The New World Tranlsation of the Holy Scriptures

[Jayhawker Soule]

what about my last post though? valid points or not?

I consider substituting 'Jehova' for the original 'YHWH' an instance of petty pedantry. In my opinion, the best practice - the one that best transmits the meaning and use of the earliest textual witnesses, would be to use 'Lord' with 'YHWH' in brackets, e.g., "Lord [YHWH]".

As for May's quotes: what is the question? Also, given the reference to Exodus 23:31, to roughly when do you date the Exodus?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

I consider substituting 'Jehova' for the original 'YHWH' an instance of petty pedantry. In my opinion, the best practice - the one that best transmits the meaning and use of the earliest textual witnesses, would be to use 'Lord' with 'YHWH' in brackets, e.g., "Lord [YHWH]".

wouldn't that be great? yet that's not the way it is. so i would consider that to be 'scriptually dishonest'.

As for May's quotes: what is the question? Also, given the reference to Exodus 23:31, to roughly when do you date the Exodus?

well, he was putting the verse in context with other verses on the subject. speaking of the sons of israel. anyhoo, to the exodus, and i don't really want to answer this one, cos i know what you're like, but i place the time covered of the book of exodus between 1657-1512 BCE. i could try and show you when i think it happened, but no dout, you have 'better books' that agree with you.
now, before you go flying off the handle, i'd like to say that if i we're to ask you a question about say, the 70 weeks of Daniels prophecy, or the end of the gentile times, or how long the flood lasted, or how long Jesus was in the wilderness, or when the devil was thrown out of heaven, or when God's kingdom was established, or when the 'time of those kings' is in daniel is, then i'm sure you would argue till you are blue in the face that you were right and everyone else is wrong. cos that is what you are like. no one dare say anything about deut...you know, i thought of you when i read this scripture: 1 Tim 6:4,5
...He has a morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions,

5And protracted wrangling and wearing discussion and perpetual friction among men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a [c]source of profit

cos, looking at so many of your replies, you do have a tendancy to berate people and are condesending to them. and i doubt i'm the first to notice...hey, try this deut, colossians 4:6
Let your speech at all times be gracious (pleasant and winsome), seasoned [as it were] with salt, [so that you may never be at a loss] to know how you ought to answer anyone [who puts a question to you].

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I consider substituting 'Jehova' for the original 'YHWH' an instance of petty pedantry. In my opinion, the best practice - the one that best transmits the meaning and use of the earliest textual witnesses, would be to use 'Lord' with 'YHWH' in brackets, e.g., "Lord [YHWH]".

wouldn't that be great? yet that's not the way it is. so i would consider that to be 'scriptually dishonest'.

Thanks for agreeing with my recommendation. As for 'scriptually dishonest', I find that too harsh a characterization, since I seriously doubt that the substitution of 'Lord' for 'YHWH' was motivated by deceit or dogma. I would agree, however, that the NWT is more accurate in this regard, and the Jerusalem Bible even more so.

well, he was putting the verse in context with other verses on the subject. speaking of the sons of israel. anyhoo, to the exodus, and i don't really want to answer this one, cos i know what you're like, but i place the time covered of the book of exodus between 1657-1512 BCE.

It's an interesting (and a bit surprising) date option. Thanks for offering it.

..., before you go flying off the handle, i'd like to say that if i we're to ask you a question about say, the 70 weeks of Daniels prophecy, or the end of the gentile times, or how long the flood lasted, or how long Jesus was in the wilderness, or when the devil was thrown out of heaven, or when God's kingdom was established, or when the 'time of those kings' is in daniel is, then i'm sure you would argue till you are blue in the face that you were right and everyone else is wrong. cos that is what you are like. no one dare say anything about deut...

Are you finished with the personal attack?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Thanks for agreeing with my recommendation. As for 'scriptually dishonest', I find that too harsh a characterization, since I seriously doubt that the substitution of 'Lord' for 'YHWH' was motivated by deceit or dogma. I would agree, however, that the NWT is more accurate in this regard, and the Jerusalem Bible even more so.

It's an interesting (and a bit surprising) date option. Thanks for offering it.

Are you finished with the personal attack?

Yes I am. and thanks for the nice responses. i find it much better to discuss things in this manner, rather than having to on the 'defensive'. By the way, on your point about the substitution of YHWH, I've read that it was because of dogma or Jewish tradition that the name was removed, on the grounds of it being too sacred and unpronounceable.

 

[anders]

I consider substituting 'Jehova' for the original 'YHWH' an instance of petty pedantry. In my opinion, the best practice - the one that best transmits the meaning and use of the earliest textual witnesses, would be to use 'Lord' with 'YHWH' in brackets, e.g., "Lord [YHWH]"

The one thing we can say about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is, that in English, any version starting with a "J" is impossible. Personally, I agree with all those linguists who think that Yahve is the most probable English rendering. For German and Swedish, for example, the transcription is Jahve, in the same way as we spell Yeshua 'Jesus'.

Most translations that I've checked out use a word meaning 'lord' for YHWH. It is interesting to look at the ways the three words used in Ex. 5:22-6:3 (God, Adonai, YHWH) are translated. What I think is a unique way is the oldest Swedish translation (1641) using HERren for YHWH and HErren for Adonai) (both Swedish words meaning 'the Lord'). Pedantry aside, we all know what the referent is. I think it can safely be claimed that the NWT has a version without any claim to superiority.

 

[sysint]

Anders- The KJV (by way of example) uses the name translated to "Jehovah" twice. I think that the NWT is far more consistent than the KJV and others who really are erasing it from the text and substituting a title. (Over 6800 times.)

I get the feeling even if they made it "Yahve" over 6800 times you would have the same opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that the NWT is far more consistent than the KJV ...

I'm sure that we can all agree that the NWT is consistent.

 

[anders]

I'm sure that we can all agree that the NWT is consistent.

Not that you need more frubals, but anyway...

 

[khan1955]

Against most translataions of the Bible the NWt falls short,not withstanding pronuciation errors. That changes the whole context of the sentence,so i think there are better Bibles than the NWT out there.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

The one thing we can say about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is, that in English, any version starting with a "J" is impossible....

The preface of the Revised Standard Version explained the the Y in YHWH makes the sound of J and the W the sound of V. So i wouldn't say that it is impossible to pronounce YHWH as Jehovah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The preface of the Revised Standard Version explained the the Y in YHWH makes the sound of J and the W the sound of V. So i wouldn't say that it is impossible to pronounce YHWH as Jehovah.

Oy vey!

20th Century Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, pg. 1194,1195 "The pronunciation Yahweh of the Hebrew tetragrammaton need no longer be based on traditions preserved in late patristic sources. Both the vocalization yahwe and yahu (a shortened form used chiefly in personal names) are now confirmed by a variety of ancient Near Eastern inscriptional materials from the first and second millennia B.C."

The Modern Judaica Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p.69 "The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced 'Yahweh'. This is confirmed, at least for the vowels of the first syllable of the name, by the shorter form Yah, which is sometimes used in poetry (e.g., Ex.15:2) and the -yahu or -yah that serves as the final syllable in very many Hebrew names."

New Bible Dictionary (1962) " The pronounciation Yahweh is indicated by transliterations of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form iaoue (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe (Theodoret; by this time Gk. b had the pronunciation of v)"

 

[anders]

The preface of the Revised Standard Version explained the the Y in YHWH makes the sound of J and the W the sound of V. So i wouldn't say that it is impossible to pronounce YHWH as Jehovah.

They forgot a few words: ...the sound of J as pronounced in e.g. German and Scandinavian languages, which is quite different from the English J...

Other than that, Deut's quotes are the final words needed.

 

[sysint]

Nonsense Anders - I'd like to see all of you to stop utilizing a "J" for anyone anymore in the Bible (English) and start using "Y". No more 'Jesus' for you.

Unless you desire to be inconsistent, which apparently the NW is not. KJV and others only render the Divine Name a few times, while the NW does consistently. Not only that but KJV and others render that name Jehovah.

In that the NW is far more accurate as it doesn't substitute the Divine Name as a title.

Pronunciation exercises serve merely as an excuse as I don't find this level of conversation for other Biblical names having the letter "J".

 

[sysint]

Heres another example... ......
And this link shows clearly the bias when translating the Greek word "proskuneo" - here

I would challenge you to support that the NW isn't more consistent and proper translating proskuneo. If you want to point to bias, you will need to point the finger elsewhere.

Here's the first scripture to consider: Matthew 28:16,17. Try to explain how you feel "worship"is a better fit than "obeisance".

 

[Scott1]

sysint,

I've been trying to follow along... I do appreciate the insight into the NWT that you provide... but you've lost me with this last post.

I would challenge you to support that the NW isn't more consistent and proper translating proskuneo. If you want to point to bias, you will need to point the finger elsewhere.
Here's the first scripture to consider: Matthew 28:16,17. Try to explain how you feel "worship"is a better fit than "obeisance".

A "better fit"....??? What does that mean???

I'm just trying to understand what motivated your Church to translate proskuneo as "do obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah.... It's kinda hard for someone not educated about Bible translations to question this kind of translation when it is pretty clear to me that If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.

Should not proskuneo be translated consistantly, and not in a way that looks for a "better fit" with JW theology?

Scott

 

[sysint]

Explain other translations utilizing "worship" rather than "obeisance" at Matt 28:16,17 for proskuneo. Obeisance is a better choice of wording than worship.

Give it a shot. You haven't yet. One at a time.

 

[sysint]

sysint,....Should not proskuneo be translated consistantly, and not in a way that looks for a "better fit" with JW theology? Scott

Totally agree. Consistent with actual meaning. You would than agree that your statement works two ways? Which translation do you find better in this instance?

EDIT: and "what motivated your Church" - not my Church, got it? Thought I bridged this gap before.

 

[Scott1]

Totally agree. Consistent with actual meaning. You would than agree that your statement works two ways?

Actual meaning? Explain your standard for determination of "actual meaning".

Which translation do you find better in this instance?

Worship....

 

[sysint]

I meant Bible translation. (EDIT: NKJV?) You are contending you should use the word "worship"? I find that entertaining. What does the verse mean then?

 

[Scott1]

EDIT: and "what motivated your Church" - not my Church, got it? Thought I bridged this gap before.

Sorry... must have missed that... now I'm really confused.

I meant Bible translation. (EDIT: NKJV?) You are contending you should use the word "worship"? I find that entertaining. What does the verse mean then?

What do you find entertaining about it?