These threads always remind me of the threads trying to explain the DC or Marvel Multiverse.
before physical reality there was the Void. ( the Abyss )
some say the division between Heaven and Hell.
but I do not subscribe to these separations of Good and Evil.
The Void is timeless, it is infinity, even beyond the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end as one. before time… there was no physical matter.
The Great Spirit, ( the American Indians name for "I AM’ ) spoke The Word.
( Christians Say The Word was Jesus, ) and Creation came into being.
The Big bang, physical matter was created from pure thought. Consciousness.
Evolution commenced, over millions and millions of years, but as the concept of time is relative to the ever existing ‘Now’.
The passage of time is not so important.
The beginning and the end are as one, The Great Spirit sees both simultaneously.
General group Consciousness ( the Holy Spirit that links us all that makes us all one, if we could but be aware of it ) means that every particle of every universe IS God, temporarily made into physical form, experiencing physical form for the pure experience of it, be it pleasure or pain, they are both the same, just different extremes of the spectrum
.
means every animate and inanimate object is God.
You are your brothers keeper, for he is you, and you are he.
Plant, animal, mineral, all is One.
Reverence for life, do unto others is critical, but not essential,
You alone are responsible for what you do, no excuses, no blame, just awareness and accounting…
all is weighed, balanced, for who you are, what you did, what you took, what you gave, the awareness of it is inevitable…
but beyond the accounting, which is simply awareness, there is mercy and compassion, for if you indeed are God, temporarily experiencing man, how could it be any different…?
How could you be expected to know right and wrong if you think your Soul is limited to time, you lived as if there was no tomorrow:?
Zanthor
The Word is God, is Spirit, is eternal (John 1:1, Luke 21:33), and (for the believer) written in the hearts of men (Ro 2:15), the scriptures are a physical image of the Word. While we can read the scriptures the Word speaks to our heart.
So the way I see it it is not the same thing, but it depends on how you use it, if you are using it in the Spirit of God and it’s coming from your heart it’s the Word, if it’s coming from man’s efforts it’s scriptures. This is just like the translation issue, we don’t have to get it perfect, as God knows we are not perfect, nor does He want us to me, nor expect it, but He judges our heart in our efforts and He makes up the difference if our intentions are pure (in Him)
Then I am here to answer the challenge.
I think your answers here are incomplete enough to be highly misleading. Your comment, “The word or name “Jehovah” does not appear in any part of the Hebrew bible or even the Greek Septuagint and it indicates a pretty shoddy translation from the original Hebrew” leaves out the simple fact that Jehovah is an English translation and it is equally true that names like Jeremiah, Isaiah and even Jesus don’t appear in “any part of the Hebrew bible or even the Greek Septuagint.”
What does appear is the Tetragrammaton as you’ve noted. For those unacquainted, the original language did not use vowels. The reader added the vowels based on context, much like an English reader would pronounce “bldg” as “building” or “blvd” as “boulevard.” The fact is, the Tetragrammaton, was the Hebrew word for the divine name for God, and it appears in excess of 6800 times in the Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The prevalence of the Tetragrammaton is beyond dispute by scholars, and it is exclusively used to identify The Big Cheese God.
So the question, obscured by tomndebb’s comment, is "Is there a distinction in the bible between Yahweh (Jehovah) and Yehoshua (Jesus)? The answer is yes. Just as importantly, "Do the original texts include a specific name for the Sovereign, Supreme God?’ The answer is yes.
So why isn’t the name “Jehovah”, or a more correct English rendering, in many bibles? **Wiki **answers, in part, this way, " Although the original pronunciation of יהוה has become lost, for many centuries the popular English word for the personal name of God has been “Jehovah”.
Interestingly enough, Wiki goes on to say, “Similarly well-established English substitutions for Hebrew personal names include Joshua, Isaiah, Jesus, and others, the original pronunciations for many of which have also been lost.”
For those still awake, a natural question might be, "If we can’t even be entirely sure that we have [the English translation] “Jesus” or “Isaiah” correct, why are we getting our panties bunched up over “Jehovah”?
tomndebb has stumbled upon the reason below:
As a result of Jewish superstitions----which did not have a biblical basis----some early translators took the view that the name of God was too holy to be uttered aloud. (and to avoid a further hijack, I’d be pleased to have another discussion as to whether there is any evidence that the OT Jews, NT Jews or Christians used God’s proper name) Others have speculated that there was fear that the divine name would be known by Israel’s enemies.
As a result, the Tetragrammaton was replaced with ’Adhonai′ (Sovereign Lord) or ’Elohim′ (God) in Hebrew and ‘Kyrios’ (Lord) and 'Theos′ (God).
So this fact remains: In many bible translations the words Sovereign Lord, God, and Lord----in many translations represented in small caps---- were originally represented by the Tetragrammaton in the original language in over 6800 instances. Only Jewish superstitions replaced the Tetragrammaton with words like Adhonai, Elohim, Kyrios and Theos.
So, to quote tomndebb, “In any good translation–even the Authorized Version–I’d have expected the word “Jehovah” to be absent.” and replace it with “In any good translation–even the Authorized Version–I’d have expected the words “Sovereign Lord”, “God” or “Lord” to be absent where the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original text; and the most accurate rendering for the divine name by the original authors would be _____________******”
Let me ask you tomndebb; Wouldn’t you agree that the Masoretic superstitious substitutions of the Tetragrammaton amount to a compromising of a correct rendering/translation?
(******Yehwah, Yehwih, and Yehowah, Yehowah, Yahuwa, Yahuah, or Yehuah are some of the names favored by scholars for the divine name, based on the Tetragrammaton)
As noted above, and in this post, it’s hardly true that all scholars are in agreement on the divine name. But as you’ve noted, Adonai is not an accurate rendering of the original word! It is a substitution born of superstition! Worse yet, this inaccuracy was repeated when translating to English; in those instances where “Lord,” Sovereign Lord," and “God” are used in English translations based on the erroneous use of Adhonai, Elohim, Kyrios and Theos it is not an accurate translation of the original text!
I’m down with that. I’m going to go out on a limb then and assume that you would abandon the use of “Jehovah” as a poor translation and further take the position that the use of Adhonai, Elohim, Kyrios and Theos-----and their English counterparts, “Lord,” “Sovereign Lord,” and “God”-------- are objectionable on the same grounds, and you’d replace them with a better rendering of the divine name where it was represented by the Tetragrammaton in the original text.
What are your thoughts about that?
See above. Can I assume you’re as eager to correct the “shoddy” scholarship that produced all those small caps “Lord”,“Sovereign Lord” and “God” which was never part of the original text, and were originally represented by the Tetragrammaton?
Lastly, for the lurkers and those truly interested in other examples of translations that render the Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah” see a good article on Jehovah on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah
[COLOR=“Red”]highlighting stunts mine[/COLOR]
So you have a succinct version to ponder…
If Jehovah is a “shoddy”, “corrupt” translation, and we know that the Masoretes played fast and loose with their superstition based copying, how would you render the Tetragrammaton?
The thing is, nobody knows. The Tetragrammaton was not a word that was actually spoken by anyone. The general Catholic guess (which is pretty much what it is) is to transliterate it as “Yahweh”. The general low-church Protestant way is to transliterate it as Jehovah. For all anybody actually knows, the name could have been (as Larry Gonick posited in jest) Yahu-Wahu.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, 1910 edition, page 329, states: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament."
That wouldn’t include the Pope would it? 
I think you’re partially right. It is true that today, nobody knows, and no one has known for sure for a long long time.
There is more than compelling evidence that the OT and NT Jews did use God’s name, and it was only later that superstition replaced it with “Lord” etc.
That doesn’t help us now, however. Still, we have no compunction in making a stab at “Jesus” and a host of other names, that are similarly lost to us. I submit that it is only Yaweh (etc) that we’ve erased from history, and that it is not because “we don’t know”, but because of the perpetuation of a Jewish superstition.
The simple fact, “Jehovah” can be no less a “corruption” that [the known] corruption “Sovereign Lord”, “Lord” and “God” where the divine name existed in the original texts.
All I can say is that when I attended Catholic high school, “Yahweh” was the form we were taught to use.
Sorry I’m late.
“What” I reject is the notion that there is a Triune God. To set the premise, and give something to respond to, here’s a decent explanation of the Holy Trinity from Wiki:
First, my objection centers around the fact that it is not only not represented in the bible, but the bible repeatedly contradicts the basic tenets of the Doctrine as it’s taught, to wit,
-
Jehovah, in describing himself, universally describes himself in the singular.
-
They are never described anywhere as “one identical essence”, anywhere.
-
Jesus is repeatedly shown to be subordinate, even when he describes his anticipated return “to his God.”
-
In Jesus’s own words, he is described as God’s Son.
-
The Trinity was unheard of in the OT and NT and early church.
There are so many others things in the bible that fly in the face of the Trinity. That has often elicited three different type of responses: -
Pounding square pegs into round Trinity holes. **Kanicbird’**s cites are good examples-----in my view---- of trying to make sense of something that it is nearly impossible to make sense of by forcing texts into contexts that simply don’t exist. That is usually a losing hand so often we revert to,
-
Some variation of “It’s a mystery.” I am a believer in faith, so I don’t take this lightly. Still, it still seems to me that the glaring discrepancies must be answered, especially in light of the historical evidence that the Trinity has pagan roots. Or,
-
Explanations that the Trinity must not necessarily conform to the bible, and invariably someone says something about “sola scriptura” etc. That is a separate thread, and worthy, discussion, but one we’ve never had.
In the end, it is my view that the Trinity Doctrine, like the Burning Hell Doctrine, is a deviation of what the bible says, and was unheard of by the Jews/Christians. My understanding of the bible is that it describes One God.
Sorry for getting back to you late. I lost track.
I am mistyping a little, you’re right. Or rather, not being clear.
It is clear to me that the there is no direct language in the bible that speaks to the Trinity. There are precious few that [might] imply a portion of the Trinity, like John 1:1.
Most often, however, I see texts that are used out of context to support the Trinity; for they do not speak directly or indirectly to the Trinity. Ironically in many of those instances they actually make a much stronger case against the Trinity. The Luke cite is a good example, for it shows two separate beings, with different wills, authority and power.
So to be clearer, the Doctrine is in contradiction to the bible generally, but when cites like the Luke texts that were used they often make a **much stronger **argument against the Trinity than for it. In that respect they can be said, “in contradiction to the Trinity Doctrine”
First, I would not go out of my way, as you have, to describe simple respect as a superstition, but that is your problem, not mine.
Then, I would note that one may follow either the path of the Masoretes to show that form of respect by substituting “Lord” or one may follow the practice of the Jerusalem Bible, transcribing the word as “Yahweh.” Either form is acceptable from one of the two perspectives of respect or accuracy. Simply following along using Jehovah appears, (particularly in your case), to be a deliberate insult to Jewish readers while lacking the accuracy of a closer transliteration.
I doubt that any of those scholars, (provided that they published subsequent to 1900), would actually be recognized as legitimate scholars in the field, today. The evidence for the pronunciation “yahweh” is pretty much overwhelming and includes transcriptions in Greek and other languages that provide phonetic equivalents to that pronunciation as well as the fact that it clearly derives from a form of the verb “to be” uttered on Sinai in Exodus 3:14. Every other “suggested” pronunciation is based on torturing the Tetragrammaton with vowels borrowed from different appellations given to God in the manner of Adonai, and not from the word, itself. (More evidence, from my perspective, that using “Jehovah” in the 21st century indicates shoddy scholarship.)
The significant difference is that the English spellings, Jesus, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. are the renderings of names that have passed from Hebrew through Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, and, occasionally French or German, into English and they are now used as the equivalent names because those names (in English) do represent their Hebrew namesakes which were pronounced differently. In contrast, no person in the English-speaking world is named using the Tetragrammaton, so it has no modern English equivalent. That being the case, either the respectful euphemism or the accurate transliteration is a better fit than a distorted German translation based on an error.
You asked a direct question to which I have responded. I am more than willing to end this hijack at any point.
At what point in time do you define “Early Church”?
A friend & I were researching the Witness booklet “Should You Believe In the Trinity” and looking up the anti-Trinity, Jesus-as-Created-Being quotes from the pre-Nicene Church Fathers (Justin Martyr especially). We found every quote to be drastically edited from a larger passage that expressly supported either God’s Triunity or Jesus’s Deity.
Also, does The Revelation Ch. 4-5 show Jesus being worshipped/honored in Heaven along with and in the same way as The Father?
On the Name issue, while I prefer Yahweh or even Yahoweh as the pronunciation of the Name, I have to admit that Jehovah is as legitimate a pronunciation for YHWH as “Gee-zus” is for Ihsous (Iesous).
It is indeed a hijack, but I think an important discussion. I am more than willing to continue discussing this with both you and FriarTed—not so much as a “debate” as a flushing out of the history behind the name and it’s use. (and non-use)
I’m unable to do that now (or even tonight), but I wanted to post one other thought before I started my work day.
It is never my intent to insult any Jewish poster with the use of the name Jehovah, and I would regret that any Jewish reader would be insulted by the use of it. Similarly, however, my reading of the texts suggest that the use of God’s proper name was in common use in bible times, and by bible authors.
As a result it is as regrettable to me when people choose to ignore God’s name (for whatever the reason) as it may be to others when I use it. In other words, respect requires me to use God’s name as much as it requires others to not use it.
Stepping aside for a moment from the relative merit of the [specific] name “Jehovah”, I find it puzzling that anyone would simply accept a corrupt translation based simply on sincerity. (and that’s only if one ascribes the most favorable motivations to the Masoretes; respect, and not superstition)
Even then, no one has ever questioned the sincerity of the translation “Jehovah”, and the fact that scholars have rendered it so for centuries. It would seem to me that a person interested in accuracy, or purity, would insist of the correct rendering and dispatch with any well intentioned corruption.
It would follow then, in my view, the known corruptions “Sovereign Lord”, “Lord” and “God” would be as objectionable as “Jehovah” for the same reason that Jehovah is objectionable.
But there may be more to the story in the research of the use of the Tetragrammaton, that may make the rendering of the Tetragrammaton significant in bible translations.
It seems absolutely necessary to see if the bible weighs in on the use of the name. In other words, we have 2 approaches: One removes the name “Yahweh” in favor of “respect”; the other seeks to determine whether that “respect” has some merit in the lives of not just those who wrote the bible books, but among the lives of the bible contemporaries.
(and it is worth noting that the “respect” we’re talking about is respect for God/Yahweh, not the Masoretes, and to the extent respect is extended to any group it must be subordinate to respect for God if this respect is in conflict)
What if the bible as written not only included the Tetragrammaton in thousands of places (which we agree) but also indicates that the Jews used it, were encouraged to use it, and, in fact, it was required of them to use? In other words, what if the bible isn’t silent on the use of the Tetragrammaton, and is in conflict with the Masorectic translations?
Believer or not, it seems to me an accurate translation would not include words like “Sovereign Lord”, “Lord”, and “God” if there is no biblical basis to support the Masoretes, particularly if their work was in contradiction to the authors. (and, in fact, shouldn’t be included even if no conflict existed. Their religious beliefs shouldn’t “color” the translations)
Answered in my last post, and would point out [again] that if a “closer transliteration” is our goal that only Yahweh is acceptable where the Tetragrammaton appeared.
Wouldn’t you agree?
We’ve got a lot here to talk about, and it seems to me to limit the scope for the moment. I’ll concede “Yahweh” for the time being.
The error can’t be self validating. We have the same problems translating Jesus (et al) as we do Jehovah. The use of Jesus (et al) in Aramaic, Greek and Latin increased it’s currency and our comfort and acceptance with it, but it didn’t increase it’s accuracy.
In other words, it is as difficult for the translator to figure out the English rendering of Jesus as it is for Jehovah, but the Tetragrammaton was removed for the “respectful euphemisms” 1700+ years ago.
We’re content living with the reality that the English name “Jesus” (et al) might be quite wrong. The reason we’re not as “content” with Jehovah is a result of [Masorectic induced] disuse, not because we can’t make the same college try that produced “Jesus.”
Thank you for the explanation - I do appreciate it - my reason for asking was that in so many of these debates, it’s difficult to see what either side is saying.
For example, it’s not uncommon to hear people on the non-Trinity side saying words to the effect “See, the Bible says Jesus isn’t the same person as God the Father!” (when the pro-Trinity side never claimed any such thing)
Or indeed, words to the effect that the Bible only describes one God - which also is not a contradiction of the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as I understand it.
Of course, I do acknowledge that the inscrutable nature of the doctrine does provide fertile ground for all sorts of misunderstanding to arise.
You mischaracterize it as a “corrupt translation.” It was simply a substitution. In Hebrew there was no “translation” because it was the same language. The only change was in the pointing as a reminder to the reader to substitute a different name out of respect.
Not really. You are free to reject the Masoretic tradition, but you insisted on ascribing their traditions to “superstition.” That is deliberately insulting.
There is no confusion regarding the name Jesus. We know how it existed in Aramaic and the Hebrew roots from which it came. We know the Greek into which it was brought and how it was transformed into each of the other languages between Aramaic and English. It happens to be the cultural practice to refrain from naming persons Jesus (or Yeshua) in English, but the name appears in every language. The same is not true regarding the Tetragrammaton.
The use of Jesus is a simple matter of translation in which the original name is rendered as the current usage of the language into which it is given. E.g., In English we use Peter instead of Kepha–simple translation.
At any rate, the issue is not that one should or should not use any particular rendering of the Tetragrammaton; the issue is that a person who routinely uses the clearly erroneous Jehovah is probably relying on equally erroneous sources for other sources of exigesis and theology.
Two words: fairy tale. The question is meaningless; you might as well argue the relevance of whether Goldilocks was wearing a blue dress or a brown dress when she ate the bears’ porridge.
News at 11, Clothahump t-s’s religious discussion.
So is the thread dead? I thought we were going to continue it w/ my Qs to the raindog about the Early Church and the Trinity, and whether or not the NT shows Jesus being rightly worshipped along with the Father. (Of course, it does. :D)
My bad. I’ll be clearer.
When it remained in the source language it become a corrupted copy. When translated from that corrupted copy it became a corrupted translation.
Whether a Masoretic copy of the source language, or a translation of the Masoretic copy, it didn’t reflect the name of the original author. It had been corrupted.
Do you know what I’m thinking right now? Because that is precisely the skill set you’ll need to legitimize the comment, *" That is deliberately insulting."
*
It will also be handy in determining how insulted other posters are, in spite of the fact that not one has ever posted to that effect. (and I have never handled the name with anything but respect, unlike the large SDMB JV Team)
How 'bout giving this a rest?
And yes I do “reject” the Masoretic “tradition”; a “tradition” that adheres to a practice----among others—that the word “God” can only be spelled “G-d” for fear it’s ever erased ----even on computer screens!-----and other superstitions. (not to mention “God” is no more Yahweh’s name than yours is “Man.”) I especially reject it because it runs contrary to the authors, the context ,and the way it was handled by Jews and Christians alike.
Let me ask you…
- Even if one accepts “Jehovah” as faulty, why isn’t this as much an issue considering the Masoretic “traditions” are equally wrong? IOW, you acknowledge that the Masoretes changed the source language. Your justification for this seems----so far-----to rest solely on respected tradition. Ironically, wiki and other sources, acknowledge that an exact rendering of the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah is imprecise, at best. (and make the same case for Jesus, Isaiah etc) There defense?: 1500 years of well meaning respected tradition!
Am I the only one experiencing deja vu?
-
Despite your assertion, there does seem to be some confusion about the name of Jesus. Do we not also know the Tetragrammaton? Isn’t the process of translating Yeshoua into English the same as Yahweh? Would translating Yeshoua into other languages [beforehand]somehow make the English translation more valid? IOW, why is the statement “The use of Jesus is a simple matter of translation in which the original name is rendered as the current usage of the language into which it is given,” one iota more compelling than “The use of Yahweh is a simple matter of translation in which the original name is rendered as the current usage of the language into which it is given.” ? You’re not deliberately posting circular arguments , are you?
-
So we can get to “real issue” let’s just throw the name “Jehovah” under the bus for the moment, and use “Yahweh.” Let me ask you…
Why would an atheist scholar (or interested person) accept a clear corruption of the source document based on a tradition? (especially when that “tradition” has all the qualities of superstition), and…
Why would an Christian scholar (or interested person) accept a clear corruption of the source document based on a tradition? (especially when that “tradition” has all the qualities of superstition, and the historical record shows that this tradition was in conflict with the way the OT/NT Jews and Christians viewed, and handled the Tetragrammaton…)