Mister Emu said:
Hmm, I read the first one wrong. And still you would have to prove that Jehova is the true rendition, otherwise it is no better than LORD.
Really? the tetragrammaton is made up of YHWH. One translation states in its preface that one of the reasons it's pronounced Jehovah is because Y make a J sound and W, a V sound. The Tetragrammaton is used in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Septuagint. The name was used by Jesus and his disciples as they were familiar with the Septuagint. Jesus read from Isaiah when in the synagogue at Nazareth. Isaiah used the Tetragrammaton and Jesus pronounced the name then too.
as a side point, remember the first line of the lords prayer. 'Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.' or sanctify, lift above, glorify your NAME! Not title. People must know his name in order for it to be sanctified.
The Jews all knew God's personal name. it was Jewish tradition and superstition that went on to take the ten commandment's order not to take his name in a worthless way too far. They thought that if they didn't use it at all and replaced it with titles instead, then they wouldnt run the risk of taking it in vain.
that tradition has continued down through the years, so much so that his name has been removed from most translations and replaced by titles and has served to distance people from the true God, who he is, what he stands for and what his purposes for the earth are.
and as has already been argued, does it mean that just because you don't know how to pronounce someone's name, you don't have to use it?
take my name for example, some people pronounce it differently to how it should be pronounced. some even struggle to say it altogether. but they never think that perhaps they should take the easy option and call me Mr, Sir, or Man! And I accept whichever way the pronounce it, as I know its me they are talking to. If I was in a room full of people and someone called out Sir! many of us would turn around. Call me by my name and youll get me direct attention.
The first thing you do when you want to become friends with someone or get to know them is....ask their name! once you know their name, you will get to know them better. So it's very import that we use his name and not just a title. so on those grounds alone, the NWT is superior to many other translations as it had restored his name for people to know him, instead of hide him.
On to the KJV. It is a well known fact that the language of the KJV is archaic. It was written hundreds of years ago in the language of the time. and here's the thing. the actual words used in many verses have changed in meaning over the years. they were correct at the time but are no longer understood in the same light today. For instance, it uses the word 'allege' in the sense of 'prove'. So its not be deception, but it sure is misleading. The NWT doesn't have words that have different meanings for us today. so it's superior in that sense too. Then there are the word endings such est eth and its thy, thee, thous. its not in modern easy to understand English. So the NWT is better in that sense too. More people can actually understand what its message is and dont have to study Shakespeare to understand it.
And as far as additions go and accusations of adding things to fit agenda's and doctrine, how about this one? There is a spurious text, which is found at
1 John 5: 7. It's a verse that many say shouldn't be as it is, as it was added very much after the book was actually written. There is no footnote in the KJV telling people that it's spurious and that it isn't actually like that in the older manuscripts. So you accuse the NWT of adding things to fit JW teachings, well how about that one being left in, in support of the trinity? If that isn't misleading, I don't know what is...
