New World Translation Curiosities...

[Daisy]

It might be of interest…..but without a synopsis of some sort few are willing to consider these things….a teaser would be helpful….

Sure, which is correct? "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma"...

 

[Metanoia]

Sure, which is correct? "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma"...

In reference to your initial challenge putting the comma after ‘today’…….that makes the most sense to me…..allowing time for purgatory or any similar time for purification and/or repentance……

 

[Daisy]

In reference to your initial challenge putting the comma after ‘today’…….that makes the most sense to me…..allowing time for purgatory or any similar time for purification and/or repentance……

Plus we know Jesus was not in paradise on that very day nor was the thief...if the thief was in paradise on that very day, there would be no need for a resurrection on the last day...

"I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day." John 11:24

 

[Metanoia]

For anyone interested compare different Bible versions of Matthew 20:15-16……they reveal very different interpretations…..

For Bible students….to answer my own question: KJV and others use ‘I am good’ in v.15….NIV and others use ‘I am generous’…..we remember Jesus saying “only God is good”. For me, Jesus is telling us that the ‘landowner’ is a representation of God…..furthermore it strongly suggests that the harvest is something other than grapes…..why would God care how many grapes you pick ?. In this light many other thoughts can give an interpretation of the entire parable…..all just to say that different translations can lead to quite different interpretations…….

 

[Daisy]

As more Evangelical bible translations get closer and closer to the New World Translation the ESV Translation update is no exception.

 

[Alter2Ego]

The only Bible worth studying is the KJV. The rest say what one sect or another want them to say.

Loulit01:

That's your personal opinion of course. Strange thing is, the King James Version is just that--a version of the Bible.

Interestingly, the King James translators were Trinitarians. Although all versions of the Judeo-Christian Bible contain more or less the same information, those that were translated by Trinitarians went to great pains to remove the Divine name, JEHOVAH, and replace it with the titles LORD and GOD, usually in all caps. The general idea by removing the Divine name was to prevent the average Bible reader from distinguishing the difference between Jehovah (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son). And that's only one of the many flaws found within the KJV. I could point out many more.


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

No it isn't. There's no such thing as a "truly accurate translation" of the bible. Believing otherwise is nothing more than a wisp of smoke, rising from the end of an opium pipe. All translations are, by their inherent nature, inaccurate. ALL of them. And when you compound that with knowing the history of what versions of what books have been variously included, and excluded from the biblical canon, and when they were added or dropped, the whole idea of "accurate translation" becomes even more ludicrous.

MamboDervish:

When do you intend to demonstrate to the rest of us the "inherent" inaccuracies in "all translations." You don't expect us to take your word for it, do you now?


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

The only Bible worth studying is the KJV. The rest say what one sect or another want them to say.

What makes you think that the KJV doesn't say what the sect that created it wanted it to say?

Noodlegawd:

I just pointed out to Loulit01 that the translators of the King James Version were Trinitarians and that they went to great pains to remove the Divine Name, Jehovah, from their first rendition of the scriptures (which was published in 1611). Jehovah's name appeared some 7,000 times in the original Hebrew and Greek writings. It was removed from the 1611 KJV in all but 10 places. Keep in mind that Jehovah God is the author of the Judeo-Christian Bible; yet, his personal name was obliterated from the book that he inspired. Disgraceful!


Alter2Ego

 

[MamboDervish]

MamboDervish:

When do you intend to demonstrate to the rest of us the "inherent" inaccuracies in "all translations." You don't expect us to take your word for it, do you now?

I have no expectations of you whatsoever. Not even that your ego has been altered.


Languages are different. As such, no translations can be completely literal because different languages have unique grammatical structures, cultural nuances, and idiomatic expressions that often cannot be directly translated word-for-word without losing the original meaning or sounding unnatural in the target language; a literal translation can result in awkward phrasing, misinterpretations, or even offensive content depending on the context. Do you think the bibles printed in Dutch, Portuguese, Malay, Korean, Bantu, Hungarian and Russian all say the same thing?


Why do you think there are so many different "translations" of the bible, ... in English alone?
Why do you think there are so many different interpretations of the bible??
Why do you think there are so many different sects, all allegedly "Abrahamic" religions, all claiming to derive their beliefs to be rooted essentially in the same book(s)???
And that's to say nothing of the totally capricious assembly of the books themselves, their questionable origins, and improbable timelines. The ones left out, the ones included, and even one that was once in, then out, and then readmitted again.

And what about the book of Revelation? That wasn't even added to the bible until the 4th CENTURY!
Why do Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles have more old testament books?
In many ways, the shaky translations are the least of it's problems.

When I was a young man there were roughly 450 different allegedly "christian" denominations globally, all claiming to be based on some version of the same book. The most recent compilation lists over 39,000 different denominations of christianity, all alleging adherence to "the same bible".

No, the bible is nothing more than a big ancient literary work of tall tales. Any claim it is "the word of god" amounts to blaspheming the Divine by calling it a creator who is not only violent, genocidal, petty, jealous, vengeful, punitive, misogynistic and racist in the extreme - all by his own laws, actions and words, by the way - but also capricious and schizophrenic. All of that, and worse, is what a person has to believe the creator is, in order to believe in the god of the bible. It's all right there in black and white.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Languages are different. As such, no translations can be completely literal because different languages have unique grammatical structures, cultural nuances, and idiomatic expressions that often cannot be directly translated word-for-word without losing the original meaning or sounding unnatural in the target language; a literal translation can result in awkward phrasing, misinterpretations, or even offensive content depending on the context. Do you think the bibles printed in Dutch, Portuguese, Malay, Korean, Bantu, Hungarian and Russian all say the same thing?

MamboDervish:

You are conveniently forgetting that Bible translators are people who fluent in at least two languages and that they are therefore fully aware of the nuances within, for example, the original Hebrew/Old Testament and how it relates to the language they are then able to translate it to. For instance, someone who translates the Hebrew scriptures to, say, Spanish, would have to be fluent in both languages. That person would know perfectly well when something is literal and would, as a consequence, use language in Spanish that renders that particular Hebrew word into the literal in Spanish. The result: Someone who only speaks and reads Spanish would then be able to read the translated scriptures and get the exact same understanding that someone who spoke only Hebrew would get from reading that same portion of scripture in Hebrew.

Alter2Ego

 

[MamboDervish]

MamboDervish:

You are conveniently forgetting that Bible translators are people who fluent in at least two languages and that they are therefore fully aware of the nuances within, for example, the original Hebrew/Old Testament and how it relates to the language they are then able to translate it to. For instance, someone who translates the Hebrew scriptures to, say, Spanish, would have to be fluent in both languages. That person would know perfectly well when something is literal and would, as a consequence, use language in Spanish that renders that particular Hebrew word into the literal in Spanish. The result: Someone who only speaks and reads Spanish would then be able to read the translated scriptures and get the exact same understanding that someone who spoke only Hebrew would get from reading that same portion of scripture in Hebrew.

Alter2Ego

Nothing you have written even begins to address the breadth and depth of my post.

 

[Metanoia]

When I was a young man there were roughly 450 different allegedly "christian" denominations globally, all claiming to be based on some version of the same book. The most recent compilation lists over 39,000 different denominations of christianity, all alleging adherence to "the same bible".

No, the bible is nothing more than a big ancient literary work of tall tales. Any claim it is "the word of god" amounts to blaspheming the Divine by calling it a creator who is not only violent, genocidal, petty, jealous, vengeful, punitive, misogynistic and racist in the extreme - all by his own laws, actions and words, by the way - but also capricious and schizophrenic. All of that, and worse, is what a person has to believe the creator is, in order to believe in the god of the bible. It's all right there in black and white.

Many warranted and legitimate criticisms here….especially relevant is the number of denominations which, of course seek separation from others…..hard to respect that was any true God’s intention….the number of Pharisees has exploded in 2,000 years….

 

[Alter2Ego]

Why do you think there are so many different "translations" of the bible, ... in English alone?
Why do you think there are so many different interpretations of the bible??
Why do you think there are so many different sects, all allegedly "Abrahamic" religions, all claiming to derive their beliefs to be rooted essentially in the same book(s)???
And that's to say nothing of the totally capricious assembly of the books themselves, their questionable origins, and improbable timelines. The ones left out, the ones included, and even one that was once in, then out, and then readmitted again.

And what about the book of Revelation? That wasn't even added to the bible until the 4th CENTURY!
Why do Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles have more old testament books?
In many ways, the shaky translations are the least of it's problems.

When I was a young man there were roughly 450 different allegedly "christian" denominations globally, all claiming to be based on some version of the same book. The most recent compilation lists over 39,000 different denominations of christianity, all alleging adherence to "the same bible".

No, the bible is nothing more than a big ancient literary work of tall tales. Any claim it is "the word of god" amounts to blaspheming the Divine by calling it a creator who is not only violent, genocidal, petty, jealous, vengeful, punitive, misogynistic and racist in the extreme - all by his own laws, actions and words, by the way - but also capricious and schizophrenic. All of that, and worse, is what a person has to believe the creator is, in order to believe in the god of the bible. It's all right there in black and white.

MamboDervish:

The reason why there are numerous English translations of the Bible is because:

1. Humans like to compete with one another.

2. Most of the Bibles were translated by Trinitarians who attempted to make it seem as if the Bible supports the Trinity, the false doctrine of literal hellfire torment, and other falsehoods. So they purposely left off a few words here and there and added in a few words here and there in their attempts at misleading Bible readers. (By paying attention to context--surrounding words, verses, and chapters--honest hearted persons have been able to see past such wicked attempts at inserting false teachings into the scriptures.)

3. Honest-hearted translators removed misleading language by producing more accurate translations of the scriptures


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

And what about the book of Revelation? That wasn't even added to the bible until the 4th CENTURY!
Why do Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles have more old testament books?
In many ways, the shaky translations are the least of it's problems.

MamboDervish:

That's false. The book of Revelation was completed around 96 CE aka the First Century A.D. There are numerous sources that confirm that. Below are just two.

"Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)."

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

When was the book of Revelation written?

christiancourier.com

"Authorship​

The traditional view holds that John the Apostle—considered to have written the Gospel of John and Epistles of John—was exiled on Patmos in the Aegean archipelago during the reign of Emperor Domitian, and wrote the Book of Revelation there.

Date​

According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[6] The majority of modern scholars also use these dates."

Book of Revelation - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

Revelation was written by the Apostle John who died in the First Century (the same century during which Jesus Christ lived and died. Unless you're trying to tell this forum that John came back to life some 300 years after he was supposed to have died, in order for him to have written the book of Revelation, then go for it.


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

MamboDervish:

You are conveniently forgetting that Bible translators are people who fluent in at least two languages and that they are therefore fully aware of the nuances within, for example, the original Hebrew/Old Testament and how it relates to the language they are then able to translate it to. For instance, someone who translates the Hebrew scriptures to, say, Spanish, would have to be fluent in both languages. That person would know perfectly well when something is literal and would, as a consequence, use language in Spanish that renders that particular Hebrew word into the literal in Spanish. The result: Someone who only speaks and reads Spanish would then be able to read the translated scriptures and get the exact same understanding that someone who spoke only Hebrew would get from reading that same portion of scripture in Hebrew.

Alter2Ego

Nothing you have written even begins to address the breadth and depth of my post.

MamboDervish:

Actually, I debunked your post. If you can't see that, it's not my problem.


Alter2Ego

 

[MamboDervish]

MamboDervish:

The reason why there are numerous English translations of the Bible is because:

1. Humans like to compete with one another.

Uh ... no. Not even close. Humans tend to be suspicious of one another, so scholars with the language skills and wherewithal undertook their own translations, probably because they noticed or suspected errors.

2. Most of the Bibles were translated by Trinitarians who attempted to make it seem as if the Bible supports the Trinity, the false doctrine of literal hellfire torment, and other falsehoods. So they purposely left off a few words here and there and added in a few words here and there in their attempts at misleading Bible readers. (By paying attention to context--surrounding words, verses, and chapters--honest hearted persons have been able to see past such wicked attempts at inserting false teachings into the scriptures.)

Most bibles ??!! Perhaps. I wouldn't know. But just off hand, it seems unlikely that persons whose task is to produce accurate translations of allegedly holy texts would do anything other than the job they were charged to do. The type of shenanigans you suggest would be done by editors, not translators.

3. Honest-hearted translators removed misleading language by producing more accurate translations of the scriptures

Translation: The translators whose work comports to my own belief system were "honest-hearted".

 

[tosca1]

Why are more and more modern bible translations becoming more like the NWT?

We're nearing the end. That's why.




Top 10 Signs of the End Times According to the Bible


1. Widespread Deception

A key sign to look out for is a rise in teachers promising false hope and twisting truth.
Scripture says, “many false prophets will arise and mislead many” (Matthew 24:11).
Such voices can lead people astray if they aren’t firmly grounded in the truth. Staying discerning and evaluating everything carefully helps us avoid being swept away by deceptive ideas.

Top 10 Signs of the End Times According to the Bible

 

[tosca1]

Noodlegawd:

I just pointed out to Loulit01 that the translators of the King James Version were Trinitarians and that they went to great pains to remove the Divine Name, Jehovah, from their first rendition of the scriptures (which was published in 1611). Jehovah's name appeared some 7,000 times in the original Hebrew and Greek writings. It was removed from the 1611 KJV in all but 10 places. Keep in mind that Jehovah God is the author of the Judeo-Christian Bible; yet, his personal name was obliterated from the book that he inspired. Disgraceful!


Alter2Ego

@Daisy
@Loulit01
@Noodlegawd



GOD's name did not appear in writings!

"Jehovah," is simply an attempt at pronouncing the................... un-pronounciable!




Jehovah is a pronunciation of the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (the sacred Name of the God of Israel revealed in the Hebrew Bible) and the vowels of Adonai (Hebrew for “my Lord”).


When the Hebrew Bible was first written down in the Hebrew language, they wrote only with consonants, not vowels. So the sacred Name of God was written “YHWH” and likely was pronounced “Yahweh.” For millennia, Jews have gone to great lengths to avoid misusing the Name of their God, as he commanded them at the mountain after he delivered them from Egypt. At some point, ancient Jews began saying adonai (“my Lord”) when they saw “YHWH.” It wasn’t until the 10th century (as far as archaeologists have discovered) that a group of scholars called the Masoretes put vowels into the Hebrew text of the First Testament. They left the consonants “YHWH” in 7,000+ locations to show it was God’s Name. But they added the vowels of Adonai to the consonants to show later generations how to pronounce the word: “Adonai.” (That was why the Masoretes did their work of adding vowels; they were concerned that the number of scribes who could read Hebrew was unsustainably low, and they wanted to preserve what was read aloud by completing the text of what was written.) So Jehovah is a pronunciation of the vowels and consonants as they appear in the Masoretic Text, though it is not how the Jews would have known the Name of God.


Out of respect for the Jewish tradition of not uttering the sacred Name of God, the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) for the NIV have chosen to display every instance of the Name YHWH in the Hebrew Bible as “Lord.”
“Lord” (kyrios) is how the Septuagint (or LXX; the third century BC Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) translates YHWH. This led to the English solution of translating YHWH as “Lord,” which shows readers the difference between YHWH and adonai (written “Lord” or “lord” depending on context).

Why do some Bible translations not use the name Jehovah for God?

Jehovah is a pronunciation of the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (the sacred Name of the God of Israel revealed in the Hebrew Bible) and the vowels of Adonai (Hebrew for “my Lord”). When the Hebrew Bible

www.biblica.com

God is known by many names! Titles.


JW wants to make a big deal about using the name Jehovah.
A good patting on their backs! Whooo-hoooo.....look at us! We even call our religion using God's personal name!


Why on earth are we being so petty about calling GOD?


There's nothing wrong with that..............BUT..................BUT..............don't say or imply there's anything wrong about using God's titles, either!
He didn't give them to us for nothing!

The main thing is.....we're calling on GOD!
That's what God wants..................no?
To rely on Him. To pray to Him!



Jesus Christ taught us how to pray. He didn't say, "Our Jehovah....," did He?
He said, "Our FATHER!"

That's how GOD wants to be called and regarded by us. Our FATHER!

 

[Daisy]

In 1534 Martin Luther published his complete translation of the Bible, which he based on the original languages, which left out the name of God however he Said

" This name Jehovah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true God."

with characteristic frankness he added In 1543 :

" That they [the Jews] now allege the name Jehovah to be unpronounceable, they do not know what they are talking about . . . If it can be written with pen and ink, why should it not be spoken, which is much better than being written with pen and ink? Why do they not also call it unwriteable, unreadable or unthinkable? All things considered, there is something foul."

In 1530 William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible into English. He included Jehovah's name once, in Ex 6:3.

In a note in this edition Tyndale wrote: " Iehovah is God's name . . . Moreover, as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah."

The practice arose among translators to write "LORD" or "GOD" in most places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in Hebrew. This practice was adopted by the translators of the King James Version in 1611, where the Almighty god's name occurs as Jehovah only four times, namely, in Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4.

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary of 1874:


"[Jehovah] is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme . . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living."
https://www.angelfire.com/ok3/chester/imagedir/biblevws.htm

 

[Daisy]

George Howard a professor of religion and Hebrew of the University of Georgia


"When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations. But when the Hebrew form for the divine name was [later] eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint."

Howard says, "The first century church probably read, 'YHWH said to my Lord'" instead of the later version, "'The Lord said to my Lord,' . . . which is as ambiguous as it is imprecise."-Psalm 110:1.

In Journal of Biblical Literature, he wrote:

"We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write 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.
https://www.angelfire.com/ok3/chester/imagedir/biblevws.htm

 

[tosca1]

George Howard a professor of religion and Hebrew of the University of Georgia


"When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations. But when the Hebrew form for the divine name was [later] eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint."

Howard says, "The first century church probably read, 'YHWH said to my Lord'" instead of the later version, "'The Lord said to my Lord,' . . . which is as ambiguous as it is imprecise."-Psalm 110:1.

In Journal of Biblical Literature, he wrote:

"We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write View attachment 67558331 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.
https://www.angelfire.com/ok3/chester/imagedir/biblevws.htm

@Alter2Ego
@Loulit01


How do you know we're pronouncing God's name correctly by saying "Jehovah?"

My point: why are you guys making such a big deal about how others call God?

I call Him, "GOD." I call Him, "FATHER."
Am I wrong in doing that? No.

 

[Daisy]

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.

German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded after discussing various pronunciations,:


"From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted."-Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.

Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: "In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French."-Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.
https://www.angelfire.com/ok3/chester/imagedir/biblevws.htm

 

[MamboDervish]

We're nearing the end. That's why.




Top 10 Signs of the End Times According to the Bible


1. Widespread Deception

A key sign to look out for is a rise in teachers promising false hope and twisting truth.
Scripture says, “many false prophets will arise and mislead many” (Matthew 24:11).
Such voices can lead people astray if they aren’t firmly grounded in the truth. Staying discerning and evaluating everything carefully helps us avoid being swept away by deceptive ideas.

Top 10 Signs of the End Times According to the Bible

How breathtakingly ironic. The bible itself has been the most widespread deception in the history of man!

 

[Alter2Ego]

GOD's name did not appear in writings!

tosca1:

That's incorrect. The Divine name appeared some 7,000 times in the Judeo-Christian Bible in the form know as the Tetragrammaton or the four letters YHWH. I've attached an image of the Tetragrammaton to this post, below.

"Jehovah," is simply an attempt at pronouncing the................... un-pronounciable!

Jehovah is the most commonly accepted English translation of the Divine Name. Don't believe me? Look it up online.

The correct pronunciation of the Divine Name has been lost to history because the Jews disobeyed and stopped pronouncing it, true enough. But what's that got to do with the fact that Jehovah made it clear that he wants his name used in speech? Simply because we don't know the correct pronunciation doesn't change the fact that Almighty God Jehovah said--point blank--that he wants his name known throughout the world? The fact that he had it written in the Bible some 7,000 times--the Bible that he inspired, mind you--that alone should give honest-hearted persons a clue that the pronouncing of God's name, Jehovah, is important to him.

Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

GOD's name did not appear in writings!

"Jehovah," is simply an attempt at pronouncing the................... un-pronounciable!


God is known by many names! Titles.




Jesus Christ taught us how to pray. He didn't say, "Our Jehovah....," did He?
He said, "Our FATHER!"

That's how GOD wants to be called and regarded by us. Our FATHER!

tosca1:

A Title cannot be used as a substitute for a personal name; don't you realize that?

Jesus Christ taught us how to pray. He didn't say, "Our Jehovah....," did He?
He said, "Our FATHER!"

That's how GOD wants to be called and regarded by us. Our FATHER!

You are wrong--again. Jesus in prayer to his heavenly Father, said the following, which I will quote from the New World Translation, followed directly by the King James Version for each of the three verses John 17:1, 6, and 26:

John 17:1​

Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you,


New King James Version
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,

John 17:6​

“I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.

New King James Version
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

John 17:26​

I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”


New King James Version
And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”


Clearly, Jesus was referring to God's personal name at John 17:6 and 26. And clearly, the "many titles" that you claim God is known by are not equivalent to a personal name, and can never be equivalent to a personal name. Give that some serious thought when you are alone, instead of continuing to thumb your nose at the God's personal name simply because we don't know the correct pronunciation.


Alter2Ego