, this translation reads: “The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you.”
No parts of the Bible have been rewritten in this NewWorldTranslation to fit the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses, as you blatantly assert. The Translation Committee did not construct its own Greek text of the Christian Scriptures. No; but on page 8 of the Foreword it notifies us that the Committee used the 1948 Macmillan Company edition of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881, besides S. C. E. Legg’s editions of Matthew and Mark, and that it also took into consideration “other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar José María Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk”. Concerning the same Greek text mainly used by the Committee, E. J. Goodspeed says in his Preface in “An American Translation” (1939): “I have closely followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every scholar knows its great superiority to the late and faulty Greek texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the AuthorizedVersion were made.”
So the NewWorldTranslation has rewritten no part of the Greek text, not even 1 John 5:7 which is cited in your article as a place where Jehovah’s witnesses clash with the trinitarian doctrine. Does the NewWorldTranslation here replace the phrase “the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” with the phrase “the spirit and the water and the blood”? No! How could the latter phrase be used as a replacement when it is already there in the Greek text? But it is the former phrase that is not there.
The NewWorldTranslation of 1 John 5:7, 8 reads: “For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement [margin: are for the one thing].” This is a literal translation of the Greek text by the above-named Augustinus Merk, S.J., in his NovumTestamentumGraeceetLatine; it is also a literal translation of the Greek text by the other Roman Catholic scholar, Joseph M. Bover, S.J., in his NoviTestamentiBibliaGraecaetLatina; as well as of Nestle’s NovumTestamentumGraece and of the Westcott and Hort Greek text. So you see that even those Jesuit scholars do not include in their Greek texts the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth.” (Douay) Those words are now recognized by all genuine scholars as spurious to the authentic Greek text. Your own precious Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the early 4th century does not contain the words, but brands them spurious.
The French Catholic Bible by Canon A. Crampon puts those words in brackets and says in the footnote: “The words put in brackets are not found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 15th century, nor in any manuscript of the Vulgate prior to the 8th.” The Catholic German translation by P. Johann Perk of 1947 puts the words in parentheses and explains in a footnote. It is true that the Jesuit scholars Merk and Bover show the words in their parallel Latin text, but, please, note this: Bover and Cantera do not include the words in their Spanish translation of 1947. Also, the words do not appear in the Latin text of the NovumTestamentumLatine by J. Wordsworth and H. J. White of 1911, and which is rendered according to St. Jerome’s edition. Their footnote says they print the Latin text without the disputed words, in harmony with the Latin manuscripts Amiatinus, Armachanus, Fuldensis, Sangermanensis, and the original Vallicellanus, these manuscripts being of the 6th to the 9th centuries. The footnote adds that the words appear in the Latin manuscripts Cavensis, the revised Vallicellanus, of the 9th century, and the Sixtine and Clementine editions of the Vulgate of the 16th century.
Please note other Roman Catholic translations that omit the words: The Spanish translation of 1948 by Nácar and Colunga; the French translation by Canon E. Osty, of 1949, and the French Catholic Bible of 1949 by the Monks of Maredsous; and the Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures by Rev. Cuthbert Lattey, S.J., of 1948. These read like the 1950 NewWorldTranslation.
Thus on the main text that is cited for charging Jehovah’s witnesses with rewriting parts of the Bible to fit their beliefs you are proved false. The NewWorldTranslation stands vindicated, and it will remain so against any future attacks from any quarter.
THE
DIVINENAME
The last four paragraphs of your article are grouped under the heading “Jehovah Not Correct as God’s Name”. Here you open by saying: “Something of the shallow scholarship in the sect in adopting the word Jehovah as part of its title is shown by the CatholicBiblicalEncyclopedia’s treatment of this word: . . . .” And your closing paragraph says: “We fear that all the other scholarship of the Witnesses, including what they have done in their translation of the New Testament, is on the same basis as their use of the word Jehovah.”
Thank you for this opportunity to present some facts to you and to the public. We do not say that “Jehovah” is the correct pronunciation of God’s name. For that matter, neither is “Jesus” the correct pronunciation of Christ’s name.But according to the Aramaic language which Christ and his apostles spoke, his name was pronounced “Yeshu
′ a” (the a representing a gutteral ending). But “Jesus” is only our colloquial way of pronouncing his name, and we do not find fault with you for using it instead of Yeshu ′ a. However, if you call it shallow scholarship for the Committee to use the word Jehovah in the NewWorldTranslation, then you will have to admit that it is due to the shallow scholarship of the Roman Catholic clergy of the thirteenth century, for in that century the word historically appears among them.
Your quotation from the CatholicBiblicalEncyclopedia says Jehovah was the incorrect pronunciation given to the Hebrew tetragrammaton JHVH in the 14th century by Porchetus de Salvaticis (1303). But let us say: The origin of the word Jehovah used to be attributed to Petrus Galatinus, a Franciscan friar, the confessor of Pope Leo X, in his DeArcanisCatholicaeVeritatis, published in 1518. But the latest scholarship has proved he was not the one to introduce the pronunciation Jehovah, and neither was your aforementioned Porchetus de Salvaticis. As shown by Joseph Voisin, the learned editor of the PugioFidei (ThePoniardofFaith) by Raymundus Martini, Jehovah had been used long before Galatinus. Even a generation before Porchetus de Salvaticis wrote his VictoriacontraJudaeos (1303), the Spanish Dominican friar Raymundus Martini wrote his Pugio, about 1278, and used the name Jehovah. In fact, Porchetus took the contents of his Victoria largely from Martini’s Pugio. And Scaliger proves that Galatinus took his DeArcanis bodily from Martini’s Pugio. Galatinus did not introduce the pronunciation Jehovah, but merely defended it against those who pronounced the Hebrew tetragrammaton Jova.
In 1557 Jehovah became established in John Forster’s NewHebrewDictionary, and Marcus Marinus admitted Jehova in his Lexicon ArcaNoae of 1593. Sebastian Muenster uses the name Jehova in his text of his Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1534), and in his notes on Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 he uses the name as though it were well known. Also in 1557, in bringing out Pagninus’ Latin version of the Hebrew Scriptures, Robert Stephanus used Jehova uniformly for the Hebrew tetragrammaton. In a note on Psalm 2:1 he remarked that substituting Adonai for it was to be rejected as a Jewish superstition.
Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetanus in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, of 1531, regularly used Jehova. In his translation of Genesis 2:4 he has “Jehova Elohim”; and in his note on Exodus 6:3 he says: “Jehovah the God of your fathers appeared to me (IehovaElohepatrumvestrorumvisusestmihi).” To be consistent, you should call that “shallow scholarship” on the part of your cardinal, what?
But that such “shallow scholarship” is not limited to Roman Catholic clergy of the 13th to the 16th centuries, please be apprised that in an edition of the French Catholic Bible by Abbé A. Crampon of 1905 he used Jehovah in his text; this has since been amended to read “Yahweh” according to our copy of the 1939 edition. But note also the following.
You are also doubtless acquainted with the magazine TheGrail, published in St. Meinrad, Indiana. Well, in the February, 1949, issue of this magazine appeared the article “Jona, God’s Problem Prophet” by Philip Dan Stack. In it we read: “Now the word of Jehovah came unto Jona the son of Amittay* [Footnote*: ‘All quotations from Sacred Scripture in this essay are from The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scripture, edited by The Rev. Cuthbert Lattey, S.J.; this accounts for the unusual spelling of certain proper names.’], saying, ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and denounce it; for their wickedness is come up before me.’ (Jona 1:1-2) . . . A fine chance he, an insignificant prophet from Gath-hefer, would stand in forcing penance upon the fabulous Ninevites, who did not even know his own God’s name.” From page 54 to page 58 the name Jehovah is used 30 times, twice being spelled Jahve, and the version from which it is quoting is, mind you, the Westminster Version by a Jesuit Reverend! Was that not quite “shallow scholarship” to set before Catholic readers? Does it not make you blush to be confronted with such “shallow scholarship” on the part of Roman Catholic publications and authors in this twentieth century?
The pronunciation Jahweh, usually credited to John L. Ewald of the 18th century, goes back farther, to the 16th century. Ten years before Ewald was born (1747), Jahveh was found in Eichhorn’s Simonis, the Lexicon in most general use in Germany. F. H. Gesenius adopted the pronunciation Jahveh when Ewald was still defending Jehovah.
Why, then, does the NewWorldTranslation use the name Jehovah 237 times in its main text? Is it due to “shallow scholarship”, as you insinuate? No. In the Foreword, from page 10 to page 25, the Translation Committee explains its basis for using this name so many times. In addition to the 19 Hebrew versions, it cites versions of the “New Testament” in 38 languages besides English and Hebrew where the translators use a vernacular form of the Hebrew tetragrammaton. But in its 2nd last paragraph the Translation Committee says: “While inclining to view the pronunciation ‘Yah·weh
′ ’ as the more correct way, we have retained the form ‘Jehovah’ because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.” And in its footnote a of page 36, on Matthew 1:20 where “Jehovah’s angel” appears, it says: “Jehovah’s, or, Yahweh’s.”
At the Yankee Stadium, when giving his speech introducing the NewWorldTranslation, the Society’s president said: “But, while recognizing the merits of the pronunciation ‘Yah·weh
′ ’, the translation committee has used the form ‘Jehovah’ because of its familiarity and because it preserves the four original letters of the Hebrew name. In God’s own time when He reveals the correct pronunciation of his holy name, we will gladly make the accurate correction.”—See TheWatchtower, September 15, 1950, page 317 ¶ 14.
The true scholarship behind the NewWorldTranslation will make itself known, not by the disclosure of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation to the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God’s written revelation to men. We are not troubled, therefore, by your thrust: “Albeit the identity of the translators is being withheld at their own request—they are not likely to make much impression on either Catholic or Protestant scholars. It is no wonder that the translators wish to remain unknown.” (
¶ 7)
Not praise from the scholarship of this fading world, but the true service of God and the education of the people in his Word, is what we are after. The honesty, courage and firm foundations of this translation will commend it to honest seeking hearts. Already the fact that the universally known Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society publishes this NewWorldTranslation has been more of a recommendation to lovers of God’s Word than the mere scholarship of Christendom.
We are releasing this letter for publication in TheRegister, in fair play, as our answer to your article. Regardless of whether any of the affiliates of TheRegister publish this answer in whole or not, the Watchtower magazine will gladly publish it and thus it will reach its way to the public to whom it is due.
Sincerely,
WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every kind of wicked thing against you for my sake. Rejoice and leap for joy, since your reward is great in the heavens; for in that way they persecuted the prophets prior to you.—Matt. 5:11, 12, NW.
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Thanks everyone. It was a team effort.
*Lost* We were sick also when we looked up the name Jehovah in the Strong's concordance dictionary/lexicon. There is no 'J' in ancient Hebrew, so it was Yah, which does mean God or Lord, but then 'Hovah' means 'mischief', 'ruin' or 'disaster'. So those words together actually mean Lord of Ruin or Mischief and who does that sound like?
We realized that God was not going to even listen to our prayers if we were using an invented name by a Catholic Monk. I pasted the link above from the Catholic website on the name Jehovah.
NE
-
50
What is the most damning watchtower publication?
by zound ini want to purchase a couple of vintage watchtower publications to help in my helping jw's break free.
some of the older ones are expensive or hard to come by - i know you can buy them on cd's but i'd like to own one or two of the "classics of propaganda"- some of the ones that speak for themselves as to the ridiculousness of this religion.. of course any magazine i pick up today speaks to me of the ridiculousness, but you need something much more hardcore for the jw's.. any recommendations?.
"children" has some pretty good quotes in it..
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Believe it or not, but I found a Catholic website that has most of the old Russell & Rutherfraud writings, books etc:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/jwhistory.html
This might help in arguing if the name Jehovah is correct or not. I did a scan from our Greek Diaglott 1942 edition published by the WTBT$ of Rom 10:13 [God or Jesus?] on another topic: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/251494/2/HA-Take-that-Watchtower-One-less-Borg-for-you
If you need anything else, I should be able to find it for you. Just let me know
NE
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
NWT uses the phrase at Romans 10:13 "Everyone who calls on the name Jehovah will be saved"
It is a mis-translation. As you can see above. the same Greek word is used for Jesus/Lord.
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
More info... Scan from the Greek Diaglott Published by the WTBT$ 1942 edition
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
The name 'Jehovah': http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
Strong's Concordance [Dictionary/Lexicon section] Item # 1942: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/hovah.html
The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 01943 Original Word Word Origin hwh another form for (01942) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Hovah TWOT - 483c Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ho-vaw' Noun Feminine Definition - ruin, disaster
WT 1980 2/1 pg 11-13:
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?
THE
NAME“JEHOVAH”BECOMESWIDELYKNOWN
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.
THE
TRANSLATORS’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?
RELIGIOUS
PREJUDICE?
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!
DOUBLE
STANDARD
“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”?
OTHER
TRANSLATIONS
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).
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
DOESTHISUNIQUENAMEMEAN?
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?
-
107
HA! Take that Watchtower! One less Borg for you!!!!!
by Gojira_101 inlast week a friend of mine contacted me out of the blue asking if we could have lunch together.
my friend has been studing with the jw's on and off for about 11-12 years i think.
she has told me everytime i see her that she can't wait for jehovah to end this evil world...she can't wait for the new system...the end is so close....etc.. i sent her a message back telling her that i left the jw's and asked her if she had heard that.
-
-