Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Principles of Bible Translation.

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 12:41:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Copied from NWT 2013 edition. (jw.org)
The Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Today it is available in whole or in part in about 2,600 languages. The vast majority of people who read the Bible do not understand the original languages and therefore must rely on a translation.
Some might conclude that a strict, word-for-word, interlinear style translation would enable the reader to get closest to what was expressed in the original languages. However, that is not always the case.
Consider a few of the reasons:
No two languages are exactly alike in grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. A professor of Hebrew, S. R. Driver, wrote that languages "differ not only in grammar and roots, but also . . . in the manner in which ideas are built up into a sentence." Different languages require quite different thought patterns. "Consequently," continues Professor Driver, "the forms taken by the sentence in different languages are not the same."
No modern language exactly mirrors the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so a word-for-word translation of the Bible could be unclear or at times could even convey the wrong meaning.
The meaning of a word or an expression may vary depending on the context in which it is used.
A translator may be able to mirror the literal rendering of the original language in some passages, but this must be done very carefully.
Here are some examples of how word-for-word translation can be misunderstood:
The Scriptures use the expressions "sleep" and "fall asleep" to refer both to physical sleep and to the sleep of death. (Matthew 28:13; Acts 7:60) When these expressions are used in contexts that refer to death, Bible translators can use such wording as "fall asleep in death," which helps the modern reader avoid confusion."1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 2 Peter 3:4.
The apostle Paul used an expression found at Ephesians 4:14 that can be literally translated "in the playing of dice of men." This ancient idiom alludes to the practice of cheating others when using dice. In most languages, a literal rendering of this allusion makes little sense. Translating this expression as "the trickery of men" is a clearer way to convey the meaning.
At Romans 12:11, a Greek expression is used that literally means "to the spirit boiling." This wording does not convey the intended meaning in English, so it is rendered "aglow with the spirit" in this translation.
During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used an expression that is often translated "Blessed are the poor in spirit." (Matthew 5:3, King James Version) But in many languages, a literal rendering of this expression is obscure. In some cases, a strictly literal translation could imply that "the poor in spirit" are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination. However, Jesus was here teaching people that their happiness depended, not on satisfying their physical needs, but on recognizing their need for God"s guidance. (Luke 6:20) Thus, such renderings as "those conscious of their spiritual need" or "those who know their need for God" convey more accurately the meaning of the original expression."Matthew 5:3; The New Testament in Modern English.
In many contexts, the Hebrew word translated "jealousy" corresponds to the common meaning of the English word, namely, to feel anger over the apparent unfaithfulness of a close associate or to envy others for their possessions. (Proverbs 6:34; Isaiah 11:13) However, the same Hebrew word also has a positive connotation. For example, it may be used of the "zeal," or protective ardor, that Jehovah shows for his servants or of his "requiring exclusive devotion." (Exodus 34:14; 2 Kings 19:31; Ezekiel 5:13; Zechariah 8:2) It may also be used of the "zeal" that his faithful servants have for God and his worship or of their "tolerating no rivalry" toward him."Psalm 69:9; 119:139; Numbers 25:11.
The Hebrew expression that usually refers to the human hand has a wide variety of meanings. Depending on the context, this word may be rendered "authority," "generosity," or "power." (2 Samuel 8:3; 1 Kings 10:13; Proverbs 18:21) In fact, this particular word is translated over 40 different ways in the English edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
In view of these factors, Bible translation involves more than simply rendering an original-language word with the same term each time it occurs. A translator must use good judgment in order to select words in the target language that best represent the ideas of the original-language text. In addition, there is a need to structure the sentences in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language, making the text easy to read.
At the same time, extremes in rewording the text must be avoided. A translator who liberally paraphrases the Bible according to how he interprets the overall idea could distort the meaning of the text. How so? The translator may erroneously insert his opinion of what the original text means or may omit important details contained in the original text. So while paraphrases of the Bible may be easy to read, their very freeness at times may prevent the reader from getting the true message of the text.
Doctrinal bias can easily color a translator"s work. For example, Matthew 7:13 says: "Spacious is the road leading off into destruction." Some translators, perhaps affected by doctrinal bias, have used the term "hell" rather than what the Greek term really means, namely, "destruction."
A Bible translator must also consider that the Bible was written using the common, everyday language of average people, such as farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. (Nehemiah 8:8, 12; Acts 4:13) Therefore, a good translation of the Bible makes the message it contains understandable to sincere people, regardless of their background. Clear, common, readily understood expressions are preferred over terms that are rarely used by the average person.
Quite a number of Bible translators have taken the unjustifiable liberty of omitting God"s name, Jehovah, from modern translations even though that name is found in ancient Bible manuscripts. Many translations replace the name with a title, such as "Lord," and some even obscure the fact that God has a name. For example, in some translations, Jesus" prayer recorded at John 17:26 reads: "I made you known to them," and at John 17:6, "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me." However, a faithful rendering of Jesus" prayer reads: "I have made your name known to them," and "I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me."
As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: "We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought." Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought. As a result, the Bible can be read with ease and the reader can have full confidence that its inspired message has been transmitted faithfully."1 Thessalonians 2:13.
A reliable translation must:
Sanctify God"s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures."Matthew 6:9. Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God."2 Timothy 3:16. Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text. Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning. Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading."Nehemiah 8:8, 12.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 2:01:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used an expression that is often translated "Blessed are the poor in spirit." (Matthew 5:3, King James Version) But in many languages, a literal rendering of this expression is obscure. In some cases, a strictly literal translation could imply that "the poor in spirit" are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination. However, Jesus was here teaching people that their happiness depended, not on satisfying their physical needs, but on recognizing their need for God"s guidance. (Luke 6:20) Thus, such renderings as "those conscious of their spiritual need" or "those who know their need for God" convey more accurately the meaning of the original expression."Matthew 5:3; The New Testament in Modern English."

Anna: Pfffffffft. Jesus was not teaching a principle of happiness in the first place, but he most definitely was teaching "recognizing their need for God"s guidance." That's precisely what "poor in spirit" means - and it's all it can mean.

Correct Translation: "Poor in spirit"
Correct Commentary: "Recognizing their need for God's guidance."

The same principle applies to "they that mourn" and "the meek" and all the rest. You seem to want to combine the two - and still call it a translation.

******

MCB: "Quite a number of Bible translators have taken the unjustifiable liberty of omitting God"s name, Jehovah, from modern translations even though that name is found in ancient Bible manuscripts."

Anna: Really? That is VERY misleading to the average reader. Deceptive. Deliberately deceptive. You can't point out a single instance of it - and neither can the WatchTower. If you think you can, then give the verse, the erroneous translation, and the Greek text of that verse. That's all it takes.

"For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (Rom 10: 13)

There's one for you. You'd have us think that some translator REMOVED the name.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 3:35:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 2:01:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used an expression that is often translated "Blessed are the poor in spirit." (Matthew 5:3, King James Version) But in many languages, a literal rendering of this expression is obscure. In some cases, a strictly literal translation could imply that "the poor in spirit" are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination. However, Jesus was here teaching people that their happiness depended, not on satisfying their physical needs, but on recognizing their need for God"s guidance. (Luke 6:20) Thus, such renderings as "those conscious of their spiritual need" or "those who know their need for God" convey more accurately the meaning of the original expression."Matthew 5:3; The New Testament in Modern English."

Anna: Pfffffffft. Jesus was not teaching a principle of happiness in the first place, but he most definitely was teaching "recognizing their need for God"s guidance." That's precisely what "poor in spirit" means - and it's all it can mean.

Correct Translation: "Poor in spirit"
Correct Commentary: "Recognizing their need for God's guidance."

The same principle applies to "they that mourn" and "the meek" and all the rest. You seem to want to combine the two - and still call it a translation.

Why the are they called by many the "Happinesses"? Why do so many start those "Beatitudes" with happy is....?

The soimple answer is that Christ is teaching ways to be happy.

Being aware of your spiritual need, as I am and you are not from what you ost, is definitely a cause of happiness, because those who are aware of that need ask God for help with it, get that need filled, and therefore are made happy.

Surely that is obvious even to you, who denies you spiritual need, let alone God's willingness to keep his promise and fill it.

After all, you believe you can understand scripture without the need for spirit guidance, proving you are not aware of the need despite what scripture tells us.


******

MCB: "Quite a number of Bible translators have taken the unjustifiable liberty of omitting God"s name, Jehovah, from modern translations even though that name is found in ancient Bible manuscripts."

Anna: Really? That is VERY misleading to the average reader. Deceptive. Deliberately deceptive. You can't point out a single instance of it - and neither can the WatchTower. If you think you can, then give the verse, the erroneous translation, and the Greek text of that verse. That's all it takes.

Can't you?

The divine name appears in the oldest manuscripts found. Christ used it and taught his followers to use it.


"For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (Rom 10: 13)

There's one for you. You'd have us think that some translator REMOVED the name.

How many translations have that in at that point?

I notice you have quoted the NWT version of Romans 10:13.

Where did Paul get that from?

He is actually quoting or referencing at least 2 OT scriptures:

Joel 2:32 And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling."

Zephaniah 3:9 For then I shall give to peoples the change to a pure language, in order for them all to call upon the name of Jehovah, in order to serve him shoulder to shoulder."

Both were also referenced at Acts 2:21 "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.""

No-one says that the divine name was removed entirely, just that is has been removed,and replaced with LORD. Even you cannot deny that many translations have removed it from the cast majority f places where it appears. Well, not unless you are prepared to lie through your teeth anyway,

I wonder how many translators were honest enough to use that holy name there? The ASV doesn't.

There are approximately 7,000 proven occurrences of the name, either in original scripture or in quotations of those scriptures elsewhere, usually in the NT. The only translation to be honest enough to replace that name in all those p[laces is the NWT. Even the ASV which has replaced it in many of the paces it belongs have not gone that far.

No Anna, you cannot deny that translators have been dishonest enough to remove that name, not and retain any credibility at all.

One asks the obvious question.

If they have been dishonest enough to remove God's name, and not even compromise by including the tetragrammaton where it belongs, what else have they been prepared to alter to bolster their false beliefs?

As Jesus said, as recorded at Luke 16:10 "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."

Those who have removed, or refused to give God's ma,e it's rightful place have definitely proven unfaithful in much, and so their translations can only be treated with circumspection.

Whatever else you may think of them, they are following on from Christ who said, in prayer to his father: John 17:26 And I have made your name known+ to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

Christ made his father's name known in his ministry, and Jehovah's Witnesses also do so in their ministry.,

They are the only ones doing it. The only ones telling people the name they need to call on in order to be saved. The only ones helping people to obey John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 3:44:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 12:41:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Copied from NWT 2013 edition. (jw.org)
The Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Today it is available in whole or in part in about 2,600 languages. The vast majority of people who read the Bible do not understand the original languages and therefore must rely on a translation.
...............................................................................................................................................................: Sanctify God"s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures."Matthew 6:9. Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God."2 Timothy 3:16. Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text. Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning. Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading."Nehemiah

All God needed was a sinless saint to read the prophecies for Him so He can interpret them for the saint who has to write these interpretations in his own native language to learn about His created invisible existence in God.

We saints only need to read the prophecies, not study them like sinful Christians think they have to do. Christians are sinners who are blocked from the invisible knowledge of God that we saints possess and testify to.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 5:52:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used an expression that is often translated "Blessed are the poor in spirit." (Matthew 5:3, King James Version) But in many languages, a literal rendering of this expression is obscure. In some cases, a strictly literal translation could imply that "the poor in spirit" are mentally unbalanced or lacking in vitality and determination. However, Jesus was here teaching people that their happiness depended, not on satisfying their physical needs, but on recognizing their need for God"s guidance. (Luke 6:20) Thus, such renderings as "those conscious of their spiritual need" or "those who know their need for God" convey more accurately the meaning of the original expression."Matthew 5:3; The New Testament in Modern English."

Anna: Pfffffffft. Jesus was not teaching a principle of happiness in the first place, but he most definitely was teaching "recognizing their need for God"s guidance." That's precisely what "poor in spirit" means - and it's all it can mean.

Correct Translation: "Poor in spirit"
Correct Commentary: "Recognizing their need for God's guidance."

The same principle applies to "they that mourn" and "the meek" and all the rest. You seem to want to combine the two - and still call it a translation.

MCB: Why the are they called by many the "Happinesses"?

Anna: Ignorance

MCB: Why do so many start those "Beatitudes" with happy is....?

Anna: Ignorance. In profane literature, the word is translated "happy". In sacred literature, "blessed" is almost always applied - and of all things should be applied to the Beatitudes. What kind of a statement is, "Happy are they who mourn"? - especially when one considers what the "they" were "mourning" over. That doesn't mean a person is "happy" because he mourns when his dog gets run over.

******

MCB: "The soimple answer is that Christ is teaching ways to be happy."

Anna" You mean the simple-minded answer is that Christ is teaching "ways to be happy." Although that would enter into it, distantly, Jesus Christ is not teaching principles of happiness here. He is giving gospel previews and kingdom principles. He is speaking to a representative group of people who would shortly have the opportunity to enter His kingdom; hence, he is describing the mindset of that type of person.

*****

MCB: "After all, you believe you can understand scripture without the need for spirit guidance, proving you are not aware of the need despite what scripture tells us."

Anna: You contradict yourself at every turn - and if your understanding is any indication of where the Spirit directly guides a man, then the Spirit must be pretty mixed up. Here's your view, as stated above: "Scripture tells us that we can't understand scripture unless the Spirit circumvents scripture and direct informs us of what the scripture meant." You haven't found a passage yet that teaches such a thing.

*****

The point of all the above was that "recognizing their need for God's guidance" is not a translation of anything in Matt 5. It's not even close to a translation. It should even be considered in the same thought as "translation". It is a correct commentary, I believe.

*****

MCB: "Quite a number of Bible translators have taken the unjustifiable liberty of omitting God"s name, Jehovah, from modern translations even though that name is found in ancient Bible manuscripts."

Anna: Really? That is VERY misleading to the average reader. Deceptive. Deliberately deceptive. You can't point out a single instance of it - and neither can the WatchTower. If you think you can, then give the verse, the erroneous translation, and the Greek text of that verse. That's all it takes.

MCB: Can't you? The divine name appears in the oldest manuscripts found. Christ used it and taught his followers to use it.


Anna: No, I absolutely cannot - and you can't either! I said, "If you think you can, then give the verse, the erroneous translation, and the Greek text of that verse." That's easy enough, yet you substituted your own assertion. Why hinders you from citing one of these manuscripts that you know about? I have yet to see ONE instance of the name Jehovah in any of these Greek texts. Yet you run around telling folks that the translators deliberately left it out! How could they? It's not there to start with.

******

MCB: "No-one says that the divine name was removed entirely, just that is has been removed,and replaced with LORD. Even you cannot deny that many translations have removed it from the cast majority f places where it appears. Well, not unless you are prepared to lie through your teeth anyway"

Anna: Who removed it? You imply (you actually stated, really) that those danged biased trinitarian translators removed it. Is that actually correct? I deliberately posted a passage (Rom 10: 13) that I knew was a reference to the OT. Now you claim the name "Jehovah" was removed. Who did it? When? Where is the evidence that it was ever there in a NT text?

******

MCB: "He is actually quoting or referencing at least 2 OT scriptures:

Joel 2:32 And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling."

Zephaniah 3:9 For then I shall give to peoples the change to a pure language, in order for them all to call upon the name of Jehovah, in order to serve him shoulder to shoulder."

Both were also referenced at Acts 2:21 "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved."


Anna: Really? Both were referenced? How do you know Zephaniah was referenced at all. Do you try to include it simply because it contains the phrase "call upon the name of Jehovah"?

******

MCB: "I wonder how many translators were honest enough to use that holy name there? The ASV doesn't."

Anna: The Greek text upon which the ASV was based doesn't - and you can't add it just because you decide to. Are you now at the point of saying that every Bible translation is wrong, but also every Greek text? Every manuscript?

******

MCB: "There are approximately 7,000 proven occurrences of the name, either in original scripture or in quotations of those scriptures elsewhere, usually in the NT. The only translation to be honest enough to replace that name in all those p[laces is the NWT. Even the ASV which has replaced it in many of the paces it belongs have not gone that far."

Anna: Then they did this without any Greek text at all, right?

******

MCB: "Those who have removed, or refused to give God's ma,e it's rightful place have definitely proven unfaithful in much, and so their translations can only be treated with circumspection."

Anna: So when you come to Acts 22: 16, whose name are you calling on?

"And now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name."

Of course, you aren't basing any of this switch from Lord to Jehovah based upon any Greek text or manuscript or anything else.

******

MCB: "Christ made his father's name known in his ministry, and Jehovah's Witnesses also do so in their ministry., They are the only ones doing it."

Anna: That's strange. We sang "Halleluiah, Praise Jehovah" just this last Sunday.

*****

MCB: "John 17:26 And I have made your name known to them and will make it known"

Anna: So you think Jesus came to make the name of "Jehovah" known? Those Jews to whom Jesus preached didn't know what HIS NAME was? That's not what "made your name known to them" means - and you know it. The Jews, every last one of them, already knew the name YHWH.

I bet that the Witnesses actually employ that verse on simple-minded people.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 8:09:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name "Jehovah" is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' 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."

Dr. J. B. Rotherham states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah: "Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."
Rotherham was ahead of his time, but now many current dictionaries and encyclopedias admit the name Jehovah is wrong, that it properly should read "Yahweh."

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says: "Yahweh -- the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

MCB's h-s guidance bites the dust as always!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2013 8:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Critics Speak Out

What do the critics have to say about the New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures?

Edmund C. Gruss, Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist College, offers five main criticisms of the book: 20 a) The use of paraphrasing in contradiction to the stated purpose. b) The unwarranted insertion of words not found in the Greek. Alexander Thomson makes a similar comment in a statement quoted earlier. c) Erroneous rendering of Greek words. d) Deceptive and misleading footnotes and appendix. e) Arbitrary use and misuse of capitals when dealing with the divine name. (For details of criticisms see footnote 20.) Gruss concludes that the New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures, "although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many cases, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God." 21

Ray C. Stedman (internationally known author, Bible teacher, pastor, evangelist)

"A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of Biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity." 22

Walter Martin and Norman Klann (The late Dr. Martin was a leading Christian apologist, known internationally for his studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups.)

"Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation." 23

These authors claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and, in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty.

Anthony Hoekema:

"Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." 24

Dr. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., and the author of one of the most highly regarded reference works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

F. F. Bruce: (Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis Emeritus, University of Manchester, England. He is a world renowned Biblical exegete who has issued his own translation of the New Testament, and a number of scholarly works on New Testament themes. The Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted him as an authority on the New Testament on a number of occasions.)

"Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good..." 25

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the world's leading authorities on the Greek language, and recognized as such by the Jehovah's Witnesses who quote him on occasion in a favorable way, wrote an article in 1950 pointing out the errors in many Christological passages in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 26

H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. His comments should be compared to those of Dr. Goodspeed quoted earlier.

"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God.... "...this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." 27

The comments quoted above are but a sample of the many that have been written over the years. Many more are available in reference to specific details of the translation, especially the translation "...and the Word was a god." which appears in John 1:1c in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Space precludes their inclusion in this paper.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 5:44:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 8:21:28 PM, Composer wrote:
The Critics Speak Out

What do the critics have to say about the New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures?

Edmund C. Gruss, Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist College, offers five main criticisms of the book: 20 a) The use of paraphrasing in contradiction to the stated purpose. b) The unwarranted insertion of words not found in the Greek. Alexander Thomson makes a similar comment in a statement quoted earlier. c) Erroneous rendering of Greek words. d) Deceptive and misleading footnotes and appendix. e) Arbitrary use and misuse of capitals when dealing with the divine name. (For details of criticisms see footnote 20.) Gruss concludes that the New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures, "although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many cases, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God." 21

Ray C. Stedman (internationally known author, Bible teacher, pastor, evangelist)

"A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of Biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity." 22

Walter Martin and Norman Klann (The late Dr. Martin was a leading Christian apologist, known internationally for his studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups.)

"Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation." 23

These authors claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and, in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty.

Anthony Hoekema:

"Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." 24

Dr. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., and the author of one of the most highly regarded reference works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

F. F. Bruce: (Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis Emeritus, University of Manchester, England. He is a world renowned Biblical exegete who has issued his own translation of the New Testament, and a number of scholarly works on New Testament themes. The Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted him as an authority on the New Testament on a number of occasions.)

"Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good..." 25

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the world's leading authorities on the Greek language, and recognized as such by the Jehovah's Witnesses who quote him on occasion in a favorable way, wrote an article in 1950 pointing out the errors in many Christological passages in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 26

H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. His comments should be compared to those of Dr. Goodspeed quoted earlier.

"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God.... "...this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." 27

The comments quoted above are but a sample of the many that have been written over the years. Many more are available in reference to specific details of the translation, especially the translation "...and the Word was a god." which appears in John 1:1c in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Space precludes their inclusion in this paper.

So who do you go with? the Negative commenting experts or the positive speaking ones, both of whom are equally qualified to comment.

Which ones are actually biased in their assessment?

How many are Trinitarians, who would automatically be against any non-Trinitarian translation?

We all know how bigoted Composer is, and why he has no real interest in truth unless it makes him look good.

So if you really want to know the truth, why not investigate it thoroughly for yourselves rather than taking with my word for it or his?

After all we both have a vested interest, me in making God look as good as he really is, Composer in making himself look good as his closing comments invariably show.

Both vested interests have to make what we post suspect, so please, but all means, check it out for yourself.

However you can always ask yourself one simple question.

Which is likely to be the most reliable translation,.

The one that has made a genuine effort to put God's holy name back where it belongs?

Or the many that have deliberately removed it from all bar a few places? Not even being honest enough to include the Tetragrammaton which is the Hebrew version of it.

That at least is easy enough to check out, even if all you do si Google "The Divine Name" or "Jehovah".
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:32:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 8:09:39 PM, Composer wrote:
The Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name "Jehovah" is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' 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."

Dr. J. B. Rotherham states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah: "Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."
Rotherham was ahead of his time, but now many current dictionaries and encyclopedias admit the name Jehovah is wrong, that it properly should read "Yahweh."

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says: "Yahweh -- the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

MCB's h-s guidance bites the dust as always!

Again, you display your bigotry in your wording.

No they do not acknowledge that it is improper. They accept that it is possibly not the most accurate version, but also that it is currently the most accepted version.

The arguments rage on and probably will do up to the end of this system. However they, and I, are happy with that version of the name simply because it is the one most people recognise as God's name in English.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the letters Y J and I were interchangeable in English for centuries, as were W and V, and the language had not at that time been pinned down into any form of dictionary so variation were inevitable.

However the fact that the short-form of God's name is accepted as Jah, including as parts of words such as hellelujah does tend to strengthen the case for the alternative vowel placing which would give us either Jahovah or Yahweh, depending on your preference, and it is truly a preference for J or Y and W or V.

However the divine name has "accepted" versions in many languages.

Language or Dialect: Divine Name
Aneityum: Ihova
Arawak: Jehovah
Awabakal: Yehoa
Bangi: Yawe
Batak (Toba): Jahowa
Benga: Jěhova
Bolia: Yawe
Bube: Yehovah
Bullom So: Jehovah
Ch"cobo: Jahue
Cherokee: Yihowa
Chin (Hakha): Zahova
Chippewa: Jehovah
Choctaw: Chihowa
Croatian: Jehova
Dakota: Jehowa
Dobu: Ieoba
Douala: Yehowa
Dutch: Jehovah
Efate (North): Yehova
E@257;k: Jehovah
English: Jehovah
"w": Yehowa
Fang: Jehova
Fijian: Jiova
French: IHVH
Ga: Iehowa
German: Jehovah; Jehova
Gibario (dialect of Kerewo): Iehova
Grebo: Jehova
Hawaiian: Iehova
Hebrew: יהוה
Hindustani: Yihovah
Hiri Motu: Iehova
Ho-Chunk (Winnebago): Jehowa
Ila: Yaave
Iliku (dialect of Lusengo): Yawe
Indonesian: YAHWEH
Kala Lagaw Ya: Iehovan
Kalanga: Yehova; Yahwe
Kalenjin: Jehovah
Kerewo: Iehova
Kiluba: Yehova
Kipsigis: Jehoba
Kiribati: Iehova
Kisonge: Yehowa
Korean: 2668;6840;2752;
Kosraean: Jeova
Kuanua: Ieova
Laotian: Yehowa
Lele: Jehova
Lewo: Yehova
Lingala: Yawe
Logo: Yehova
Lomongo: Yawe; Yova
Lonwolwol: Jehovah
Lugbara: Yehova
Luimbi: Yehova
Luna: Yeoba
Lunda: Yehova
Luo: Yawe
Luvale: Yehova
Malagasy: Jehovah; Iehovah
Malo: Iova
Marquesan: Iehova
Marshallese: Jeova
Maskelynes: Iova
Mende: Yewoi
Mentawai: Jehoba
Meriam: Iehoua
Misima-Paneati: Iehova
Mizo: Jehovan; Jihova"n
Mohawk: Yehovah
Mortlockese: Jioua; Jiona
Motu: Iehova
Mpongwe (dialect of Myene): Jehova
Muskogee: Cehofv
Myene: Yeova
Naga, Angami: Jihova
Naga, Konyak: Jihova
Naga, Lotha: Jihova
Naga, Mao: Jihova
Naga, Northern Rengma: Jihova
Naga, Sangtam: Jihova
Nandi: Jehova
Narrinyeri: Jehovah
Nauruan: Jehova
Navajo: Jiho"vah
Ndau: Jehova
Nembe: Jehovah
Nengone (or, Mar"): Iehova
Ngando: Yawe
Ntomba: Yawe
Nukuoro: Jehova
Polish: Jehowa
Portuguese: Iahve
Rarotongan: Jehova; Iehova
Rerep: Iova
Rotuman: Jihova
Sakao: Ihova; Iehova
Samoan: Ieova
Seneca: Ya"wĕn
Sengele: Yawe
Sesotho: Yehofa
Sie: Ieh!3;va
Spanish: Jehova; Yahve; YHWH;
Yahweh
Sranantongo: Jehova
Sukuma: Yahuwa; Jakwe
Tahitian: Iehova
Teke-Eboo: Yawe
Temne: YehM63;fa; Yehofa
Thai: Yahowa
Toaripi: Jehova; Iehova
Tongan: Jehova; Jihova; Sihova
Tswana: Jehofa; Yehova; Yehofa
Umbundu: Yehova
Uripiv: Iova
Wampanoag: Jehovah
Xhosa: Yehova
Zande: Yekova
Zulu: Jehova; YAHWE
(In addition to those on this list, a number of languages and dialects use a form of the divine name in footnotes or in explanatory text.)

Sorry, debates over which version of the divine name to use are far less important than actually using it in the first place, whatever format you use, and again you display your determination to be right whatever, even when you aren't.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:45:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 5:52:55 PM, annanicole wrote:

Anna: So you think Jesus came to make the name of "Jehovah" known? Those Jews to whom Jesus preached didn't know what HIS NAME was? That's not what "made your name known to them" means - and you know it. The Jews, every last one of them, already knew the name YHWH.

I bet that the Witnesses actually employ that verse on simple-minded people.

Then you bear false witness.

The divine name has been in scripture for as long as there has been scripture, so yes they knew it well enough.

They had forgotten how to pronounce it due to a pagan superstition against doing so, but do you think for one minute that Jesus didn't know?

Yes God's name is in Hebrew YHWH, and the vowels used are still in dispute to this day, but the most widely accepted version in English is Jehovah.

Here I am going to be lazy and copy and paste part of my previous post on this thread.

"Part of the problem stems from the fact that the letters Y J and I were interchangeable in English for centuries, as were W and V, and the language had not at that time been pinned down into any form of dictionary so variation were inevitable.

However the fact that the short-form of God's name is accepted as Jah, including as parts of words such as hellelujah does tend to strengthen the case for the alternative vowel placing which would give us either Jahovah or Yahweh, depending on your preference, and it is truly a preference for J or Y and W or V.

However the divine name has "accepted" versions in many languages.

Language or Dialect: Divine Name
Aneityum: Ihova
Arawak: Jehovah
Awabakal: Yehoa
Bangi: Yawe
Batak (Toba): Jahowa
Benga: Jěhova
Bolia: Yawe
Bube: Yehovah
Bullom So: Jehovah
Ch"cobo: Jahue
Cherokee: Yihowa
Chin (Hakha): Zahova
Chippewa: Jehovah
Choctaw: Chihowa
Croatian: Jehova
Dakota: Jehowa
Dobu: Ieoba
Douala: Yehowa
Dutch: Jehovah
Efate (North): Yehova
E@257;k: Jehovah
English: Jehovah
"w": Yehowa
Fang: Jehova
Fijian: Jiova
French: IHVH
Ga: Iehowa
German: Jehovah; Jehova
Gibario (dialect of Kerewo): Iehova
Grebo: Jehova
Hawaiian: Iehova
Hebrew: יהוה
Hindustani: Yihovah
Hiri Motu: Iehova
Ho-Chunk (Winnebago): Jehowa
Ila: Yaave
Iliku (dialect of Lusengo): Yawe
Indonesian: YAHWEH
Kala Lagaw Ya: Iehovan
Kalanga: Yehova; Yahwe
Kalenjin: Jehovah
Kerewo: Iehova
Kiluba: Yehova
Kipsigis: Jehoba
Kiribati: Iehova
Kisonge: Yehowa
Korean: 2668;6840;2752;
Kosraean: Jeova
Kuanua: Ieova
Laotian: Yehowa
Lele: Jehova
Lewo: Yehova
Lingala: Yawe
Logo: Yehova
Lomongo: Yawe; Yova
Lonwolwol: Jehovah
Lugbara: Yehova
Luimbi: Yehova
Luna: Yeoba
Lunda: Yehova
Luo: Yawe
Luvale: Yehova
Malagasy: Jehovah; Iehovah
Malo: Iova
Marquesan: Iehova
Marshallese: Jeova
Maskelynes: Iova
Mende: Yewoi
Mentawai: Jehoba
Meriam: Iehoua
Misima-Paneati: Iehova
Mizo: Jehovan; Jihova"n
Mohawk: Yehovah
Mortlockese: Jioua; Jiona
Motu: Iehova
Mpongwe (dialect of Myene): Jehova
Muskogee: Cehofv
Myene: Yeova
Naga, Angami: Jihova
Naga, Konyak: Jihova
Naga, Lotha: Jihova
Naga, Mao: Jihova
Naga, Northern Rengma: Jihova
Naga, Sangtam: Jihova
Nandi: Jehova
Narrinyeri: Jehovah
Nauruan: Jehova
Navajo: Jiho"vah
Ndau: Jehova
Nembe: Jehovah
Nengone (or, Mar"): Iehova
Ngando: Yawe
Ntomba: Yawe
Nukuoro: Jehova
Polish: Jehowa
Portuguese: Iahve
Rarotongan: Jehova; Iehova
Rerep: Iova
Rotuman: Jihova
Sakao: Ihova; Iehova
Samoan: Ieova
Seneca: Ya"wĕn
Sengele: Yawe
Sesotho: Yehofa
Sie: Ieh!3;va
Spanish: Jehova; Yahve; YHWH;
Yahweh
Sranantongo: Jehova
Sukuma: Yahuwa; Jakwe
Tahitian: Iehova
Teke-Eboo: Yawe
Temne: YehM63;fa; Yehofa
Thai: Yahowa
Toaripi: Jehova; Iehova
Tongan: Jehova; Jihova; Sihova
Tswana: Jehofa; Yehova; Yehofa
Umbundu: Yehova
Uripiv: Iova
Wampanoag: Jehovah
Xhosa: Yehova
Zande: Yekova
Zulu: Jehova; YAHWE
(In addition to those on this list, a number of languages and dialects use a form of the divine name in footnotes or in explanatory text.)

Sorry, debates over which version of the divine name to use are far less important than actually using it in the first place, whatever format you use, and again you display your determination to be right whatever, even when you aren't."

Sorry Anna, but once again you are indulging in a pointless argument over words which is aimed at the gullible who listen to you, just as you accuse JWs of doing.

However, as to your point on the simple minded:

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification+ and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah."

In fact a number of Jehovah's Witness are amongst the "not many" that Paul refers to, and some are of higher linguistic ability that you for sure.

You seem to assume that all are idiots like me, but that is not true, there are many far more learned and wise than I in the organisation. One of the Elders in a Congregation I attended previously had given up an extremely well paid job working on the design and installation of electronic systems in nuclear submarines in order to qualify as a JW. No job for the simple minded that.

Again you insult the intelligence not only of JWs, but of your readers also.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:48:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/9/2013 3:44:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/9/2013 12:41:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Copied from NWT 2013 edition. (jw.org)
The Bible was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Today it is available in whole or in part in about 2,600 languages. The vast majority of people who read the Bible do not understand the original languages and therefore must rely on a translation.
...............................................................................................................................................................: Sanctify God"s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures."Matthew 6:9. Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God."2 Timothy 3:16. Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text. Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning. Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading."Nehemiah

All God needed was a sinless saint to read the prophecies for Him so He can interpret them for the saint who has to write these interpretations in his own native language to learn about His created invisible existence in God.

We saints only need to read the prophecies, not study them like sinful Christians think they have to do. Christians are sinners who are blocked from the invisible knowledge of God that we saints possess and testify to.

On teh contrary, God would not look for a sinless saint, because no such one exists or can exist as long as we are all human.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: "He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 1:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: So you think Jesus came to make the name of "Jehovah" known? Those Jews to whom Jesus preached didn't know what HIS NAME was? That's not what "made your name known to them" means - and you know it. The Jews, every last one of them, already knew the name YHWH.

I bet that the Witnesses actually employ that verse on simple-minded people.

MCB: Then you bear false witness.

The divine name has been in scripture for as long as there has been scripture, so yes they knew it well enough.

They had forgotten how to pronounce it due to a pagan superstition against doing so, but do you think for one minute that Jesus didn't know?

Anna: Let me get this straight. You think that the reason - or one reason - that the Messiah came on the scene was to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of Jehovah? If so, do you have any concrete proof?

Yes God's name is in Hebrew YHWH, and the vowels used are still in dispute to this day, but the most widely accepted version in English is Jehovah.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 2:21:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 1:59:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: So you think Jesus came to make the name of "Jehovah" known? Those Jews to whom Jesus preached didn't know what HIS NAME was? That's not what "made your name known to them" means - and you know it. The Jews, every last one of them, already knew the name YHWH.

I bet that the Witnesses actually employ that verse on simple-minded people.

MCB: Then you bear false witness.

The divine name has been in scripture for as long as there has been scripture, so yes they knew it well enough.

They had forgotten how to pronounce it due to a pagan superstition against doing so, but do you think for one minute that Jesus didn't know?

Anna: Let me get this straight. You think that the reason - or one reason - that the Messiah came on the scene was to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of Jehovah? If so, do you have any concrete proof?

Yes God's name is in Hebrew YHWH, and the vowels used are still in dispute to this day, but the most widely accepted version in English is Jehovah.

Yes they knew how it was written in Hebrew but due to a Pagan superstition the pronunciation of it was lost until Jesus became the Christ and started to spread.

Unfortunately, thanks to Apostate Christianity it once again went into disuse.

So, no Satan through Apostates such as you have made sure that there is no concrete proof, other than Jesus own words that eh came to make God's name known, not his reputation, since the Jews also knew that well enough since thy had the scriptural record of what he had done for them in the past.

That being the case, the pronunciation of the name could be the only way Jesus had to "make you name known".

Since Satan had arranged to have it forgotten by the Jews it should not be surprising that he did the same with Apostate Christianity, which, as has always been his way, he attacked when it was at it's weakest, as soon as the last of the Apostles died out.

But then of course you underestimate the power of Satan as badly as you do the power of God to protect his people from Satan's attacks and re-create the unity that first century Christians enjoyed. Through his son he has done just that amongst his son's chosen people, Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course it was necessary to remove as many as possible from Apostate Christianity since Satan has a far too strong a strangle hold on the whole of so called Christianity
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 2:52:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: So you think Jesus came to make the name of "Jehovah" known? Those Jews to whom Jesus preached didn't know what HIS NAME was? That's not what "made your name known to them" means - and you know it. The Jews, every last one of them, already knew the name YHWH.

I bet that the Witnesses actually employ that verse on simple-minded people.

MCB: Then you bear false witness.

The divine name has been in scripture for as long as there has been scripture, so yes they knew it well enough.

They had forgotten how to pronounce it due to a pagan superstition against doing so, but do you think for one minute that Jesus didn't know?

Anna: Let me get this straight. You think that the reason - or one reason - that the Messiah came on the scene was to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of Jehovah? If so, do you have any concrete proof?


MCB: "So, no Satan through Apostates such as you have made sure that there is no concrete proof, other than Jesus own words that eh came to make God's name known, not his reputation, since the Jews also knew that well enough since thy had the scriptural record of what he had done for them in the past."

And more:

MCB: That being the case, the pronunciation of the name could be the only way Jesus had to "make you name known".

Anna: How about, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

How about the fact that the word onoma covers "used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. " No, it doesn't simply mean "reputation" - although if it did, you couldn't prove otherwise. It means much more than that. "Making thy name known" means reveals in full the formerly unknown or unrealized attributes, true character, essence, the fulness of His personality. That's what "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" means.

Your explanation that the Jews had merely forgotten how to pronounce the name is far too trite, too simple-minded, and too unprovable.

John said, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.

******

MCB: "Since Satan had arranged to have it forgotten by the Jews it should not be surprising that he did the same with Apostate Christianity, which, as has always been his way, he attacked when it was at it's weakest, as soon as the last of the Apostles died out."

Anna: You have no proof that Satan "arranged" to have the pronunciation of the name of God forgotten. None whatsoever.

MCB: "But then of course you underestimate the power of Satan"

Anna: Nahhhh, but I do not underestimate the breadth of your imagination. You see entire concepts that are not even there.

Interspersed throughout your post are the usual references to "apostate"-this and "apostate"-that. I didn't bother replying to those references.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 5:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 2:52:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: So you think Jesus came to make the name of "Jehovah" known? Those Jews to whom Jesus preached didn't know what HIS NAME was? That's not what "made your name known to them" means - and you know it. The Jews, every last one of them, already knew the name YHWH.

I bet that the Witnesses actually employ that verse on simple-minded people.

MCB: Then you bear false witness.

The divine name has been in scripture for as long as there has been scripture, so yes they knew it well enough.

They had forgotten how to pronounce it due to a pagan superstition against doing so, but do you think for one minute that Jesus didn't know?

Anna: Let me get this straight. You think that the reason - or one reason - that the Messiah came on the scene was to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of Jehovah? If so, do you have any concrete proof?


MCB: "So, no Satan through Apostates such as you have made sure that there is no concrete proof, other than Jesus own words that eh came to make God's name known, not his reputation, since the Jews also knew that well enough since thy had the scriptural record of what he had done for them in the past."

And more:

MCB: That being the case, the pronunciation of the name could be the only way Jesus had to "make you name known".

Anna: How about, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

How about the fact that the word onoma covers "used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. " No, it doesn't simply mean "reputation" - although if it did, you couldn't prove otherwise. It means much more than that. "Making thy name known" means reveals in full the formerly unknown or unrealized attributes, true character, essence, the fulness of His personality. That's what "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" means.

Your explanation that the Jews had merely forgotten how to pronounce the name is far too trite, too simple-minded, and too unprovable.

John said, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.

******

MCB: "Since Satan had arranged to have it forgotten by the Jews it should not be surprising that he did the same with Apostate Christianity, which, as has always been his way, he attacked when it was at it's weakest, as soon as the last of the Apostles died out."

Anna: You have no proof that Satan "arranged" to have the pronunciation of the name of God forgotten. None whatsoever.

MCB: "But then of course you underestimate the power of Satan"

Anna: Nahhhh, but I do not underestimate the breadth of your imagination. You see entire concepts that are not even there.

Interspersed throughout your post are the usual references to "apostate"-this and "apostate"-that. I didn't bother replying to those references.

No, you over-estimate that because I have never had much imagination, which is why I have always been relatively fearless. not brave, just incapable of imagining things going wrong.

That is why, as a disabled 64 (65 in January) old disabled man I still ride a motorcycle capable of 180 mph and 0-60 in 3.3 seconds.

Don't get me wrong. I know things can go wrong and ride accordingly, but I can't imagine it actually happening.

No, imagination has never been one of my abilities.

I understand what I do only because of the power and wisdom given me through holy spirit, as promised at James 1:5-8. The very power and wisdom you deny because you don;t get it and are jealous of it.

After all, in your opinion, if someone like you doesn't get it no-one does. Except that they do, and I am one. you don;t have the needed humility to qualify. Even if you got it you would claim the wisdom to be yours.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "I understand what I do only because of the power and wisdom given me through holy spirit, as promised at James 1:5-8. The very power and wisdom you deny because you don;t get it and are jealous of it."

Anna: Sir, if you think "jealousy" is my emotional response to a man who thinks that Jesus came into the world, for one thing, in order to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of God - well ..... I am pretty sure "jealousy" doesn't describe it.

That's your conclusion based upon,

"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world" (John 17)

You read that verse and say, "Jesus taught them how to correctly pronounce God's name"

Ummm .... you think that evokes jealousy? Try "pity".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 6:54:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 6:00:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "I understand what I do only because of the power and wisdom given me through holy spirit, as promised at James 1:5-8. The very power and wisdom you deny because you don;t get it and are jealous of it."

Anna: Sir, if you think "jealousy" is my emotional response to a man who thinks that Jesus came into the world, for one thing, in order to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of God - well ..... I am pretty sure "jealousy" doesn't describe it.

That's your conclusion based upon,

"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world" (John 17)

You read that verse and say, "Jesus taught them how to correctly pronounce God's name"

Ummm .... you think that evokes jealousy? Try "pity".

I have never said that was all he came to accomplish, it was but a part of the overall ministry and not at all connected with the sacrifice he was to perform at the end of that ministry.

Of course he reminded them how to pronounce it, that is all there was for him t teach in that sense.

Your argumentation gets ever more hollow, and seems to rely ever more on distorting things I have said.

In fact it is slowly becoming clear that half truths and lies, deliberate or not, are your stock in trade.

No Anna I do not have an imagination, however I do have the ability to "reason from the scriptures" as did Paul and the other Apostles, and I have that ability purely because of the wisdom God provides through his son and holy spirit, it is none of my doing.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 7:23:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: "I have never said that was all he came to accomplish, it was but a part of the overall ministry and not at all connected with the sacrifice he was to perform at the end of that ministry."

Anna: And I was always careful to point out that you postulate that it was a PART of the reason:

Here is an example:

Sir, if you think "jealousy" is my emotional response to a man who thinks that Jesus came into the world, for one thing, in order to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of God

and yet another,

Let me get this straight. You think that the reason - or one reason - that the Messiah came on the scene was to teach the Jews how to correctly pronounce the name of Jehovah? If so, do you have any concrete proof?

Thus, your statement, "I have never said that was all he came to accomplish" is a bit gratiutous, since nobody implied that you DID say that.

*******

MCB: "Of course he reminded them how to pronounce it, that is all there was for him t teach in that sense."

Anna: There is no evidence at all that John the Baptist, for instance, did not know how to pronounce it. Nor is there any evidence that Jesus had to teach them HOW to correctly pronounce it.

*******

MCB: "Your argumentation gets ever more hollow, and seems to rely ever more on distorting things I have said."

Anna: LMAO. I didn't distort anything. Heck, I don't need to.

*******

THIS is what you never answered, preferring instead to simply concentrate on "all of His mission" versus "part of His mission" - when nobody ever accused you of anything different.

MCB: That being the case, the pronunciation of the name could be the only way Jesus had to "make you name known".

Anna: How about, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

How about the fact that the word onoma covers "used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. " No, it doesn't simply mean "reputation" - although if it did, you couldn't prove otherwise. It means much more than that. "Making thy name known" means reveals in full the formerly unknown or unrealized attributes, true character, essence, the fulness of His personality. That's what "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" means.

Your explanation that the Jews had merely forgotten how to pronounce the name is far too trite, too simple-minded, and too unprovable.

John said, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.


That's what you never answered. Where in the world did you come up with this business that the Jews had forgotten how to pronounce the name? Did John the Baptist not know how to pronounce the name?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 10:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 5:44:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However you can always ask yourself one simple question.

Which is likely to be the most reliable translation,.

The one that has made a genuine effort to put God's holy name back where it belongs?

Or the many that have deliberately removed it from all bar a few places? Not even being honest enough to include the Tetragrammaton which is the Hebrew version of it.

That at least is easy enough to check out, even if all you do si Google "The Divine Name" or "Jehovah".
You have previously been shown the following that regarding this mythical being, even the J.ws themselves admit the term Jehovah is IMPROPER & INFERIOR to YHWH pron. Yahweh -

The Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name "Jehovah" is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' 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."

Dr. J. B. Rotherham states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah: "Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."
Rotherham was ahead of his time, but now many current dictionaries and encyclopedias admit the name Jehovah is wrong, that it properly should read "Yahweh."

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says: "Yahweh -- the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

Your magnificent (yet profoundly modest) vindicated mentor & Saviour extraordinaire moi!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 4:13:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 10:06:40 PM, Composer wrote:
At 10/10/2013 5:44:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However you can always ask yourself one simple question.

Which is likely to be the most reliable translation,.

The one that has made a genuine effort to put God's holy name back where it belongs?

Or the many that have deliberately removed it from all bar a few places? Not even being honest enough to include the Tetragrammaton which is the Hebrew version of it.

That at least is easy enough to check out, even if all you do si Google "The Divine Name" or "Jehovah".
You have previously been shown the following that regarding this mythical being, even the J.ws themselves admit the term Jehovah is IMPROPER & INFERIOR to YHWH pron. Yahweh -

The Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name "Jehovah" is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission:

"While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' 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."

Dr. J. B. Rotherham states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah: "Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."
Rotherham was ahead of his time, but now many current dictionaries and encyclopedias admit the name Jehovah is wrong, that it properly should read "Yahweh."

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says: "Yahweh -- the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

Your magnificent (yet profoundly modest) vindicated mentor & Saviour extraordinaire moi!

Modest, lol, you, lol. That's a laugh.

I have never denied the above, but as I say, it is now the most widely accepted English translation. Language is often a process of acceptance, that is how language changes, and if it were not we would no doubt still be speaking Chaucer's English, which is now very difficult to understand.

Therefore since" Jehovah" is widely accepted it is, by custom and usage, the "correct" English version whatever the arguments against it.

In your dogmatic unreasoning way you are really a good at making a fool of yourself.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 4:14:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 7:26:18 PM, stubs wrote:
Soooo what was the point of your post?

In Anna's case self-aggrandisement.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 5:15:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
MCB: That being the case, the pronunciation of the name could be the only way Jesus had to "make you name known".

Anna: How about, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

How about the fact that the word onoma covers "used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. " No, it doesn't simply mean "reputation" - although if it did, you couldn't prove otherwise. It means much more than that. "Making thy name known" means reveals in full the formerly unknown or unrealized attributes, true character, essence, the fulness of His personality. That's what "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" means.

Your explanation that the Jews had merely forgotten how to pronounce the name is far too trite, too simple-minded, and too unprovable.

John said, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.

That's what you never answered. Where in the world did you come up with this business that the Jews had forgotten how to pronounce the name? Did John the Baptist not know how to pronounce the name?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 12:07:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 5:15:11 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: That being the case, the pronunciation of the name could be the only way Jesus had to "make you name known".

Anna: How about, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

Well he was after all the image of the invisible god, and sine he imitated his father in every way then anyone seeing him has in effect seen the father.

Again your uni-directional reasoning lets you down.


How about the fact that the word onoma covers "used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. " No, it doesn't simply mean "reputation" - although if it did, you couldn't prove otherwise. It means much more than that. "Making thy name known" means reveals in full the formerly unknown or unrealized attributes, true character, essence, the fulness of His personality. That's what "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" means.

Your explanation that the Jews had merely forgotten how to pronounce the name is far too trite, too simple-minded, and too unprovable.

The superstition that stopped them using it make it rather obvious though. Since Hebrew has no vowels if they don;t use it they lose it. Simple as.

What's wrong with the truth being simple? when dealing with God it generally is.


John said, "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

So? Your reasoning is? No-one has argued against that. All first century Christians, and Jehovah's Witnesses, being part of Spiritual Israel are in a spiritual sense children of Abraham.


Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.

No, John would not have said Jehovah because he didn't speak English.

And as I said before, since the 1st century Satan has worked very hared at getting the pronunciation of God's name buried again, even down to getting men to remove it from much of scripture. However the Apostles would have used the correct pronunciation where it appeared in the scriptures they quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures at the very least.

I know for a fact that Matthew included the tetragrammaton in many places in the original, Hebrew version of his Gospel, simply because I have seen it there when I had a copy of a Hebrew / English translation, which, as with so many things I bought from a second-hand bookshop in Bristol. Though being the only one originally written in Hebrew it was the only one with the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew pages.


That's what you never answered. Where in the world did you come up with this business that the Jews had forgotten how to pronounce the name? Did John the Baptist not know how to pronounce the name?

http://www.chabad.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.jewfaq.org...

I take it you have never watched "The Life of Brian" then, they make quite a big thing of the Jewish view that to pronounce the divine name, or speak it aloud, was regarded as blasphemy, one of the many aspects of 1st century Judaism that they mock in that film.

Are you really not capable of doing your own research? Or is it just that you are so arrogant you don;t feel the need to do any?

Whatever the reason you seem intent on me researching even the most obvious and best known things.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 12:34:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.

MCB: No, John would not have said Jehovah because he didn't speak English.

Anna: You know precisely what I meant. Whatever name John used, your position is that he did not correctly pronounce it.

I'll ask it this way: Did John the Baptist pronounce the name of God correctly when the Holy Spirit inspired him to make this announcement:

"We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Did he or not?

**********

MCB: "And as I said before, since the 1st century Satan has worked very hared at getting the pronunciation of God's name buried again, even down to getting men to remove it from much of scripture. "

Anna: Buried again? When did he remove it the first time?

*********

MCB: "I know for a fact that Matthew included the tetragrammaton in many places in the original, Hebrew version of his Gospel, simply because I have seen it there when I had a copy of a Hebrew / English translation"

Anna: I didn't realize that we had any original Hebrew texts of the NT. Where might I view one of these online?

*********

MCB: "Are you really not capable of doing your own research? Or is it just that you are so arrogant you don;t feel the need to do any?"

Anna: LMAO. Not a single of those sources even hints at your position.

********

MCB: "Whatever the reason you seem intent on me researching even the most obvious and best known things."

Anna: I didn't ask you to research anything. I asked you if John the Baptist, when he was inspired to say, ""We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" mispronounced the name.

Did he or not? He was Jew. He was talking to Jews. He was inspired by God. According to your theories, John said this before the "perfect human" Jesus even became the Messiah. So tell us if John pronounced it correctly.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 3:32:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 12:34:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: Your position is that John said the word "Jehovah", but did not correctly pronounce it! How silly can you get? But part of the mission of Jesus, according to you, was to fix that problem - to get them to pronounce the name correctly.

MCB: No, John would not have said Jehovah because he didn't speak English.

Anna: You know precisely what I meant. Whatever name John used, your position is that he did not correctly pronounce it.

I'll ask it this way: Did John the Baptist pronounce the name of God correctly when the Holy Spirit inspired him to make this announcement:

"We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Did he or not?

**********

MCB: "And as I said before, since the 1st century Satan has worked very hared at getting the pronunciation of God's name buried again, even down to getting men to remove it from much of scripture. "

Anna: Buried again? When did he remove it the first time?

*********

MCB: "I know for a fact that Matthew included the tetragrammaton in many places in the original, Hebrew version of his Gospel, simply because I have seen it there when I had a copy of a Hebrew / English translation"

Anna: I didn't realize that we had any original Hebrew texts of the NT. Where might I view one of these online?

*********

MCB: "Are you really not capable of doing your own research? Or is it just that you are so arrogant you don;t feel the need to do any?"

Anna: LMAO. Not a single of those sources even hints at your position.

********

MCB: "Whatever the reason you seem intent on me researching even the most obvious and best known things."

Anna: I didn't ask you to research anything. I asked you if John the Baptist, when he was inspired to say, ""We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" mispronounced the name.

Did he or not? He was Jew. He was talking to Jews. He was inspired by God. According to your theories, John said this before the "perfect human" Jesus even became the Messiah. So tell us if John pronounced it correctly.

Yes they do, in varying degrees.

Don't forget that John the Baptiser was a man filled with the spirit, so there is no reason why he would not.

And it is not my theory it si plain as day if you stop top think about it, and it is the only think that fits in with both God's personality and the circumstances.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 6:22:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: "I'll ask it this way: Did John the Baptist pronounce the name of God correctly when the Holy Spirit inspired him to make this announcement:

"We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Did he or not?

I didn't ask you to research anything. I asked you if John the Baptist, when he was inspired to say, ""We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" mispronounced the name.

Did he or not? He was Jew. He was talking to Jews. He was inspired by God. According to your theories, John said this before the "perfect human" Jesus even became the Messiah. So tell us if John pronounced it correctly.


MCB: Yes they do, in varying degrees.

Anna: Yes, they do ... what? in varying degrees of what?

MCB: "Don't forget that John the Baptiser was a man filled with the spirit, so there is no reason why he would not."

Anna: Why he would not what?

MCB: "And it is not my theory it si plain as day if you stop top think about it, and it is the only think that fits in with both God's personality and the circumstances.'

Anna: It sounds as if you think that part of the mission of Jesus was to teach the Jews how to say the name of God correctly - yet you are saying that John already taught them before Jesus did. John preached to thousands and thousands of Jews, and they certainly thought John was a messenger sent from God. I presume that the name of God would come up every time he preached. If so, I presume he pronounced it correctly. If so, many of the people to whom Jesus preached already knew how to pronounce the name - if they had ever forgotten.

I see no scriptural proof, however, that the Jews could not pronounce the name. I asked for your passages on that point, and haven't seen any.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 10:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The correct name of Story book god of the Jews is ' YHWH ' (pronounced Yahweh)

It does not need translating to Jehovah, which even the J.ws agree is improper!

Simply transfer the accurate name YHWH and all is well in Story book land!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 3:22:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 10:24:53 PM, Composer wrote:
The correct name of Story book god of the Jews is ' YHWH ' (pronounced Yahweh)

It does not need translating to Jehovah, which even the J.ws agree is improper!

Simply transfer the accurate name YHWH and all is well in Story book land!

I promise I've never heard the one about "the Jews forgot how to pronounce the name of God, and one aspect of Christ's mission was to remind them or re-teach them." That's a new one on me.

Out of curiosity, MCB, why don't y'all at least call yourselves "YHWH's Witnesses"? Either way, somebody made the name up, but it seems that the latter would be more accurate.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."