God's Name Removed from the Bible

[outhouse]

If it is then the man called Jesus did not know God's true name.

True

he didn't have a clue about Israelites history in mythology


he was a Aramaic jew worshipping the one god concept created before him, after that deity had a been Hellenized

 

[Tabb]

:biglaugh:


That's why he was NEVER called that originally, and was not called that for over a thousands years and possibly 2000 years!!! after his creation . 1500 years at minimum!

Jehovah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century).

The funny thing about this is the little know fact is that there is no J in the Hebrew language. Also there was no J in the English language until 400 years ago. That fact is always lost by the supporters of the name Jehovah.

 

[averageJOE]

The funny thing about this is the little know fact is that there is no J in the Hebrew language. Also there was no J in the English language until 400 years ago. That fact is always lost by the supporters of the name Jehovah.

I never knew this...

 

[outhouse]

I never knew this...

me either frubaled for that one.

 

[Sleeppy]

I can't say God is reality because parents kill their own children.

Have you read Numbers 31? All manner of atrocities are attributed to God's name. Isaiah must've known this when he insisted that God is sovereign over both good and evil.

 

[Nada]

The funny thing about this is the little know fact is that there is no J in the Hebrew language. Also there was no J in the English language until 400 years ago. That fact is always lost by the supporters of the name Jehovah.

Anyone who has done some real thorough studying knows this.Although the J has been around for a while now.There is proof of it being used in the 13th century.Initially the J was at that time,still pronounced like the German J,which was pronounced with more of a 'Y' sound.This is the way that it still is spoken in Germany today.Over time,the J sound eventually began to harden into sounding more like the the French J which is where the Modern English J originated from.


File:JEHOVA Raymundus Pugio Fidei 1270 a.png - Wikimedia Commons


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/JEHOVA_Raymundus_Pugio_Fidei_1270_a.png


The Letter “J”

Why, then, do English-speakers spell both Joshua and Jesus with a “j” rather than a “y” or an “i”? Where did this originate? Does it represent some sort of sinister plot, as a few assume, or is the explanation far more innocent?

Notice what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the history of the letter “j”: This “tenth letter of the alphabet in English and other modern languages is, in its origin, a comparatively late modification of the letter I. In the ancient Roman alpha- bet, I, besides its vowel value… had the kindred consonantal value of modern English Y… Some time before the 6th century, this y-sound had, by compression in articulation and consequent development of an initial ‘stop’, become a consonantal diphthong… In OE, i consonant, so far as it was used, had (as still in all the continental Germanic languages) its Latin value (y)… But the French orthography introduced by the Norman Conquest brought in the Old French value of i consonant = g ‘soft’ (dsh); a sound which English has ever since retained in words derived from that source… From the 11th to the 17th c., then, the letter i represented at once the vowel sound of i, and a consonant sound (dsh), far removed from the vowel.”

Throughout the medieval period, the forms of the modern “i” and “j” were used interchangeably, and both forms represented the same letter. How, then, did “i” and “j” come to be considered two distinct letters of the alphabet? “The differentiation was made first in Spanish, where, from the very introduction of printing, we see j used for the consonant, and i only for the vowel… Louis Elzevir, who printed at Leyden 1595–1616, is generally credited with making the modern distinction of u and v, i and j, which was shortly after followed by the introduction of U and J among the capitals by Lazarus Zetmer of Strasburg in 1619” (OED, “J”). The letters “i” and “j” continued for many years to be considered merely different forms of the same letter, so that as late as the early 19th century, dictionaries commonly intermingled the I and J words in one series.



Origin of the Names Jesus and Christ in English?

 

[paarsurrey]

Good point! They say the Bible has not been corrupted and that we should believe it as is.

Then they should not have changed Jehovah with Lord.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

First Jehovah is not his name. Second Jesus isn't Yeshua's name. Please don't hand me the translation Speil because that should only apply to names in general and not a persons actual name. The God of Abraham is who you worship. The name given to us from Abraham was YHWH, why not use it. If I had a friend visit me from France name Pierre I wouldn't call him Peter.

Do you mean that first it was YHWH, it was changed to Jehovah and then to Lord.

If yes, then it is multiple corruption.

Isn't it?

Regards

 

[sojourner]

Do you mean that first it was YHWH, it was changed to Jehovah and then to Lord.

If yes, then it is multiple corruption.

Isn't it?

Regards

"Corruption" implies that there is some "right" or "wrong" thing. It's not a "corruption," it's a decision.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's the devils will to hide the true name of God.If people do not know Gods true name then they cannot have a personal relationship with Him.

You mean devil made this corruption in the NT-Bible.???!!!
Was it done after canonization of NT-Bible at Nicene or while doing standardization of NT-Bible at Trent?

Regards

 

[ChristineES]

I am not 100% sure what the question is truly asking but back in the 80s I was told by some Jehovah's Witnesses told us that God's name was removed from the Bible and was replaced with words like "Lord". If this was already brought up, never mind.

 

[sojourner]

This time I am sure it wasn't the point of the post. It was a rhetorical question. The important question is why did God allow them to replace God's name with the word lord but God protected every other part of scripture.

God didn't "protect every other part of scripture." That's not what the bible is, nor is that how God operates. The bible is a very human document, and has always been subject to redaction, editing, expurgation. The bible wasn't set in stone, in fact, until the canon was closed. Even then, there are different canons.

 

[paarsurrey]

True

he didn't have a clue about Israelites history in mythology


he was a Aramaic jew worshipping the one god concept created before him, after that deity had a been Hellenized

Now you believe that he existed???!!!

Regards

 

[outhouse]

God didn't "protect every other part of scripture." That's not what the bible is, nor is that how God operates. The bible is a very human document, and has always been subject to redaction, editing, expurgation. The bible wasn't set in stone, in fact, until the canon was closed. Even then, there are different canons.

Exactly


Mans interpretation, for man.

And this sets the bar of fanaticism lower, which get my vote

 

[outhouse]

Now you believe that he existed???!!!

Im sorry you don't have the comprehensive abilities to know what I actually think.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Corruption" implies that there is some "right" or "wrong" thing. It's not a "corruption," it's a decision.

You mean decision of corruption???

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

God didn't "protect every other part of scripture." That's not what the bible is, nor is that how God operates. The bible is a very human document, and has always been subject to redaction, editing, expurgation. The bible wasn't set in stone, in fact, until the canon was closed. Even then, there are different canons.

I don't get you exactly. Please elaborate different canons.

Regards

 

[savagewind]

God didn't "protect every other part of scripture." That's not what the bible is, nor is that how God operates. The bible is a very human document, and has always been subject to redaction, editing, expurgation. The bible wasn't set in stone, in fact, until the canon was closed. Even then, there are different canons.

I know that. I think we are talking about the people who tell us what the Bible is and says. Many people believe very strongly that 1. God's name was removed and replaced with LORD and 2. God has not allowed mistakes in it.
I have said Jesus did not say to make disciples. The people who believe he DID say it tell me God would not allow such a mistake so what it says it what was intended. I say it was translated and interpreted. They say God directed all of it so that there is nothing in it that is misleading. I don't say that.

 

[sojourner]

You mean decision of corruption???

Regards

there is no "corruption," because there is no "right" or "wrong." Have earlier texts been edited/redacted? Of course! That's the nature of the texts! There was a decision made to supplant one term with another. That doesn't mean that the former was "corrupted."

 

[sojourner]

I don't get you exactly. Please elaborate different canons.

Regards

The Roman Catholics have a canon. The Orthodox have a different canon from that. The Protestants have a different canon from that. The Ethiopians have a different canon than that. The Copts have a different canon. None of these canons include all the same books. There is no "right" or "wrong." Don't impose characteristics upon the bible that were never intended.