- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Hi david,
The second death is real.
If you believe scripture.I do, and so I believe the lake of fire “means the second DEATH.”
But if you believe Dante, or the Greeks, or babylon before both, you'll probably believe in a devil who lives in fire and tortures people at God's request. Sad.
Where is God’s name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?
The New English Bible: The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15; 6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use “Jehovah” in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)
Revised Standard Version: A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”
Today’s English Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”
King James Version: The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24.
American Standard Version: The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.
Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: “My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost.” (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”)
The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.
The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form “Yahweh,” but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under “Lord” and “Yahweh.”
The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.
New World Translation: The name Jehovah is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing 7,210 times.
An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by “the LORD” in brackets.
The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
The ‘Holy Scriptures’ translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.
The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures.****
The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text—A New Translation, Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.
The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.
Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?
The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains:
“For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.”
Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.
Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.
Was God's name used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
I think it had to be. Here's why:
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write יהוה within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.
Hi david,
You should not close your eyes to the righteous vengeance of God.
Why should it frighten you?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2009,21:25) Hi S,
You really love getting personal.
But did you not tell us you were going to stop doing that sort of stuff?
Nick,Your so cute! Here are your personal comments to and about me –
Hi S,
This is your definition
“the·ol·o·gyJust because it is in BOLD TEXT in your bible proves nothing.
So you don't like it when others play by your rules. Awe!
But did you not tell us you were going to stop doing that sort of stuff?
Yes, to those who do not throw mud, I do not throw it back.
To you – I again say “I put it to bed” and I leave you to yourself. If you did not live in the height of conceit you would have responded to the many pleadings of others regarding your obnoxiousness a long time ago.Seeking
Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,22:28) Quote What in the world kind of statement is this -But Rom10 is NOT NECESSARILY A QUOTE But the one in Acts, definitely without question is a quote from Joel. And the question is of “Jehovah” in the NT.
David, Would you agree then that a much more accurate statement would be, “Rom.10 is not a direct quote of another scripture.” (?)Seeking
Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,22:51) Seeking, you opened this thread by saying: ASAPH desires that all know He alone is “Jehovah” the most high over all the earth –
Psa 83:17-18 KJV Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame,and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH,art the most high over all the earth.
I found the following interesting:
David,Once again, your research is enlightening. I posted what I thought was a danger to an across the board substitution of
“Jehovah” in the following. How does one determine when the substitution should be made and when it should not?It is the context of Romans ten that keeps me wondering.
Paul begins by speaking of the Gentiles zeal without knowledge, v.2. Paul moves on to then introduce Christ, v.4.
Paul says this in v.9,That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,thou shalt be saved. KJV
Rom 10:9 ESV because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Allowing that your correct about a later substitution of kurios for Jehovah, this would then read from the KJV
confess Jehovah Jesus
or from the ESV
that Jesus is Jehovah
It seems unquestionable in the context that Paul was speaking of Jesus. Further, if your right about the name substitution,
Seeking
Hi S,
You say
“Your so cute! Here are your personal comments to and about me –Hi S,
This is your definition
“the·ol·o·gy “YOU OFFERED THIS UNDERSTANDING OF THEOLOGY DID YOU NOT?
It is copied and pasted for accuracy.
Why is showing it to you offensive?“Just because it is in BOLD TEXT in your bible proves nothing.”
This verse is in bold text as if it is a quote in some bibles including NASB
Why is saying so offensive to you?I am sorry if somehow I hurt your feelings but an explanation of how would help.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 17 2009,11:28)
Nick,I posted a Webster's definition of Theology –
You personalized it as mine-Quote Hi S,
This is your definition
“the·ol·o·gy “You now say
Quote This verse is in bold text as if it is a quote in some bibles including NASB You originally said –
Quote “Just because it is in BOLD TEXT in your bible proves nothing.” Then you comment –
Hi S,
You really love getting personal.You do not hurt my feelings. I choose not to allow that to happen. I do not allow you to get personal and then think to
chastise me or others for personal remarks.Now you would like your original comments to sound so innocent when it is quite clear you emphatically used the words you and your originally.
I don't expect you to hear this, but if I were the only one
seeing your obnoxious attitude I would examine myself to se what was wrong with my vision.But my vision is the vision held by many on these forums. They have asked you to be more considerate, less interuptive
etc. I am convinced you will not wake up and smell the coffee. Even while those attempting to encourage you to rethink yourself you stay in your self righteous attitude.I have reached my final decision regarding any attempt at reasoning with you. You are right, it is the world that is wrong.
“Burger King” – have it your way.
Seeking
nick wrote:[/quote]
Nick,I posted a Webster's definition of Theology –
You personalized it as mine-Quote Hi S,
This is your definition
“the·ol·o·gy “You now say
Quote This verse is in bold text as if it is a quote in some bibles including NASB You originally said –
Quote “Just because it is in BOLD TEXT in your bible proves nothing.” Then you comment –
Hi S,
You really love getting personal.You do not hurt my feelings. I choose not to allow that to happen. I do not allow you to get personal and then think to
chastise me or others for personal remarks.Now you would like your original comments to sound so innocent when it is quite clear you emphatically used the words you and your
originally.I don't expect you to hear this, but if I were the only one
seeing your obnoxious attitude I would examine myself to se what was wrong with my vision.But my vision is the vision held by many on these forums. They have asked you to be more considerate, less interruptive
etc. I am convinced you will not wake up and smell the coffee. Even while those attempting to encourage you to rethink yourself you stay in your self righteous attitude.I have reached my final decision regarding any attempt at reasoning with you. You are right, it is the world that is wrong.
“Burger King” – have it your way.
Seeking
Hi S,
So because you posted a meaning but had not told us it was from Websters we were supposed to know that?Posting it did not indicate any claim of agreement with it and we were supposed to know that too?
Right we can put this misunderstanding behind us and you can stop your abuse.
Hi S,
I said before I thought you had a lot to offer this site so please stay focussed on the matter at hand.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 17 2009,12:53) Hi S,
I said before I thought you had a lot to offer this site so please stay focussed on the matter at hand.
Focused?
??? Your interuptions have been addressed, and of course ignored, before. Focus here was on the discussion
being carried on regarding Jehovah.David and I were moving along with it quite nicely and then this popped up –
Hi S,
I believe in the scriptures.
Do we need theology as well?The JW teachings are bizarre and founded on man and his carnal ideas.
But the watchtower casts a fearsome controlling shadow over it's adherents.
Please try taking your own advice – stay focused on the matter at hand.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 17 2009,12:50) Hi S,
So because you posted a meaning but had not told us it was from Websters we were supposed to know that?Posting it did not indicate any claim of agreement with it and we were supposed to know that too?
Right we can put this misunderstanding behind us and you can stop your abuse.
If you don't know something, don't assume something. But naturally you assumed in a way that could be taken as abusive
except that I don't receive it.Abuse! Hypocrite!!!!! Wasn't it you someone asked to go easy on their mate? Yes, it was. Others have had trouble with your abuse. You are the only one who has felt I abused them.
Again, of course you ignore the vast array of input you have had regarding your abusive tactics. Ignore is not to many steps from “Ignorant.”
Once again, have it your way.
When I do not reppond to your posts to me in the future please don't feel abused.
Quote The letter 'J' is only 500 years old. Right, and until as recently as 100 years ago, J was pronounced as “I” or “Y”.
I found the following extremely fascinating:
http://reactor-core.org/~djw/myblog/archives/2007/02/21/T14_10_58/Quote I posted what I thought was a danger to an across the board substitution of
“Jehovah” in the following.While almost all Bible's do not contain Jehovah's name in the NT, I think it is safe to say that where there is a quote, it is highly unlikely that the inspired Bible writers would have taken God's name out and substituted Lord or God.
Quote Allowing that your correct about a later substitution of kurios for Jehovah, this would then read from the KJV confess Jehovah Jesus
or from the ESV
that Jesus is Jehovah
I am not suggesting that every instance where “lord” appears that it is a substitution.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
