Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 90982 | ||
Hi Elder, I notice you wrote this back in December, nonetheless, I will simply say that Matthew 4:10 are Jesus' own words that answer your question. Note he is quoting Deut 6:13 which uses "Jehovah". But many Bibles have changed the original to say "Lord". This leads to confusion. But many other Bibles do use Jehovah and in them they say,‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." Hope this answers your question. Truthfinder |
||||||
2 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 91005 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Long time, no see my friend! You wrote that many Bibles have changed 'Jehovah' to 'Lord', yet that is exactly what Jesus did in Matt. 4:10 - He used the word 'Lord' instead of Jehovah. So, why is it a problem to translate Jehovah as Lord? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91020 | ||
Hi Tim, We have manuscript proof that "scribes" NOT Jesus changed the originals again and again of the Hebrew yhvh of the Hebrew texts in their translation of the LXX. They even give their reasons. After Matthew (not Jesus) wrote Jesus' words of Matt. 4:10 there is abosolutely no reason for them to suddenly (still after Jesus time) stop their tradition of substituting Lord for the yhvh in their Greek LXX (of the Greek texts) written after Matthew wrote it. We have many many Hebrew manuscripts of the Greek texts though, that have the yhvh but unfortionately no originals. Remember too, that Matthew wrote his book originally in Hebrew. I contend that Jesus used the LXX before it was changed by the scribes. And since we lack the "originals", evidence points stronger toward Jesus' not following the errors of the Jewish tradition and you cannot conclusively say Tim, that Jesus did not use his Father's name on occassion, especially when he "quoted" the Hebrew texts (whether the LXX or Hebrew writtings) that used it. It's interesting that most of the LXX manuscripts, before they were changed kept the Hebrew letters for the yhvh, yet one discovery, (the 4Q LXX Lev(b) ) presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p 157, shows that the yhvh was translated also as IAO. Truthfinder |
||||||
4 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 91047 | ||
Greetings Truthfinder! Everything you just wrote is pure speculation my friend. Every copy we have of Matthew, and the rest of the New Testament, is in Greek. Every time YHWH was used in the Old Testament, the New Testament translates it into Greek as 'kurios'. We can speculate what they may have done in the LXX. We can speculate what Jesus may have said originally. We can speculate what Matthew may have been originally. But, the fact remains, all of the Greek manuscripts use 'kurios' for YHWH. So, I will continue to believe that YHWH is simply the Hebrew word, and that we are under no obligation to use the Hebrew word in an English, Greek, or any other translation - any more that we are required to use 'Iysous' for Jesus. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Truthfinder | 91169 | ||
Hi Tim, You say I speculate? Quite the contrary. It is and I say sadly, modern scholars, in their quest for the “real” Jesus, that have hidden his true identity behind layers of baseless speculation, pointless doubts, and unfounded theorizing. Should God allow the evidence to be so dubious, equivocal and ambiguous as to make any deductions regarding his name mere speculation? I think not! First of all, unlike the thinking of many that post here, the theme of the 66 Bible books, is the vindication of Jehovah’s name and sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his kingdom under Christ, the promised “Seed”. Christ’s perfectly fulfilling the reason for being sent here was paramount in the success of this issue settlement. And during his 3 and a half years of preaching how did he show us what his primary purpose was? In his model prayer of Matthew 6:9 his initial words concentrated on the prime issue of vindicating Jehovah’s name and his sovereignty (right to rule), where he says, “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” We notice the two things of utmost importance to Jesus, since it was first mentioned and it was the “model” prayer. 1) God’s “name” to be sanctified and 2) the kingdom rule. Because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar. Proverbs 27:11 can be applied at least in principle if not wholly as Jehovah’s words to his Son Jesus, “Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him that is taunting me.” I adamantly believe that the most wicked Adversary, Satan the Devil, caused men and angels (or demons) to join his opposition to God and man. Satan first showed his opposition in the garden of Eden, where, through cruel and underhanded action, he led Eve and then Adam into a course of rebellion that brought sin and death upon all mankind. In the courts of heaven Satan displayed his antagonism, charging Jehovah with bribing Job for his loyalty, a charge which became this issue of universal importance. Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5. The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times known as the Tetragrammaton. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Chicago (1980), p. 13, says: “To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word ´adona(y) for the proper name itself. This was the error ridden tradition that Jesus would have no part in, Tim. Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels e and a to remind the reader to pronounce ´adona(y) regardless of the consonants. This feature alone occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests its importance to the Bible’s author, whose name it is. (1st of 2 parts) Truthfinder |
||||||
6 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 91196 | ||
'Consider this statement from the "Principles of Translation" of the NASB: '"In the Scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus, the most common name for Deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letter YHWH (Exodus 3;14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it was consistently pronounced and translated Lord. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated God in order to avoid confusion. '"It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh; however, no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation." 'The WBTS has criticized this practice as indicative of Jewish and Christian attempts to obscure the sacred name of Jehovah God from its people. They argue that it demonstrates the satanic nature of modern religious practice. 'Granted, some Christian scholars acknowledge that the use of LORD instead of the sacred name is unwarranted and that perhaps Yahweh or Jehovah should be the standard English transliteration. That being said, the WBTS contention that the Tetragrammaton is somehow the exclusive sacred name of God is also unwarranted. In fact, in the Old Testament, several other common names for God are utilized in Hebrew including Elohim (a generic word for God); El (a shorter form of Elohim); and other combinations of terms such as El-Elyon (God Most High) and El-Shaddai (God Almighty).' ____________________(http://www.namb.net/root/resources/beliefbulletins/cults/new_world_translation.asp) |
||||||
7 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 91206 | ||
Greetings Radioman2! Excellent post my friend! It is important that people understand this issue. Our English is a translation of the Hebrew, not a transliteration. A transliteration simply puts the equivalent letters from the receptor language which conform with the source language. While a translation translates the 'meaning' of the term into the receptor language. For example, 'bread' in Greek is transliterated as 'artos'. So, a transliteration of the Greek word for bread, would simply write 'artos' everywhere 'bread' occurs. But, of what value is this to the one reading the English? English readers don't know what 'artos' means. This is exactly what happened in the Greek New Testament. The inspired authors always translated 'YHWH' as 'kurios'. The JW's propose all kinds of speculation about the practices of the 1st century Jews, and about the practices of the LXX, but none of this has any meaning as far as the New Testament is concerned. Every single Greek manuscript translates 'YHWH' as 'kurios' or 'Lord'. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot translate 'YHWH' into English as Lord as well. The JW's try to make this practice into some kind of conspiracy. Yet, we have the Hebrew manuscripts. We have Strong's concordance. We have countless commentaries, all of which tell us that the Hebrew word was 'YHWH'. But, our English Bible is not written in Hebrew. ;-) Neither was the Greek New Testament written in Hebrew. The translators of the Bible have simply done the exact same thing that the New Testament writers did when they 'translated' 'YHWH' as 'kurios'. I know that you already know this my friend, but I just wanted to make sure that the rest of the forum was aware of this. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Pastor Glenn | 91215 | ||
Tim, I wanted to add to what Radioman and yourself said, the focus on "Jehovah" is totally misplaced emphasis. The scriptures already have the emphasis on the name of the Son! You said: "The JW's try to make this practice into some kind of conspiracy." I have pointed out to Truthfinder that the great error is really the "spirit of anti-Christ", not "anti-Jehovah". But, he has not responded to this point. The bible is clear that there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved. John 3 18"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Pastor Glenn |
||||||