Bible Translations

Bible Translations

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

l

Joined
28 Aug 16
Moves
354
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There are to my knowledge about 260? occurrence of our having restored the divine name as manuscripts, codices come to light. The criticism that some have levelled against us for doing so is that we are taking liberties with the text. This is not the case. If the divine name is quoted either directly or in abbreviated form in the Hebrew scriptures ...[text shortened]... es. If its rendered in another translation for example we have a tendency to include it in ours.
For example Joel 2:32 - 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved'. Many translations render this as, 'everyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved'. When you look however at the original Hebrew, the Divine name of God is present.

http://biblehub.com/text/joel/2-32.htm


This example you provided has God's name Yah-weh not Jehovah. Are you saying the names are the same? If so, why not use the name Yah-weh as it is in the texts vs Jehovah?

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by FMF
What do you think of Jason BeDuhn's criticism of the way the name "Jehovah" is used in the NWT?
That would be his opinion, just as all you say is yours.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
22 Feb 17
1 edit

Originally posted by leunammi
For example Joel 2:32 - 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved'. Many translations render this as, 'everyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved'. When you look however at the original Hebrew, the Divine name of God is present.

http://biblehub.com/text/joel/2-32.htm


This example you provided has God's nam ...[text shortened]... g the names are the same? If so, why not use the name Yah-weh as it is in the texts vs Jehovah?
I am not getting into a debate about the correct pronunciation of the divine name, no one knows how it was pronounced, its represented by four consonants JHVH or YHWH depending on who you ask. The example was cited to show that its there and we have restored it to its rightful place.

Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova

l

Joined
28 Aug 16
Moves
354
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not getting into a debate about the correct pronunciation of the divine name, no one knows how it was pronounced, its represented by four consonants JHVH or YHWH depending on who you ask. The example was cited to show that its there and we have restored it to its rightful place.

Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish ...[text shortened]... log - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova
No debate needed, just asking a question and so you have answered. I do find it peculiar your response, but I will accept it just the same.

Fighting for men’s

right to have babies

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
117092
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the key part??? the Key part was making a comparison of the most widely available English translations and comparing them for bias and accuracy. You would know this if you read his study which you haven't. Where I have rejected this I cannot say and I suspect its simply another predictable cheap attempt on your part to insinuate values that have n ...[text shortened]... u why I reject his argument on the restoration of the divine name once and will not do so again.
It's hilarious that you have dropped your draws over this topic YET again.

😵

Fighting for men’s

right to have babies

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
117092
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by FMF
You sound rattled, robbie. In fact you sound rattled every single time you try to bring up Jason BeDuhn.
This is great. Unfortunately it's my birthday (Robbie it's a BIRTHDAY) and I'm doing other things.

Carry on my young apprentice...

Fighting for men’s

right to have babies

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
117092
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by FMF
So Jason BeDuhn's analysis of the NWT Bible translation cannot be trusted or relied upon in its entirety? You accept some things he says but some of his analysis is incorrect, is that what you think?
Ask him to refer to BeDuhn in the original Greek...

Fighting for men’s

right to have babies

Joined
16 Feb 08
Moves
117092
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by galveston75
That would be his opinion, just as all you say is yours.
So when Robbie quotes BeDuhn favourably to the NWT, is that just "his opinion" too?

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
36741
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not getting into a debate about the correct pronunciation of the divine name, no one knows how it was pronounced, its represented by four consonants JHVH or YHWH depending on who you ask. The example was cited to show that its there and we have restored it to its rightful place.

Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish ...[text shortened]... log - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova
Can we slow up just a little on the cut-and-paste from JW.org?

You made your bed Robbie, now lay in it a while.

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
36741
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by leunammi
Is the name Jehovah replaced by the NWT mainly OT or NT as well?
Mainly NT, because it (YHWH) was never there because it was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by leunammi
No debate needed, just asking a question and so you have answered. I do find it peculiar your response, but I will accept it just the same.
It's just an on going debate here with most and one that there really should be no debate at all. This is the accepted English pronunciation but many here say it's wrong and we shouldn't use it or any at all. It that were the case then there are many names in the Bible we shouldn't use then such as the name of Jesus since the true pronunciation is not known.

l

Joined
28 Aug 16
Moves
354
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by galveston75
It's just an on going debate here with most and one that there really should be no debate at all. This is the accepted English pronunciation but many here say it's wrong and we shouldn't use it or any at all. It that were the case then there are many names in the Bible we shouldn't use then such as the name of Jesus since the true pronunciation is not known.
The debate I get. But don't you think that all the references to God in the bible whether they are titles, names or otherwise to have referred to as one name, mainly Jehovah is a little off? You mentioned some posts back, not even sure if it was this thread, something like God's people are called after his name. Isn't changing the names, references and titles in the Bible to Jehovah and then calling yourselves God's people a little self fulfilling? It's an honest question,

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by leunammi
The debate I get. But don't you think that all the references to God in the bible whether they are titles, names or otherwise to have referred to as one name, mainly Jehovah is a little off? You mentioned some posts back, not even sure if it was this thread, something like God's people are called after his name. Isn't changing the names, references and t ...[text shortened]... vah and then calling yourselves God's people a little self fulfilling? It's an honest question,
Yes you are correct that those titles do refer to many others, but not in the places that are speaking of god of course.
And no problem with the question. It may seem self assuming but we are proud to use and spread his name. My question with these scriptures being so clear, why doesn't any main stream churches us it in any way, either in their title or even from the pulpit? Why have they taken it out of their bibles?
My wife's father was a baptist preacher and he admitted to us that he knew God's name is Jehovah, but he said the bible school he was taught at discouraged it's use at all and that the church members did not want to hear it anyway as it caused too much confusion with the trinity.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by Suzianne
Mainly NT, because it (YHWH) was never there because it was written in Greek, not Hebrew.
To leunammi..... See this is the usual response we get when Jehovah's name is being discussed. They don't feel comfortable with it.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
22 Feb 17

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can we slow up just a little on the cut-and-paste from JW.org?

You made your bed Robbie, now lay in it a while.
No a desperado like you needs all the cut and paste you can git!