HaShem - Yahweh or Jehovah?

well, now this is just a clear misunderstanding!it's really too bad god had to confuse us all so badly back at babel.

Oh no! It is our fault! If we hadn't tried to take Heaven by storm we'd still be talking to God in Hebrew! If only we had never built that Ziggurat. [hangs head in shame] We forced Him into this, the shame, oh the shame. Look what we've done!lfen

Dear Buzsaw

quote:

---

Where is your documentation that the divine/proper name of God, "Jehovah/Yehoah" was removed in the early NT translations?

---

Circumstantial evidence indicates that the Name was removed from the NT books after they were written. I don't believe that we have any old manuscripts of the NT with the Name in the text, what we do know is that the NT writers quoted from the earlier Greek Septuagint which had the Tetragrammaton in the text. There is no reason why the NT writers would not have used the Name when quoting from the Greek Septuagint OT. Plus we also know that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew, so he certainly used the Tetragrammaton.This is why a number of Bible translations have Jehovah in the NT verses which are quotes from the OT where the Tetragrammaton appeared; it belongs there. I wish one of those older manuscripts of the NT with the divine Name still intact would turn up, so that it would be possible to restore the Name to all the places the original writers used it, not just the places where they quoted from the OT.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia;

quote:

---

moses fathers his three children at age 500, and the flood comes when he's 600. that's 100 years difference. god tells moses he's going to flood the earth at some point after noah has his kids. so noah had at most 100 years to build the ark, not 120 as the beginning of chapter 6 suggests with your reading. did god wait to tell moses?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

please do show me where the septuagint contains the name of the lord though, because i have yet to find one example of it.

---

The nearly complete copies of the Septuagint available today do not use YHWH in the text, these only date to the 4th & 5th centuries AD. Fragments of portions of earlier copies of the Septuagint exist which date back earlier ( 1st century BC ), these fragments have YHWH in Hebrew characters in the text. One of these fragments is part of the book of Deuteronomy, it is "P. Fouad Inventory No. 266." I have a picture of this fragment, it appears in the book "Insight On The Scripture" 1988, Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of New York, Inc. Vol 1, Page 326. I also highly recommend the large article on "Jehovah" in the beginning of Volume 2. This two volume set is not sold anywhere and is only available from Jehovah's Witnesses, some libraries do have it, but otherwise you will have ask a local Witness for it.

quote:

---

what i just provided you with is evidence that the custome began while the bible was still being compiled. the person who transcribed psalm 53 avoided the name, but the person who transcribed 14 did not. these two were written down by SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

---

Incorrect, since the earlier Hebrew OT manuscripts have the Tetragrammaton in those verses while the later ones do not, the removal occurred after the OT was written.

quote:

---

the new testament was mostly WRITTEN during the second and third centuries ad.

---

Incorrect, the writing was completed by about 98 AD when John wrote the last book written 3 John. When Peter wrote 2 Peter (64 AD), the letters of Paul were already recognized as being part of the Scriptures or Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." The reason why Paul's letters and the other books of the NT were accepted at once as being inspired scripture is given by Paul.
1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. For example, to one there is given through the spirit . . . discernment of inspired utterances,"The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit knew what was part of the inspired Word of God as soon as they read it. With this ability, the NT books were recognized as cannon as soon as they were written.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Firebird;

quote:

---

Is there evidence that "the Greek Septuagint in use in his day contained God's Name in the form of the Tetragrammaton"?

---

The nearly complete copies of the Septuagint available today do not use YHWH in the text, these only date to the 4th & 5th centuries AD. Fragments of portions of earlier copies of the Septuagint exist which date back earlier ( 1st century BC ), these fragments have YHWH in Hebrew characters in the text. One of these fragments is part of the book of Deuteronomy, it is "P. Fouad Inventory No. 266." I have a picture of this fragment, it appears in the book "Insight On The Scripture" 1988, Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of New York, Inc. Vol 1, Page 326. I also highly recommend the large article on "Jehovah" in the beginning of Volume 2. This two volume set is not sold anywhere and is only available from Jehovah's Witnesses, some libraries do have it, but otherwise you will have ask a local Witness for it.sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

well, that was supposed to say noah. i need to post when i'm fully awake, instead of half asleep.but it's still a preposterous claim that's nice and all, but you haven't shown me anything.and even if you do, it doesn't mean much. my point still stands that only vowels of adonai were meant to be read, not the combination of the two names, and the evidence that septuagint and latin vulgate translate adonai and not the combination of the two names is still valid.normally, i'd be eager to read literature of opposing opinions. but in this case, i already know more about this matter than the author of those books did. it is an error, plain and simple. separate yourself from the dogma of your religion for a second, and examine the text and circumstances of it's writing.yhwh or yahweh is a play on the word hawah, or to be. the text says this: I AM THAT I AM, hayah asher hayah. if i were to add "he who" in front of it, as common in hebrew names, and incorrectly conjugate it, it would be y'hawah. but the verb in the right tense, and we have yahweh. the text says that this is the name of the god.i've had this explained at length to me by a hebrew professor. i don't know much hebrew, but i know enough to understand that jehovah is a very incorrect rendering of the word. alright, i'll bite.

quote:

---

Psalm 14:

א לַמְנַצֵּחַ, לְדָוִד:
אָמַר נָבָל בְּלִבּוֹ, אֵין אֱלֹהִים
הִשְׁחִיתוּ, הִתְעִיבוּ עֲלִילָה-- אֵין עֹשֵׂה-טוֹב.
ב יְהוָה-- מִשָּׁמַיִם, הִשְׁקִיף עַל-בְּנֵי-אָדָם:
לִרְאוֹת, הֲיֵשׁ מַשְׂכִּיל-- דֹּרֵשׁ, אֶת-אֱלֹהִים.
ג הַכֹּל סָר, יַחְדָּו נֶאֱלָחוּ: אֵין עֹשֵׂה-טוֹב--אֵין, גַּם-אֶחָד.
ד הֲלֹא יָדְעוּ, כָּל-פֹּעֲלֵי-אָוֶן: אֹכְלֵי עַמִּי, אָכְלוּ לֶחֶם; יְהוָה, לֹא קָרָאוּ.
ה שָׁם, פָּחֲדוּ פָחַד: כִּי-אֱלֹהִים, בְּדוֹר צַדִּיק.
ו עֲצַת-עָנִי תָבִישׁוּ: כִּי יְהוָה מַחְסֵהוּ.
ז מִי יִתֵּן מִצִּיּוֹן, יְשׁוּעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל:
בְּשׁוּב יְהוָה, שְׁבוּת עַמּוֹ; יָגֵל יַעֲקֹב, יִשְׂמַח יִשְׂרָאֵל.

---

quote:

---

Psalm 53:

​

א לַמְנַצֵּחַ עַל-מָחֲלַת, מַשְׂכִּיל לְדָוִד.
ב אָמַר נָבָל בְּלִבּוֹ, אֵין אֱלֹהִים;
הִשְׁחִיתוּ, וְהִתְעִיבוּ עָוֶל-- אֵין עֹשֵׂה-טוֹב.
ג אֱלֹהִים-- מִשָּׁמַיִם, הִשְׁקִיף עַל-בְּנֵי-אָדָם:
לִרְאוֹת, הֲיֵשׁ מַשְׂכִּיל-- דֹּרֵשׁ, אֶת-אֱלֹהִים.
ד כֻּלּוֹ סָג, יַחְדָּו נֶאֱלָחוּ: אֵין עֹשֵׂה-טוֹב; אֵין, גַּם-אֶחָד.
ה הֲלֹא יָדְעוּ, פֹּעֲלֵי-אָוֶן: אֹכְלֵי עַמִּי, אָכְלוּ לֶחֶם; אֱלֹהִים, לֹא קָרָאוּ.
ו שָׁם, פָּחֲדוּ פַחַד-- לֹא-הָיָה-פָחַד:
כִּי-אֱלֹהִיםאֱלֹהִים מְאָסָם.
ז מִי יִתֵּן מִצִּיּוֹן, יְשֻׁעוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל:
בְּשׁוּב אֱלֹהִים, שְׁבוּת עַמּוֹ; יָגֵל יַעֲקֹב, יִשְׂמַח יִשְׂרָאֵל.

---

so that you're not TOTALLY lost, i've underlined all instances of Yahweh and all instances of Eloyhim.now, my point is that psalm 14 IS the earlier manuscript and that psalm 53 was put together later, and thus avoids using hashem. psalm 53 does not contain this name anywhere in the hebrew.[added by edit] to clarify. psalm 14 and 53 came from the same source. they are the same psalm. one contains the name of god, and one the title in its place. had this edit have taken place AFTER the book of psalms was compiled as a whole, all instances of the divine name would have been removed. since this is not the case, the editting must have taken place BEFORE the book of psalms was compiled. we can go a little deeper too, actually. book two of psalms (there are five) contains fewer instances of the name than book one, or any other book. but it's still not totally removed. therefore, the editting of psalm 14 in 53 occured before the compilation of book 2, with occured independ of book 1.psalms is a collection of 5 books which are basically ancient hebrew hymnals. each of the 5 books is also a collection of the individual psalms. they are not all by the same author, nor are they even all attributed to the same author. some are said to be written by (or for) david, some by (or for) solomon, one by (or for) moses, and a good portion are attributed to others. it's not a radical notion in the slightest to suggest that these books were compiled after previous collecting and editing practices.[/edit]that's traditionally held belief, yes. but please realize that the earliest gospel we have, thomas, is about ad 50. mark is the earliest in the bible, at about ad 90. matthew, luke, and john all date post-100, putting them.... in the second century.i think peter's work is probably attributed, and not his actual writing, but i'm not to familiar with peter. john wrote in the late first century, circa ad 95. pretty close to the second century if you ask me.paul.... well, i don't like paul. so what if people liked his letters and read them, he's dear abby of the early christian church, not god. not according to luke they weren't. luke opens his two-part book with a statement regard many gospels floating around, and doubts as to authenticity. this is his stated purpose in writing the gospel and the acts, to clear up these problems.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-01-2004 04:51 PM

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

i go further than that. it is plainly evident that jewish text has been editted as well. the septuagint is about as useful a tool as the masoretic text, becuase the masoretic text dates so late. even though the masorites kept it relatively unchanged (adding only vowel points and emmendations), the septuagint is useful for seeing what the older texts said, indirectly.neither is a perfect source, but it's evident that dogmatic editting occured prior to the compilation of the individual boos themselves, let alone the collection of the books into the bible.on top of that, it is my educated opinion that human beings wrote the bible. it is obviously subject to error at that level as well.from wmscott: the problem is not that it relies on belief, but that septuagint does not contain the name of god. it's not even an assumption on his part to think that the editting occured after the translation, it's just simply an error. as i pointed out above, he have evidence in the bible that some passages were editted before the books were composed. that means the tradition of avoidance came about DURING the period in which the bible was written, which was well before the translation of the septuagint.if we had to make a good assumption, it would be that septuagint never contained the name of god. i will maintain this assumption until i'm shown different, and that the translation was in the fact the original, in 200 bc.the other problem is that his wishes are entirely moot. the nt authors weren't quoting the septuagint directly. they were quoting someone who was quoting the hebrew bible of the time. the question is if the problem occured because they lifted the wordings from the original source, or if it's really that jesus himself avoided the name.and i'm not sure on that, it's a matter of opinion. since jesus is fairly radical in his form of judaism, i would not think it unreasonable to think he did use the name of god at times. but it's not what the nt records.

From the Ded Sea Scrolls it turns out that at least some of the Septuagint comes from a different textual tradition than the Masoretic texts. A close match for the Septuagint Jeremaiah was discovered at Qumran. Other books contain readings which agree with the Septuagint or with the Samaritan Pentateuch rather than the Masoretic text.While not all the Septuagint translations are good they do offer a limited window on the variations that were in the Jewish scriptures at the time of writing.

jeremiah is a problem in and of itself. the septuagint and masoretic texts are very different. it's like someone took a pair of scissors and cut up one version, and rearranged it into the other.people were hoping that the dead sea scrolls sould illuminate the matter of which one is the oldest, but they did not ---- the dead sea scrolls contain BOTH versions. precisely.

LOL. The name was never intended to be in the NT. Why? Because Jesus, for the first time in history taught that God should be addressed as "Father." Why? Because being "born from above/born again" makes one a child of God. In both the Lord's Prayer and the gospel of John, Jesus taught to pray "to the Father," praying in his name. In the Lord's Prayer he said, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father.....' One does not call one's father by his name, even in our human lives.

the point isn't that they literally translated it as adonai, the point is that they were to read adonai aloud (since the scriptures were made for reciting not for sitting in a dusty book) instead of saying the name. later this tradition i guess spread. now one is not supposed to write the name on any discardable surface as it can never be erased. perhaps translators wished to give respect to the name by writing LORD in it's place since you know... names don't translate very well--especially the name of the lord--just because they have the same sound doesn't mean they mean the same thing. and traditionally, the names of spirits (and even people) defines their function and is inherently important to said name itself. the idea of that entity is summed up in its appellation.

it's not that they are superstitious. it's that the jews historically build walls around commandments so not to break them. the lord said not to take his name in vain. so instead of risking using it wrongly, they only say it in ritual or in instruction.

acts specifically describes how the early church tried paul in order to prove his authenticity as an apostle. he was not accepted on sight.

verily we are to cry abba. which is a juvenile word similar to our 'daddy'. i think the bible says 'father' because the english are stodgy. *snickers*