HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah?

I'm not a Bible scholar so can someone please explain this one to me?
Is there evidence that "the Greek Septuagint in use in his day contained God's Name in the form of the Tetragrammaton"? Otherwise, this amendment goes well beyond translation!

Thanks, Arachnophilia. So, the "translation" quoted by wmscott actually incorporates the religious assumptions of the "translators". If this can happen even now, it makes my former belief in the Bible as a direct communication from God seem very naive. . .

Wm Scott Anderson, thank you for your reply. How many such fragments exist, and has it been conclusively established that they are "mainstream" versions, rather than just reflecting the views of a particular sect or copyist?Even if this is so, inserting "Jehovah" in the NT on the assumption that Jesus would have quoted exactly, is still more than a translation. It is building in the beliefs of the translator, who, unless they claim divine inspiration, may be in error.From your message 48, in reply to Buzsaw: Again, this is an assumption, not a fact. A translation that includes personal assumptions is no longer a translation, but a statement of beliefs. Since the greater part of such a translation is authentic, the built-in assumptions can (and may be intended to) mislead readers. This would strengthen your position, certainly. But wishes ain’t facts!From message 38 by Arachnophilia It is clearly very difficult for translators to set aside their personal beliefs and simply translate what appears, and therefore I now cannot simply accept any English translation of the Bible as the inerrant word of God.Sincerely, Firebird

Hello again, wmscott, . . . . I'm afraid that that for me there is still a lot of ground to cover before the second statement can be accepted as fact. A few questions I would ask are: Are the ten fragments all from Deuteronomy? Does the writing suggest a common author? Are there earlier fragments which do not use the Tetragrammaton? How is it established that there was a full OT version of which the fragments were a part, and that it was the accepted version? I guess the second OT should be NT. Do fragments with the Tetragrammaton exist for each insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT?And even if ALL the answers to these questions support the inclusion of the Tetragrammaton into the OT and there are no other reasons not to include it,then as I understand it:1. Arachnophilia's point that Jehovah is a mistranslation is still valid.2. Inserting "Jehovah" into the NT when the OT is neither translating (as it is not in the source) nor restoring (as there is no evidence that it ever was in the NT source). It is an addition based on belief. Whether or not you believe it probable or likely that Jesus would have used the Divine Name, it is still simply that, a belief.On reading this over, it sounds a bit argumentative. I'd just like to add that I have no bias against your religion and value my JW friends, but as I try to work out a "worldview' for myself, I do get frustrated at addiitional stumbling blocks, such as "translations" that are something different.regards, Lis

Hi wmscott I know, and have no dispute that "Jehovah" appears in the KJV. As per Arachophilia's opening post, this translation of the Tetragrammaton is not the only one.(Arachnophilia's) True, so I guess discussion about when a translation includes the translator's bias is peripheral to the topic, so I'll try to keep it short. This is the issue on which we can't seem to agree. Whether or not you can "imagine" Jesus not using the name, IF IT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE TRANSLATION. This looks like an appeal to authority, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to evaluate and/or dispute the material in your links. I have read enough on the web, however, to know that your quote above is not a universally held position. It becomes difficult for me to separate authors which have problems with the NWT based on scholarship to those whose issues are based on their personal beliefs.
So, thanks for your replies and I'll just keep lurking and hopefully, keep learning.Thank you also, Nighttrain and especially Arachnophilia!

Although I've read with great interest the suggestions that Matthew, Mark and Luke had a single source (called Q for Quelle, is that right?), in this case the original would be the document so identified by the translators of the NWT (who I understand are themselves not identified!) This site quotes the Forward of the 1950 version NWT as follows:"The original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, were inspired. No translation of these Sacred writings into another language, is inspired... The Greek text that we have used as a basis of our NW translation is the widely accepted Wescott and Hort text (1881) by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken in to consideration other texts including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk.."So unless the Greek text contained something that can be correctly translated as "Jehovah", the word should not appear in the NT of the NWT. If course, it is possible that a "Q" document with the Tetragrammaton will be discovered some day, but in the meantime there is no basis for the "restoration" except belief. I understand. As a business analyst, I am often tempted to embellish a communication between sales management and IT with something I KNOW should be included. But it would be dishonest, implying it came from someone other than me. And seeing this done, and JUSTIFIED, with something as important as the Bible, that's what got me going!

Hi again wmscott, This can be done, but it is not called 'translation'!. Please refer to my post 99, which quotes the NWT translators specifically claiming that their inspired source is the NTs in Greek, which they regard as inspired. If these do not contain something that should be translated as "Jehovah", why should the translation? Why "undoubtedly"? People can misquote, sometimes unintentionally, often deliberately, to make a point. Also, often differences in original and quote reflect the thought processes of the quoter, for instance if a quoter did not wish to pronounce the name of the god. As Arachnophilia points out, there are examples of discrepancies in NT quotes and OT source in Matthew. Then surely God can hear and understand the people who address Him as "Lord" and are trying to reach and obey Him? How can it be so important to Him that they address Him by an incorrect name?