Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[JoStories]

Nothing is easy about accepting such a narrow view.

The name constantly changed because the definition and concepts evolved for over two thousand years. And there was nothing easy about following the evolution.

The multiple languages that had their own name for the later concept after the evolution semi stopped is quite meaningless to history, and the changes behind the different cultures that defined him differently.

Agreed. I am reading these posts trying to comprehend why a particular name for God is more 'correct' than another's or why one version of the bible is better, particularly when they say it is the newer version just put out. IMO, the best is one that is written in Ancient Greek or the languages of the time that the books were actually written.

 

[JoStories]

Fact is that the name exists. No matter which translation you chose to accept. I am not english so the way i pronounch Jehovah is different to that of an english person anyway.
If i had to use Yahwe its ok with me, point is the name exists and no matter what we say it's in the original scriptures.

That is God's name, he never indicated that it changed. So i come back to the fact that JW accepted the Name and put it back where it belonged.
Whether the translators might have made a mistake in how many times they translated it is besides the point...

You either accept the name of God or you don't, easy as that...

Nothing is as easy as that and furthermore, it would Depend on which God. Or even goddess. I am curious how one decides which name for God, assuming we are talking about the Jude's-Christian version, is the correct name. If one ha numerous versions of the bible and different names in several, which do we 'know' is the correct one? Pick and choose?

 

[JoStories]

Yes. Seems an elder lives but a couple miles from my home in the country.
His wife, even 8 year old son, help me to understand the Truth.
I take nothing at face value and research anything not mainstream Christendom and have yet
to catch anything wrong or anything I could criticize about what the JW say is Truth.
I now have an e-mail friend in Austrailia who is a 40 year J.W. and we converse via the net.
A wonderful friend who shares with me freely.
It's not easy to renounce things that are customary in the face of the Truth, like false dogma and
doctrine accepted by Christendom that are clearly wrong according the the Bible.
Nothing touched by the hands of man is perfect. Not the Bible, no ones Bible, but the Truth is there
if you seek it.

I'm curious as to what Truth you are talking about here. Your truth? Mine? And if it is your truth, can you prove it is the truth for everyone? I walk a Buddhist path and for me, that is truth. Can you show me where yours is more true than mine?

 

[JoStories]

Actually, I believe they went overboard.

"Jehovah" is a mispronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (which means "having four letters" -- a reference to YHWH), and any Jewish person who reads Hebrew will concur.

"YHWH" appears some 6828 times in the OT, but in the NWT the word "Jehovah" appears 6973 times (an additional 145 occurrences). "YHWH" never appears in the NT documents, yet the NWT uses "Jehovah" 237 times in the NT writings.

They let the pendulum swing to the opposite end.

An excellent point ken. I did an essay on the why of that. Why is YHWH not mentioned in the NT save this new version? It makes very little sense to change something so important to me. I am curious ken, on why you think this was done.

 

[Kolibri]

Oh... You mean they found errors and re-issued?

While there was more material to draw on then before making for some minor adjustments, one of the major reasons why the NWT was revised was because English has morphed over the decades. Younger generations no longer use the same terms or have different meanings associated with words that made perfect sense to those that were around in the 1950s. I can attest that the Revision is much easier to read as the 1984 Edition was a bit more wordy because it was more literal in verb tenses, even when the English language did not require it for accurate thought transmission.

Regarding the 'extra' 146 occurrences of Jehovah in the the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, 3 places, namely De 30:16; 2 Sam 15:20; and 2 Chron 3:1 were due to readings in the Septuagint where the footnotes in the Biblia Hebraica, by Kittel, Kahle, Alt and Eissfeldt, Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, seventh to ninth ed., 1951-55, H.S. give the tetragrammaton.

According to footnotes in the Biblia Hebraica again and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, H.S. that have the divine name as something that should be read instead of the first-person singular pronoun "my" at Isa 34:16 and Zec 6:8, these are 2 more places.

The final 141 "additional" renderings I will simple direct anyone that wants to know to the following link. But in short it is because of evidence that the Jewish Sopherim altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to Adhonai or Elohim in these places.

1B Scribal Changes Involving the Divine Name — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

For all but one of the 237 times Jehovah is rendered in the Christian Greek Scriptures, all but one is pre-existing in Hebrew translations of these Scriptures over centuries, and many of these are quotes from the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures that had the divine name to begin with anyway.

@KenS I have yet to look up the other thing you asked me to. I have not forgotten.

 

[Kolibri]

Incidentally, what scripture do you use to reference that Jesus was an angel?

Proverbs 8:22 speaks of "wisdom" as "produced...as the beginning of [Jehovah's] way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago." As the quality wisdom, was never produced but always a part of God Almighty, an angel of God is this 'wisdom personified.' Just as Col 1:15 said Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation", Proverbs 8:23 says, "From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth." Just as John 1:1 said the Word, Jesus, was "with God "and John 1:3 and Col 1:16 said that all things were were created by means of Jesus, Proverbs 8:30,31 said, "Then I was besides him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially found of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men." What better Son to send to mankind than one that already was especially fond of them?

Another link to Jesus having been and currently being and angel is 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus is said to possess an archangel's voice.

"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

Archangel is only ever used in the singular in the Bible and the only angel to be known as a principal or arch- angel is Michael. Both Michael and Jesus are said to be a leader of an angelic army.

"Michael and his angels battled with the dragon." - Re 12:7

"the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels." - 2 Thess 1:8b

"and [Jesus] will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound" - Mt 24:31

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him." - Mt 25:31

Michael, an angel with great authority, is thus seen as Jesus in a different assignment.

 

[Kolibri]

I am curious how one decides which name for God, assuming we are talking about the Jude's-Christian version, is the correct name. If one ha numerous versions of the bible and different names in several, which do we 'know' is the correct one? Pick and choose?

Since names change from language to language, what is important isn't a transliteration of the divine name but a translation into the form most widely recognized in the target language.

 

[JoStories]

Proverbs 8:22 speaks of "wisdom" as "produced...as the beginning of [Jehovah's] way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago." As the quality wisdom, was never produced but always a part of God Almighty, an angel of God is this 'wisdom personified.' Just as Col 1:15 said Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation", Proverbs 8:23 says, "From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth." Just as John 1:1 said the Word, Jesus, was "with God "and John 1:3 and Col 1:16 said that all things were were created by means of Jesus, Proverbs 8:30,31 said, "Then I was besides him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially found of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men." What better Son to send to mankind than one that already was especially fond of them?

Another link to Jesus having been and currently being and angel is 1 Thess 4:16. Jesus is said to possess an archangel's voice.

"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

Archangel is only ever used in the singular in the Bible and the only angel to be known as a principal or arch- angel is Michael. Both Michael and Jesus are said to be a leader of an angelic army.

"Michael and his angels battled with the dragon." - Re 12:7

"the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels." - 2 Thess 1:8b

"and [Jesus] will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound" - Mt 24:31

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him." - Mt 25:31

Michael, an angel with great authority, is thus seen as Jesus in a different assignment.

No disrespect intended but isn't that a bit of self fulfilling in terms of your interpretation? You seem, and this is just view of what you are saying, but it seems you are taking several verses and fitting them to your view. For example, saying jesus had the voice of an angel is not saying he was an angel. Similarly, saying jesus comes into his glory with Angels all around hi is not saying he is one. Michael is never thought to be Christ nor Christ Michael. Forgive me, but this seems a huge stretch here.

 

[JoStories]

Since names change from language to language, what is important isn't a transliteration of the divine name but a translation into the form most widely recognized in the target language.

I disagree with you. Not about names changing from one language to another but rather that translating that name into one more understood by the ones understanding that language would then mean what you infer. There are some that hold the belief that Artemis and Diana are one and the same from the Greek and the roman goddesses. They are very similar but they are not the same. Michael and Michele might seem the same but in our language (English), Michele would be more likely seen as the feminine Michelle. Of course, one could remove the E from that anime but I suspect not all that many would make that connection. We are a very literal people. Not too many extrapolate information.

 

[Kolibri]

No disrespect intended but isn't that a bit of self fulfilling in terms of your interpretation? You seem, and this is just view of what you are saying, but it seems you are taking several verses and fitting them to your view. For example, saying jesus had the voice of an angel is not saying he was an angel. Similarly, saying jesus comes into his glory with Angels all around hi is not saying he is one. Michael is never thought to be Christ nor Christ Michael. Forgive me, but this seems a huge stretch here.

It is true that we do not pray thru Michael, it is not the name give under heaven by which men can be saved. But it was not uncommon for people in bible times to have more than one name. The identification of Michael and Jesus being the same person is based off those 2 things. Archangel is only in the singular and nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that there is more than one army of faithful angels. Possessing the voice of an archangel indicates he is an archangel, just like possessing a diva's voice indicates the person singing is a diva.

But the identification of Jesus with Michael was only part of the argument, regarding to Jesus being an angel instead of being the true God. There is a strong link between Jesus and Proverbs 8.

I am going to have to stop here though. For one I am overtired. Perhaps I will pick this up later, but I am not really trying to prove it as much as present the logic used. Even arguing if Jesus is God or not is out of the scope of @KenS particular question that I was trying to answer.

 

[sojourner]

So what isn't "more modern" than the N.W.T. translation that was issued just last year?
The newer versions of the KJV sure do use the old KJV as a base.
Fact is the KJV is likely in more homes than any other version.
Not that anyone reads the Bible.

1) "More modern" as in more modern than the KJ, which was translated in 1611.
2) We're not talking about the KJ.
3) It doesn't matter how many people have the KJ in their homes.
4) It doesn't matter how many people read their bibles.
5) The NWT is extremely biased.

the NRSV is one of the most accurate and unbiased translations on the planet. It agrees with the KJ.

 

[sojourner]

There was too many instances where they used selective translating.

All translating is subjective, to some degree.

I know enough to know that the Name of the Allmighty God is Jehovah.

Almighty God's name (you could at least spell "almighty" correctly before attempting scholarly analysis) isn't "Jehovah." "Jehovah" is a hybrid, utilizing the letters of the tetragrammaton and the vowels of Adonai. It was coined by German translators and never appears in the ancient manuscripts.

 

[sojourner]

Fair enough...but that was not my point really. When someone asks me who is your daughter i'll say "...." if they ask me who is your God i am proud to say Jehovah.
My point was that translators have the responsibilty to accurately translate! So someone decides by their own reasoning to remove God's name, then most follow. Now JW rectify the mistake and they are ridiculed for it???

Yeah, because they're not "correcting a mistake." The translators of the major translations are highly-educated and trustworthy scholars. Your responsibility is to trust the scholarship. The JWs have "[decided] by their own reasoning to [change] God's name."

 

[sojourner]

I take nothing at face value and research anything not mainstream Christendom and have yet
to catch anything wrong or anything I could criticize about what the JW say is Truth.

You seem to take the JWs at face value, though...

 

[newone]

yeh-ho-vaw'
From
H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

All translating is subjective, to some degree.

Almighty God's name (you could at least spell "almighty" correctly before attempting scholarly analysis) isn't "Jehovah." "Jehovah" is a hybrid, utilizing the letters of the tetragrammaton and the vowels of Adonai. It was coined by German translators and never appears in the ancient manuscripts.

I never claimed "scholarly analysis", that's been done already. Sorry for my spelling mistake! English is not my first language...

 

[newone]

Yeah, because they're not "correcting a mistake." The translators of the major translations are highly-educated and trustworthy scholars. Your responsibility is to trust the scholarship. The JWs have "[decided] by their own reasoning to [change] God's name."

I am not sure what you are trying to say! These scholars you mention translated the word Jehovah in the KJV correctly in a few instances. The rest they translated as LORD.
What I said was who gives them the right to translate the same Hebrew "word" differently. The JW just corrected this!

Just as an example they (KJV) do exactly the same when they translate "hell"

 

[sojourner]

yeh-ho-vaw'
From
H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

We don't know how YHWH was pronounced.

 

[newone]

Agreed but I am sure it wasn't LORD...

 

[sojourner]

I am not sure what you are trying to say! These scholars you mention translated the word Jehovah in the KJV correctly in a few instances. The rest they translated as LORD.
What I said was who gives them the right to translate the same Hebrew "word" differently. The JW just corrected this!

Just as an example they (KJV) do exactly the same when they translate "hell"

You're mistaken; the JWs are mistaken in this regard. You (and the JWs) are mistakenly assuming that "Jehovah" is original to the texts. It isn't. It's a hybrid, mushed together by German translators, of YHWH and the vowels of Adonai. Problem is, Adonai and YHWH are two completely different terms.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed but I am sure it wasn't LORD...

It's a reading convenience. when someone reads the texts out loud (as in church), one can pronounce "LORD." One can't pronounce "YHWH." I believe the Jews substitute LORD for the tetragrammaton, since they, by law, cannot pronounce God's name.