Dear Malcolm and the Greoup,

I hope you don't mind, but I have deleted two messages that were both
duplicates of one that Malcolm sent to the list.  I have no idea how
we got three identical posts.

Also, my friends, if you could all please delete unneeded duplication
at the bottom of your post of material from the post that you are
answering, that would keep our posts shorter, save bandwidth, and so
forth.  Thanks for your cooperation.

Sincerely in Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
List Moderator

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg,

Greetings. As to my sources, I was probably quoting Rob Bowman, I'd let him
defend his sources as he's got them first hand. I can't get at my library at
the moment as I have just moved into my new place and have not been able to
get stuff out of storage yet due to illness...I'll spare you the gore!

One interesting quote for you though which seems to support my point:

*** it-2 7  Jehovah ***
In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced
a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew
text. When it came to God's name, instead of inserting the proper vowel
signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should
say ŽAdho·nai' (meaning "Sovereign Lord") or ŽElo·him' (meaning "God").
The Codex Leningrad B 19 A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the
Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah', Yehwih', and Yeho·wah'. Ginsburg's edition
of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah'. (Ge
3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely
pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah
(Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression
Ha·lelu-Yah' (meaning "Praise Jah, you people!"). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6)
Also, the forms Yehoh', Yoh, Yah, and Ya'hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of
the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived
from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers
point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be' and
I·a·ou·e', which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is
by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other
pronunciations, such as "Yahuwa," "Yahuah," or "Yehuah."


Again, I have always understood that the usage has sprung from its first
usage in the Bible. What do others think on this point? I'd not heard of the
di and tri grammaton so you've given me something to go lookup and read up.
Thanks! I like the further study! I have to say this is what I have always
hoped discussions with JW's could be like - the pursuance of truth.
Hallelujah! [And that wasn't a flippant use - I truly mean "Praise Jah you
people!"]

Best Wishes,

Malcolm


----- Original Message -----
From: <GregStffrd@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: From YHWH to LORD


> In a message dated 07/01/2001 3:07:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> madagoo@... writes:
>
> << Thank you for your long and involved answer. But you missed the point
of my
>  answer. >>
>
>
> Dear Malcom:
>
> Unless the brief quote in Rob Bowman's post is the extent of your answer,
> then it is entirely possible that I missed your point given that I did not
> get your email. I mentioned this in the opening of my post. I also noted
that
> I was writing in response to Ken's post, and I also picked up on a few
items
> from Rob's email to which I wanted to give another perspective.
>
>
> << I was simply explaining why and how not justifying why. But, the
>  very same answer you give mitigates against using Jehovah which is merely
a
>  romaninsation of an hybrid of the divine name (YHWH) and the vowels of
Lord
>  (Adonai in Hebrew and Kurios in Greek). >>
>
>
> What you write above is not correct. The vowels from ADONAI are _not_ used
> with the divine name in the majority of cases in MT. This is a common but
> inaccurate belief. "Jehovah" is an Anglicized form of the predominate
> pointing in MT, which is in harmony with the confirmed Jewish use of IAW
for
> the trigrammaton (found as early as the Elephantine Papyri), with a final
> aspirant. "Yahweh" can be shown to represent the Samaritan use of the
divine
> name, _as opposed to_ the Jewish usage. In other words, the same sources
that
> give IABE and IAOUE for the Samaritan use of the name _contrast_ this with
> the Jewish use of the name, which is represented by IA and IAW in the best
> sources.
>
> "Jehovah" accurately represents the consonants and vowels of the ancient
> pronunciation of the divine name, in English. If you want to argue against
> this, with me, then you must provide evidence for your comment about the
> vowels of ADONAI. This should be rather easy for you to provide.
>
>
> <<  It strikes me that the superstitious omission of the divine name by
the
> Jews
>  is matched by your insistence that the name should be returned when what
is
>  really required is understanding. Do we not raise sola scriptura to a
>  worshipful level and thereby offend the creator we seek to honour? >>
>
>
> There is a reason that God's name is the most frequently occurring name in
> the Hebrew Bible. It has everything to with understanding, believe me.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Stafford
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg,

On point one, I would say that it has been my understanding that the body of
evidence is that the people translating have simply faithfully followed what
they had, and that as the body of evidence IS so small in opposition, then
they have had at their disposal too little to cause doubt...hence they have
gone with the text in hand rather than assume the chance and add it. There
are numerous instances in the NWT where the quotations are "updated" or
revised to re-insert the missing Jehovah when there is no textual evidence
for doing so, the WBTS writers often quoting J references that are not
widely recognised and attested mss.

On point 2 then I would re-iterate that there seems to be too little LXX
material to be convincing. There are several text I believe that are of
Jewish origin that successfully insert the tetragrammaton and yet despite
their paucity they have survived. It is hard to believe that given the
successful transmission of the NT with over 25,000 extant texts that not
even 1% should have survived if your tenet were true; we should rightly
expect to find some 2500 NT texts with the divine name but they are not
there. If it had been the case that the NT writers were familiar with and
insistent on inserting the tetragrammaton as you allege, then there would be
numerous texts from the NT and the Apostolic fathers that would have
supported your case, but there seems to be very few. Too few to support your
case.

You said:

So until either possibility is realized, we should base our views on what we
have in hand.

What we have "in hand" is a large body of manuscripts that use kurios and
not the tetragrammaton. I would suggest that while there is liberty to use
the divine name we should not play scholastic "hunt the lady" by inserting
something that is not in the text but at most perhaps should have a
footnote, perchance, a systematic way of representing the use of the divine
name with full explanations...one might suggest using LORD or GOD for those
instances where the LXX uses kurios or theos when the  tetragrammaton
appears in the Hebrew. This is of course important when one reaches the
Greek scriptures as we begin to see who this LORD and GOD is.

For clarity, I am not against the use of the Jehovah or Yahweh in the
bible - I personally feel that its really a red-herring - but if one is
going to insist on using it then there has to be (a) sound evidence and
scholarship for doing so and (b) consistency. I'd be glad to consider your
evidence under (a) but for (b) I would point out several instances where the
NWT is not consistent in inserting Jehovah when it quotes or alludes to the
Hebrew scriptures:

Rom.10:9 J12-14, 16-18,22 ha'adhon we are told is exclusively used of
Jehovah (NWT p1568)
1Thess.4:16 [J7-813-14] &vs.. 17 [J7-8, 13-14, 24]
2Tim.1:18 [ho kurios] J7-8, 13-14, 16-18, 22-24
1Pet. 3:15 J7-8, 11-14, 16-17, 24
Rev.16:5 J7-8, 13-14, 16

This is instructive when one considers the lengths that the NWT translators
went to insert Jehovah in all the right places...except when the texts were
being personally applied to Jesus. I would suggest that this was the
governing principle that was moving through the early Church - not the
machiavellian removal of Jehovah but rather the live-giving revelation of
Jehovah in the flesh.

Best Wishes,



Malcolm


----- Original Message -----
From: <GregStffrd@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: From YHWH to LORD


> Dear Malcom:
>
> You wrote:
>
> << I've read your reply again and am intrigued. You say:
>
>  "This allows for AT LEAST 50 years to have passed from
>  the authoring of these mss. and the current copies in our possession. So,
no
>  one can say for certain what the NT writers used. No one. "
>
>  This begs the question (1) how and why are the WBTS so dogmatic in
allegedly
>  re-inserting it if no-one can be sure . >>
>
>
>
> Probably for the same reasons so many are dogmatic about not using the
divine
> name in the NT quotations of the divine-name-containing OT: their
appraisal
> of the evidence in hand. Neither party knows for sure, but each makes a
> decision and stands by that decision rather dogmatically, IMO.
>
>
> <<< (2) doesn't the fact that there is no
>  assurance indicate that the apostolic writers themselves did not do what
the
>  modern day WBTS is doing i.e. if the Apostles had thought this was a big
>  deal, then there would be more than sufficient evidence within the body
of
>  manuscripts and codex's to support you unequivocally. >>>
>
>
> I believe I already answered this by pointing out what happened to the
divine
> name in the LXX. The LXX was Scripture and we only have a few fragments
> predating the end of the first century CE to show that the divine name was
> used during this time. Other pre-first century LXX mss. may be found to
> contradict what I am saying, but we may also find NT mss. that contradict
> what you are saying! So until either possibility is realized, we should
base
> our views on what we have in hand.
>
> In this case, the vast majority of LXX mss. do not show a use of the
divine
> name. Why? Dating. If the majority of these date after the time when the
name
> was removed (and they do), then it makes no difference how many of the
mss.
> show this. The circumstances surrounding the treatment of the name in the
LXX
> show very clearly that the NT writings, many of which were not put on a
level
> equal to the LXX, may have been treated in same way as the NT. Indeed, one
> could argue that if the name was removed from the LXX then there would
have
> been even less hesitation about removing it from the NT writings!
>
>
> <<  I can't get to my Doug
>  Mason book at the moment as its in storage to look up more on this - can
>  someone else oblige who has his book? >>
>
>
> I read it. I speak with Doug quite regularly, in fact. He is a very
pleasant
> person. But there is nothing in his book that successfully argues against
> what I have stated above or in my previous email. I think Doug would be
far
> more willing to grant my position, when it comes to the NT quotes of the
OT,
> than he may have been in the past.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Stafford
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Dear Malcom:

You wrote:

<< I've read your reply again and am intrigued. You say:

  "This allows for AT LEAST 50 years to have passed from
  the authoring of these mss. and the current copies in our possession. So, no
  one can say for certain what the NT writers used. No one. "

  This begs the question (1) how and why are the WBTS so dogmatic in allegedly
  re-inserting it if no-one can be sure . >>



Probably for the same reasons so many are dogmatic about not using the divine
name in the NT quotations of the divine-name-containing OT: their appraisal
of the evidence in hand. Neither party knows for sure, but each makes a
decision and stands by that decision rather dogmatically, IMO.


<<< (2) doesn't the fact that there is no
  assurance indicate that the apostolic writers themselves did not do what the
  modern day WBTS is doing i.e. if the Apostles had thought this was a big
  deal, then there would be more than sufficient evidence within the body of
  manuscripts and codex's to support you unequivocally. >>>


I believe I already answered this by pointing out what happened to the divine
name in the LXX. The LXX was Scripture and we only have a few fragments
predating the end of the first century CE to show that the divine name was
used during this time. Other pre-first century LXX mss. may be found to
contradict what I am saying, but we may also find NT mss. that contradict
what you are saying! So until either possibility is realized, we should base
our views on what we have in hand.

In this case, the vast majority of LXX mss. do not show a use of the divine
name. Why? Dating. If the majority of these date after the time when the name
was removed (and they do), then it makes no difference how many of the mss.
show this. The circumstances surrounding the treatment of the name in the LXX
show very clearly that the NT writings, many of which were not put on a level
equal to the LXX, may have been treated in same way as the NT. Indeed, one
could argue that if the name was removed from the LXX then there would have
been even less hesitation about removing it from the NT writings!


<<  I can't get to my Doug
  Mason book at the moment as its in storage to look up more on this - can
  someone else oblige who has his book? >>


I read it. I speak with Doug quite regularly, in fact. He is a very pleasant
person. But there is nothing in his book that successfully argues against
what I have stated above or in my previous email. I think Doug would be far
more willing to grant my position, when it comes to the NT quotes of the OT,
than he may have been in the past.

Best regards,

Greg Stafford

In a message dated 07/01/2001 3:07:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
madagoo@... writes:

<< Thank you for your long and involved answer. But you missed the point of my
  answer. >>


Dear Malcom:

Unless the brief quote in Rob Bowman's post is the extent of your answer,
then it is entirely possible that I missed your point given that I did not
get your email. I mentioned this in the opening of my post. I also noted that
I was writing in response to Ken's post, and I also picked up on a few items
from Rob's email to which I wanted to give another perspective.


<< I was simply explaining why and how not justifying why. But, the
  very same answer you give mitigates against using Jehovah which is merely a
  romaninsation of an hybrid of the divine name (YHWH) and the vowels of  Lord
  (Adonai in Hebrew and Kurios in Greek). >>


What you write above is not correct. The vowels from ADONAI are _not_ used
with the divine name in the majority of cases in MT. This is a common but
inaccurate belief. "Jehovah" is an Anglicized form of the predominate
pointing in MT, which is in harmony with the confirmed Jewish use of IAW for
the trigrammaton (found as early as the Elephantine Papyri), with a final
aspirant. "Yahweh" can be shown to represent the Samaritan use of the divine
name, _as opposed to_ the Jewish usage. In other words, the same sources that
give IABE and IAOUE for the Samaritan use of the name _contrast_ this with
the Jewish use of the name, which is represented by IA and IAW in the best
sources.

"Jehovah" accurately represents the consonants and vowels of the ancient
pronunciation of the divine name, in English. If you want to argue against
this, with me, then you must provide evidence for your comment about the
vowels of ADONAI. This should be rather easy for you to provide.


<<  It strikes me that the superstitious omission of the divine name by the
Jews
  is matched by your insistence that the name should be returned when what is
  really required is understanding. Do we not raise sola scriptura to a
  worshipful level and thereby offend the creator we seek to honour? >>


There is a reason that God's name is the most frequently occurring name in
the Hebrew Bible. It has everything to with understanding, believe me.

Best regards,

Greg Stafford

Howdy Rob, hope your enjoying good health.
Just to say many thanks for the forum.  Its needed and appreciated.
God bless
Pete

Hi Malcolm
I live in Somerset but am originally from the West Midlands (a Brummy
bloke:0) )
Moved to Somerset a year ago.

mmm I have your name in my address book, must have chatted to you at
some point I guess.

God bless
Pete

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,

Firstly, can I gently correct the spelling of my name: Malcolm Goodwin (note
the 2nd L after the "o" in Malcolm)

Pete Stanton: I live in London. Do you know me? Your name seems familiar too
but I can't place it. Where are you based?


----- Original Message -----
From: <PETE@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Malcom?


> Hi Malcom
> Which part of England are you in? Your name is real familiar to me,
> I have probably spoken to you before.
> Pete Stanton
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Hi Malcom
Which part of England are you in? Your name is real familiar to me,
I have probably spoken to you before.
Pete Stanton

Hello Jeanette :)
Great to hear from you.

Good point about fearing the cross as a child, I could have made my
point clearer by using that example.  I used the 3 headed god only as
an example of JWs misunderstanding Christian doctrine, there are MANY
fears Jws have based upon misunderstanding or misrepresentation of
evangelical doctrine. I think the cross is a good example.
  The cross was scary to you as a child because of its said 'demon
inspiration' as we grow older we are told it is a 'pagan' symbol,
infact its the 'T' that represents the false god Tamos, we are
unwittingly worshipping Tamos if we have a cross in our
household...quite a fearful thought.
Its associated with nimrod, an enemy of Jah...scary.
Would you take the gun that murdered your child and wear it round
your neck?....Yuk.. a frightening image is called to mind.

Though shalt not have a graven image...surely Christians are
worshipping the cross just as Catholics worship mary...this
displeases Jah, he will destroy us for it....WHO wouldnt be fearful?
very scary.

All of this promotes FEAR, and all of this is a
misrepresentation...In my personal opinion the Watchtower does not
give a fair representation but it certainly puts a wall of fear
between JWs and  evangelicals...Imagine a Chritian begins sharing the
Gospel with you, imagine your a JW, on his lapel he wears a little
cross, would you take serious any word he spoke? WOuld you even
listen? I certainly wouldn't if I held the veiws above.  Thats why I
am so pleased that this forum exsists.

Well there is a list of fears that I could write here but the point
is probably made.
As for the 3 headed God, I think Greg was bang on, it did represent
the view of a minority of JWS also a fair amount of uninformed
Christians....Jws dont fear the trinity, some just think its "silly
and unbiblical"...Well wadda you know, that was my point! They think
its silly and unbiblical because it has been misinterpreted by WT!!!
the Minority FEAR it because it has been misinterpreted by the WT.
the end result is the same...fear, misinterpretation, mirepresented,
it all works the same for the WT.

I elaborated a bit did'nt I :)
Thanks Jeanette, Keep in touch. Maybe we will see you in Wales one of
these days:)
In Christ with you
Pete




--- In evangelicals_and_jws@y..., "Jeanette" <Jeanette@t...> wrote:
> Hey Pete
>
> Got your letter the other day.
>
> You wrote to Greg:
>
>
> >Many thanks for your response, it was appreciated.
> >I think I meant some Jws 'fear' the misinterpreted version of the
> >trinity rather than fear the trinity as an accurate
interpretation. I
> >do believe the images of three faces (often goulish faces at that)
on
> >one head does strike a cord of horror in some.  I certainly dont
like
> >to see those images...whether goulish or not
>
>
>
> As a JW, I was never fearful of the teaching of the Trinity, but I
had a
> terrible fear whenever I called on a house where the person had, for
> example, a cross hanging on the wall.  I was convinced, as a child,
that if
> I stayed around that cross, then Satan would attack me!
>
>
>
> >Though I am aware that such images are not a product of the
> >Watchtower I am sure the Watchtower makes good use of them.
>
> It's a pity that, when JWs insist that Trinitarians believe in a
> three-headed God, they are grossly misrepresenting the way
Christians
> understand God.
>
>
> " rather than, "A lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because
> >it has
> >> been misrepresented by the WTower."
>
> And a lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because they fear it may
lead them
> away from the "truth".  The fear, imo, has more to do with losing
good
> standing in the organisation than with the supposed false teachings
> themselves.
>
> Jeanette:-)

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Greg,

I've read your reply again and am intrigued. You say:

"This allows for AT LEAST 50 years to have passed from
the authoring of these mss. and the current copies in our possession. So, no
one can say for certain what the NT writers used. No one. "

This begs the question (1) how and why are the WBTS so dogmatic in allegedly
re-inserting it if no-one can be sure (2) doesn't the fact that there is no
assurance indicate that the apostolic writers themselves did not do what the
modern day WBTS is doing i.e. if the Apostles had thought this was a big
deal, then there would be more than sufficient evidence within the body of
manuscripts and codex's to support you unequivocally. I can't get to my Doug
Mason book at the moment as its in storage to look up more on this - can
someone else oblige who has his book?

Yours,



Malcolm



----- Original Message -----
From: <GregStffrd@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: From YHWH to LORD


> Dear Malcom:
>
> Though I did not, for some reason, get your message, I think I understand
> what you're after from the portion of your email quoted in Rob Bowman's
post.
> Ken, this is also in answer to your question.
>
> There is no justification for any removal of a form of the divine name
from
> any translation of the Hebrew Bible. It makes no difference whether Jews
in 1
> BCE, 1 CE, or thereafter chose not to use the name; it also makes no
> difference whether NT Christian writers used the name in their quotations
or
> paraphrases of the OT, or how the name was treated/used by post-apostolic
> Christianity. The only thing that matters is what God, from the mss. that
are
> available, chose to be used in the text. The only thing that could
neutralize
> this is some circumstantial evidence that shows that this was not actually
> God's original intention. This is important because when we come to the NT
> and the divine name, more is involved than just looking at the available
mss.
> This is because the OT does not use the name from some inspired source
beyond
> the author, namely, some other written source. The OT is directly inspired
> content. The NT is both directly inspired content and the use of
previously
> inspired material, that is, inspired information quoted from another
inspired
> source.
>
> The answer, then, for the OT, is unmistakable in about 6,000 instances.
Given
> this fact, and even setting aside what I just said about the difference
> between the use of mss. evidence in the OT and the NT, I have to wonder at
> the claims of some who question the seeming lack of NT mss. evidence for
the
> use of the divine name. Does it really matter to them what the mss.
evidence
> shows? Perhaps to some it does. But certain scholars' treatment of the
> evidence for the use of the name in the OT reveal that mss. evidence is
not
> the determining factor as far as they are concerned.
>
> Having said that, I believe, contrary to Rob and others, that there is a
good
> deal of evidence for the use of the divine name by Jews up until about the
> late second century CE, in both their writings AND in certain speech
> situations. I also believe there is compelling mss. evidence that the
divine
> name was used in the NT. What evidence is this?
>
> The LXX mss. that we have which predate the end of the first century CE,
and
> which preserve portions of the OT text which in Hebrew contain the divine
> name, ALL have forms of the divine name in the Greek text. There are no
> exceptions.
>
> Couple this with the fact that all of the Hebrew mss. have the divine name
> and you are left with the following options: 1) The NT writers chose to
> depart from the Hebrew and LXX use of the divine name and use surrogates
such
> as "Lord" and "God"; or 2) they followed the OT practice (LXX and Hebrew)
of
> using one of several forms of the divine name. (A third option may have
been
> the use of circumlocutions for the divine name, such as double and triple
> yods, HaSHEM ["the name"], and other circumlocutions which are not the
divine
> name but which stand in its place with far greater restrictions in terms
of
> their application than do the surrogate titles "Lord" or "God." Also, we
do
> have several Hebrew Matthew manuscripts that appear to reflect an early
> text-type that use one or more of the above-mentioned circumlocutions.)
>
> I have made a careful study of all early NT manuscripts containing OT
quotes
> which in the OT contain the divine name but which in the preserved NT mss.
do
> not use the name. I have spent hours verifying many of these mss. on
> microfilm and for others I have checked a wide variety of published
> materials, including photocopies where available, anything that would give
me
> the actual text for verification as opposed to the printed reading or
> variants listed in a GNT or text-critical tool. It is my belief that the
> earliest NT manuscripts that preserve an OT text that in the OT contains
the
> divine name, are P46 and P66. The most likely date for P46 is between 98
and
> 117 CE or sometime shortly thereafter, and for P66 the dating is likely
the
> late second century. This allows for AT LEAST 50 years to have passed from
> the authoring of these mss. and the current copies in our possession. So,
no
> one can say for certain what the NT writers used. No one.
>
> The question we have to answer is this: Is there any evidence to suggest
that
> someone may have removed the divine name from the NT quotation, given the
> fact that the name is in both known OT sources (LXX and Hebrew) ? Or did
the
> author simply choose another option (surrogate [nomina sacra?] or
> circumlocution)? Is there some reason to think that anyone would want to
> remove the divine name from the NT, if it was there to begin with? I say
yes!
>
> The evidence is this: the LXX, which was viewed as Scripture by the early
> Christians and even on par with the Hebrew text in terms of inspiration,
more
> so than our present-day collection of NT writings were then viewed, had
the
> divine name up until shortly after the end of the first century CE. But
> sometime after the end of the first century CE the name was removed from
the
> LXX. The mss. evidence shows this. The Christian copies of the LXX do not
use
> the divine name, though all pre-Christian Jewish copies, copies that would
> have been used by the apostles, use it. Thus, the timeline is roughly if
not
> exactly the same for the disappearance of the name from the LXX and the
time
> we would expect it to have been removed from the NT (which is within 50
years
> or so of the writing of P46 and P66). It is not a stretch by any means to
> suggest that those who chose to remove the name from their copies or
> translations of the LXX also chose to do the same thing with their copies
and
> translations of the NT.
>
> I have much more to say about this, and I am sure the present discussion
will
> bring some of it out. However, for those interested, I discuss this and
many
> other details about the use and pronunciation of the divine name in my
book,
> Jehovah's Witnessed Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2d ed.
> (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 2000), in Chapter 1. (See
> www.elihubooks.com.) I also provide a discussion of this issue in my
> forthcoming book, Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's
> Witnesses, due out this September/October. But, like I said, I am sure
we'll
> cover much of the same ground in this discussion.
>
> To summarize, I do not believe there is any basis for any translation to
fail
> to use a form of the divine name in the OT. There is a basis for choosing
not
> to use it in the NT, but there are questions that linger for one who
chooses
> not to do so, and some of these have been touched on above. There is mss.
> evidence for the use of the divine name in the NT, and this evidence
relates
> primarily to the available sources for the NT quotations using the divine
> name, and from the circumstances relating to the treatment of the name in
the
> more dominant of the two sources for the early Christians' divine
authority
> (the LXX) during the same period of time and by the same people that we
would
> expect to have been involved with the transmission of the NT mss.
>
> More later...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Stafford
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rob,

Thanks for the correction! I did know that fact, but it was quite late here
in the UK when I wrote the response and hence the mistake! I've just sent
out a point correcting my mistake in response to Greg's reply.

Yours,


Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Bowman" <faithhasitsreasons@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:48 AM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: From YHWH to LORD


> Dear Malcolm:
>
> You wrote:
>
> << it has been my understanding that where ever the LXX interpolated
> the vowels for Kurios (Greek for Lord) over the tetragrammaton
> consonants then the English translation uses LORD (which is
> distinguished from "Lord" in as far as that the tetragrammaton does
> not appear in the original Hebrew. Where the vowels for theos (Greek
> for god) appear in the LXX, then the English versions use GOD cf.
> God. >>
>
> This is pretty close, Malcolm, although I think you've got the Hebrew
> and Greek versions of the Old Testament mixed up a bit.  Let me start
> at the beginning (on a VERY elementary level) for those who may find
> this helpful.  Perhaps Greg Stafford or one of the other Witnesses in
> our group will want to offer their perspective and, no doubt, any
> correction they can to what I say here.
>
> The Old Testament was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew
> (small portions are written in Aramaic, a language closely related to
> Hebrew).  The OT Hebrew, of course, used the divine name YHWH,
> usually translated "Yahweh" but more classically in English rendered
> as "Jehovah" (as indeed it is rendered four times in the KJV).  The
> ancient Hebrew manuscripts were written without vowels, and medieval
> scribes added vowel points to assist in reading the text.  At some
> point in history -- evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses on this list
> may disagree as to precisely when -- many of the Jews began using
> substitutes for the divine name, especially "Lord" (in Hebrew,
> _adonai_), and less often, "God" (in Hebrew, _el_ or _elohim_).  As I
> point out in my book _Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses_, there is
> some evidence for this practice even in the Hebrew OT (compare Psalm
> 14 with Psalm 53).  My own view is that the practice was already
> widespread by Jesus' time in the first century AD if not earlier.
>
> Now, the Greek translation (or, if one wants to be more precise,
> translations) of the OT (commonly called the Septuagint, although
> this was only the most influential Greek translation), at least as it
> was preserved and transmitted down through the centuries, followed
> the above practice, though in Greek.  So, where the Hebrew OT had
> YHWH, it would substitute the Greek word _kurios_ ("Lord") or,
> occasionally, _theos_ ("God").  A few copies of the Greek OT dating
> from before the time of Jesus have been found in which a form of the
> divine name appears (and of this fact the Jehovah's Witnesses make a
> great deal), but these do not settle the question of whether the
> Greek OT used by the NT writers also had a form of the divine name.
>
> The Greek NT itself has been preserved in numerous manuscripts dating
> from the early second century AD and later.  The manuscript evidence
> overwhelmingly and uniformly supports the consistent use of the same
> substitutes (_kurios_ and, secondarily, _theos_) for the divine name
> as we find in the historic Greek versions of the OT.  The only
> ancient Greek NT text exhibiting a form of the divine name is
> Revelation 19, where the expression "Hallelujah" (which represents
> the Hebrew for "Praise Yah") occurs four times.  Thus, where the
> Greek NT quotes from the OT, whether the wording in other respects
> follows closely that of the Hebrew text or the Septuagint or some
> other wording, if the OT quotation includes the divine name, the NT
> consistently replaces that divine name with either _kurios_ (in most
> instances) or _theos_ (in a few instances).
>
> English Bibles, with few exceptions, have followed the lead of the NT
> and used either "Lord" or "God" in place of the divine name
> throughout the English OT (though, as noted, in four instances the
> KJV used the name "Jehovah").  But to alert the English reader to the
> fact that the Hebrew text had the divine name, the English
> translations print these substitutes in all capitals (LORD or GOD).
>
> Finally, the form "Jehovah" for the divine name has traditionally
> been traced to the reading of the divine name YHWH in Hebrew
> manuscripts of the OT with the vowel points for the substitute adonai
> ("Lord").  Combining the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of adonai
> yields something like Yahowah.  Anglicizing this word and reading
> a "V" sound for "W" resulted in the form "Jehovah" (much as "Jesus"
> arose from the Hebrew Yashua through the Greek Iesous to the
> Latin "Jesu," where the "J" was pronounced like a "Y").
>
> Some critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses make much of the fact
> that "Jehovah" likely wasn't the original form of the divine name.  I
> myself have never thought this was a point against their position.
> It does count against the more traditional Sacred name groups, like
> the Assemblies of Yahweh, who insist that if you don't pronounce the
> divine name correctly He will be offended.  The Witnesses don't go
> quite that far; they just insist that if you don't USE the divine
> name He will be offended.  But this claim also doesn't stand up
> biblically.  The evidence from the Greek NT is that God could care
> less whether you use the name Yahweh, Jehovah, or any other form of
> that divine name.  What God cares about is that you know that he is
> inviting you to call him "Father" through the adoption he offers
> through the redeeming work of his Son, to all who come to confess
> that he, Jesus Christ, is himself KURIOS, "Lord" (Phil. 2:9-11; see
> also Rom. 10:9-13; Heb. 1:10-12; 1 Peter 2:3; 3:15).
>
> Sincerely in Christ's service,
> Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Greg,

Thank you for your long and involved answer. But you missed the point of my
answer. I was simply explaining why and how not justifying why. But, the
very same answer you give mitigates against using Jehovah which is merely a
romaninsation of an hybrid of the divine name (YHWH) and the vowels of  Lord
(Adonai in Hebrew and Kurios in Greek). Hence the hybrid (when
transliterated into a roman type) would be YaHoWaH which was romanised into
Jehovah. This romanised hybrid of the divine name was first introduced by
Raymundus Martini.

It strikes me that the superstitious omission of the divine name by the Jews
is matched by your insistence that the name should be returned when what is
really required is understanding. Do we not raise sola scriptura to a
worshipful level and thereby offend the creator we seek to honour?

Yours,



Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: <GregStffrd@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [evangelicals_and_jws] Re: From YHWH to LORD


> Dear Malcom:
>
> Though I did not, for some reason, get your message, I think I understand
> what you're after from the portion of your email quoted in Rob Bowman's
post.
> Ken, this is also in answer to your question.
>
> There is no justification for any removal of a form of the divine name
from
> any translation of the Hebrew Bible. It makes no difference whether Jews
in 1
> BCE, 1 CE, or thereafter chose not to use the name; it also makes no
> difference whether NT Christian writers used the name in their quotations
or
> paraphrases of the OT, or how the name was treated/used by post-apostolic
> Christianity. The only thing that matters is what God, from the mss. that
are
> available, chose to be used in the text. The only thing that could
neutralize
> this is some circumstantial evidence that shows that this was not actually
> God's original intention. This is important because when we come to the NT
> and the divine name, more is involved than just looking at the available
mss.
> This is because the OT does not use the name from some inspired source
beyond
> the author, namely, some other written source. The OT is directly inspired
> content. The NT is both directly inspired content and the use of
previously
> inspired material, that is, inspired information quoted from another
inspired
> source.
>
> The answer, then, for the OT, is unmistakable in about 6,000 instances.
Given
> this fact, and even setting aside what I just said about the difference
> between the use of mss. evidence in the OT and the NT, I have to wonder at
> the claims of some who question the seeming lack of NT mss. evidence for
the
> use of the divine name. Does it really matter to them what the mss.
evidence
> shows? Perhaps to some it does. But certain scholars' treatment of the
> evidence for the use of the name in the OT reveal that mss. evidence is
not
> the determining factor as far as they are concerned.
>
> Having said that, I believe, contrary to Rob and others, that there is a
good
> deal of evidence for the use of the divine name by Jews up until about the
> late second century CE, in both their writings AND in certain speech
> situations. I also believe there is compelling mss. evidence that the
divine
> name was used in the NT. What evidence is this?
>
> The LXX mss. that we have which predate the end of the first century CE,
and
> which preserve portions of the OT text which in Hebrew contain the divine
> name, ALL have forms of the divine name in the Greek text. There are no
> exceptions.
>
> Couple this with the fact that all of the Hebrew mss. have the divine name
> and you are left with the following options: 1) The NT writers chose to
> depart from the Hebrew and LXX use of the divine name and use surrogates
such
> as "Lord" and "God"; or 2) they followed the OT practice (LXX and Hebrew)
of
> using one of several forms of the divine name. (A third option may have
been
> the use of circumlocutions for the divine name, such as double and triple
> yods, HaSHEM ["the name"], and other circumlocutions which are not the
divine
> name but which stand in its place with far greater restrictions in terms
of
> their application than do the surrogate titles "Lord" or "God." Also, we
do
> have several Hebrew Matthew manuscripts that appear to reflect an early
> text-type that use one or more of the above-mentioned circumlocutions.)
>
> I have made a careful study of all early NT manuscripts containing OT
quotes
> which in the OT contain the divine name but which in the preserved NT mss.
do
> not use the name. I have spent hours verifying many of these mss. on
> microfilm and for others I have checked a wide variety of published
> materials, including photocopies where available, anything that would give
me
> the actual text for verification as opposed to the printed reading or
> variants listed in a GNT or text-critical tool. It is my belief that the
> earliest NT manuscripts that preserve an OT text that in the OT contains
the
> divine name, are P46 and P66. The most likely date for P46 is between 98
and
> 117 CE or sometime shortly thereafter, and for P66 the dating is likely
the
> late second century. This allows for AT LEAST 50 years to have passed from
> the authoring of these mss. and the current copies in our possession. So,
no
> one can say for certain what the NT writers used. No one.
>
> The question we have to answer is this: Is there any evidence to suggest
that
> someone may have removed the divine name from the NT quotation, given the
> fact that the name is in both known OT sources (LXX and Hebrew) ? Or did
the
> author simply choose another option (surrogate [nomina sacra?] or
> circumlocution)? Is there some reason to think that anyone would want to
> remove the divine name from the NT, if it was there to begin with? I say
yes!
>
> The evidence is this: the LXX, which was viewed as Scripture by the early
> Christians and even on par with the Hebrew text in terms of inspiration,
more
> so than our present-day collection of NT writings were then viewed, had
the
> divine name up until shortly after the end of the first century CE. But
> sometime after the end of the first century CE the name was removed from
the
> LXX. The mss. evidence shows this. The Christian copies of the LXX do not
use
> the divine name, though all pre-Christian Jewish copies, copies that would
> have been used by the apostles, use it. Thus, the timeline is roughly if
not
> exactly the same for the disappearance of the name from the LXX and the
time
> we would expect it to have been removed from the NT (which is within 50
years
> or so of the writing of P46 and P66). It is not a stretch by any means to
> suggest that those who chose to remove the name from their copies or
> translations of the LXX also chose to do the same thing with their copies
and
> translations of the NT.
>
> I have much more to say about this, and I am sure the present discussion
will
> bring some of it out. However, for those interested, I discuss this and
many
> other details about the use and pronunciation of the divine name in my
book,
> Jehovah's Witnessed Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2d ed.
> (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 2000), in Chapter 1. (See
> www.elihubooks.com.) I also provide a discussion of this issue in my
> forthcoming book, Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's
> Witnesses, due out this September/October. But, like I said, I am sure
we'll
> cover much of the same ground in this discussion.
>
> To summarize, I do not believe there is any basis for any translation to
fail
> to use a form of the divine name in the OT. There is a basis for choosing
not
> to use it in the NT, but there are questions that linger for one who
chooses
> not to do so, and some of these have been touched on above. There is mss.
> evidence for the use of the divine name in the NT, and this evidence
relates
> primarily to the available sources for the NT quotations using the divine
> name, and from the circumstances relating to the treatment of the name in
the
> more dominant of the two sources for the early Christians' divine
authority
> (the LXX) during the same period of time and by the same people that we
would
> expect to have been involved with the transmission of the NT mss.
>
> More later...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg Stafford
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Dear EJW Group:

Greg Stafford had written:

<< Dear Malcom:

Though I did not, for some reason, get your message, I think I
understand what you're after from the portion of your email quoted in
Rob Bowman's post.  Ken, this is also in answer to your question. >>

For future reference, if anyone on the list misses a post for some
reason, please go to the following web site:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evangelicals_and_jws

There you can read and review any messages you want.

Here was Ken's actual question, to which Malcolm and I had replied:

<< Limiting the scope of my question to the English translation of
the Old Testament, how did "LORD" come to be used to represent the
Tetragrammaton in most English Bibles? >>

Sincerely in Christ's service,

Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
List Moderator

Dear Malcom:

Though I did not, for some reason, get your message, I think I understand
what you're after from the portion of your email quoted in Rob Bowman's post.
Ken, this is also in answer to your question.

There is no justification for any removal of a form of the divine name from
any translation of the Hebrew Bible. It makes no difference whether Jews in 1
BCE, 1 CE, or thereafter chose not to use the name; it also makes no
difference whether NT Christian writers used the name in their quotations or
paraphrases of the OT, or how the name was treated/used by post-apostolic
Christianity. The only thing that matters is what God, from the mss. that are
available, chose to be used in the text. The only thing that could neutralize
this is some circumstantial evidence that shows that this was not actually
God's original intention. This is important because when we come to the NT
and the divine name, more is involved than just looking at the available mss.
This is because the OT does not use the name from some inspired source beyond
the author, namely, some other written source. The OT is directly inspired
content. The NT is both directly inspired content and the use of previously
inspired material, that is, inspired information quoted from another inspired
source.

The answer, then, for the OT, is unmistakable in about 6,000 instances. Given
this fact, and even setting aside what I just said about the difference
between the use of mss. evidence in the OT and the NT, I have to wonder at
the claims of some who question the seeming lack of NT mss. evidence for the
use of the divine name. Does it really matter to them what the mss. evidence
shows? Perhaps to some it does. But certain scholars' treatment of the
evidence for the use of the name in the OT reveal that mss. evidence is not
the determining factor as far as they are concerned.

Having said that, I believe, contrary to Rob and others, that there is a good
deal of evidence for the use of the divine name by Jews up until about the
late second century CE, in both their writings AND in certain speech
situations. I also believe there is compelling mss. evidence that the divine
name was used in the NT. What evidence is this?

The LXX mss. that we have which predate the end of the first century CE, and
which preserve portions of the OT text which in Hebrew contain the divine
name, ALL have forms of the divine name in the Greek text. There are no
exceptions.

Couple this with the fact that all of the Hebrew mss. have the divine name
and you are left with the following options: 1) The NT writers chose to
depart from the Hebrew and LXX use of the divine name and use surrogates such
as "Lord" and "God"; or 2) they followed the OT practice (LXX and Hebrew) of
using one of several forms of the divine name. (A third option may have been
the use of circumlocutions for the divine name, such as double and triple
yods, HaSHEM ["the name"], and other circumlocutions which are not the divine
name but which stand in its place with far greater restrictions in terms of
their application than do the surrogate titles "Lord" or "God." Also, we do
have several Hebrew Matthew manuscripts that appear to reflect an early
text-type that use one or more of the above-mentioned circumlocutions.)

I have made a careful study of all early NT manuscripts containing OT quotes
which in the OT contain the divine name but which in the preserved NT mss. do
not use the name. I have spent hours verifying many of these mss. on
microfilm and for others I have checked a wide variety of published
materials, including photocopies where available, anything that would give me
the actual text for verification as opposed to the printed reading or
variants listed in a GNT or text-critical tool. It is my belief that the
earliest NT manuscripts that preserve an OT text that in the OT contains the
divine name, are P46 and P66. The most likely date for P46 is between 98 and
117 CE or sometime shortly thereafter, and for P66 the dating is likely the
late second century. This allows for AT LEAST 50 years to have passed from
the authoring of these mss. and the current copies in our possession. So, no
one can say for certain what the NT writers used. No one.

The question we have to answer is this: Is there any evidence to suggest that
someone may have removed the divine name from the NT quotation, given the
fact that the name is in both known OT sources (LXX and Hebrew) ? Or did the
author simply choose another option (surrogate [nomina sacra?] or
circumlocution)? Is there some reason to think that anyone would want to
remove the divine name from the NT, if it was there to begin with? I say yes!

The evidence is this: the LXX, which was viewed as Scripture by the early
Christians and even on par with the Hebrew text in terms of inspiration, more
so than our present-day collection of NT writings were then viewed, had the
divine name up until shortly after the end of the first century CE. But
sometime after the end of the first century CE the name was removed from the
LXX. The mss. evidence shows this. The Christian copies of the LXX do not use
the divine name, though all pre-Christian Jewish copies, copies that would
have been used by the apostles, use it. Thus, the timeline is roughly if not
exactly the same for the disappearance of the name from the LXX and the time
we would expect it to have been removed from the NT (which is within 50 years
or so of the writing of P46 and P66). It is not a stretch by any means to
suggest that those who chose to remove the name from their copies or
translations of the LXX also chose to do the same thing with their copies and
translations of the NT.

I have much more to say about this, and I am sure the present discussion will
bring some of it out. However, for those interested, I discuss this and many
other details about the use and pronunciation of the divine name in my book,
Jehovah's Witnessed Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2d ed.
(Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 2000), in Chapter 1. (See
www.elihubooks.com.) I also provide a discussion of this issue in my
forthcoming book, Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's
Witnesses, due out this September/October. But, like I said, I am sure we'll
cover much of the same ground in this discussion.

To summarize, I do not believe there is any basis for any translation to fail
to use a form of the divine name in the OT. There is a basis for choosing not
to use it in the NT, but there are questions that linger for one who chooses
not to do so, and some of these have been touched on above. There is mss.
evidence for the use of the divine name in the NT, and this evidence relates
primarily to the available sources for the NT quotations using the divine
name, and from the circumstances relating to the treatment of the name in the
more dominant of the two sources for the early Christians' divine authority
(the LXX) during the same period of time and by the same people that we would
expect to have been involved with the transmission of the NT mss.

More later...

Best regards,

Greg Stafford

Dear Malcolm:

You wrote:

<< it has been my understanding that where ever the LXX interpolated
the vowels for Kurios (Greek for Lord) over the tetragrammaton
consonants then the English translation uses LORD (which is
distinguished from "Lord" in as far as that the tetragrammaton does
not appear in the original Hebrew. Where the vowels for theos (Greek
for god) appear in the LXX, then the English versions use GOD cf.
God. >>

This is pretty close, Malcolm, although I think you've got the Hebrew
and Greek versions of the Old Testament mixed up a bit.  Let me start
at the beginning (on a VERY elementary level) for those who may find
this helpful.  Perhaps Greg Stafford or one of the other Witnesses in
our group will want to offer their perspective and, no doubt, any
correction they can to what I say here.

The Old Testament was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew
(small portions are written in Aramaic, a language closely related to
Hebrew).  The OT Hebrew, of course, used the divine name YHWH,
usually translated "Yahweh" but more classically in English rendered
as "Jehovah" (as indeed it is rendered four times in the KJV).  The
ancient Hebrew manuscripts were written without vowels, and medieval
scribes added vowel points to assist in reading the text.  At some
point in history -- evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses on this list
may disagree as to precisely when -- many of the Jews began using
substitutes for the divine name, especially "Lord" (in Hebrew,
_adonai_), and less often, "God" (in Hebrew, _el_ or _elohim_).  As I
point out in my book _Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses_, there is
some evidence for this practice even in the Hebrew OT (compare Psalm
14 with Psalm 53).  My own view is that the practice was already
widespread by Jesus' time in the first century AD if not earlier.

Now, the Greek translation (or, if one wants to be more precise,
translations) of the OT (commonly called the Septuagint, although
this was only the most influential Greek translation), at least as it
was preserved and transmitted down through the centuries, followed
the above practice, though in Greek.  So, where the Hebrew OT had
YHWH, it would substitute the Greek word _kurios_ ("Lord") or,
occasionally, _theos_ ("God").  A few copies of the Greek OT dating
from before the time of Jesus have been found in which a form of the
divine name appears (and of this fact the Jehovah's Witnesses make a
great deal), but these do not settle the question of whether the
Greek OT used by the NT writers also had a form of the divine name.

The Greek NT itself has been preserved in numerous manuscripts dating
from the early second century AD and later.  The manuscript evidence
overwhelmingly and uniformly supports the consistent use of the same
substitutes (_kurios_ and, secondarily, _theos_) for the divine name
as we find in the historic Greek versions of the OT.  The only
ancient Greek NT text exhibiting a form of the divine name is
Revelation 19, where the expression "Hallelujah" (which represents
the Hebrew for "Praise Yah") occurs four times.  Thus, where the
Greek NT quotes from the OT, whether the wording in other respects
follows closely that of the Hebrew text or the Septuagint or some
other wording, if the OT quotation includes the divine name, the NT
consistently replaces that divine name with either _kurios_ (in most
instances) or _theos_ (in a few instances).

English Bibles, with few exceptions, have followed the lead of the NT
and used either "Lord" or "God" in place of the divine name
throughout the English OT (though, as noted, in four instances the
KJV used the name "Jehovah").  But to alert the English reader to the
fact that the Hebrew text had the divine name, the English
translations print these substitutes in all capitals (LORD or GOD).

Finally, the form "Jehovah" for the divine name has traditionally
been traced to the reading of the divine name YHWH in Hebrew
manuscripts of the OT with the vowel points for the substitute adonai
("Lord").  Combining the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of adonai
yields something like Yahowah.  Anglicizing this word and reading
a "V" sound for "W" resulted in the form "Jehovah" (much as "Jesus"
arose from the Hebrew Yashua through the Greek Iesous to the
Latin "Jesu," where the "J" was pronounced like a "Y").

Some critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses make much of the fact
that "Jehovah" likely wasn't the original form of the divine name.  I
myself have never thought this was a point against their position.
It does count against the more traditional Sacred name groups, like
the Assemblies of Yahweh, who insist that if you don't pronounce the
divine name correctly He will be offended.  The Witnesses don't go
quite that far; they just insist that if you don't USE the divine
name He will be offended.  But this claim also doesn't stand up
biblically.  The evidence from the Greek NT is that God could care
less whether you use the name Yahweh, Jehovah, or any other form of
that divine name.  What God cares about is that you know that he is
inviting you to call him "Father" through the adoption he offers
through the redeeming work of his Son, to all who come to confess
that he, Jesus Christ, is himself KURIOS, "Lord" (Phil. 2:9-11; see
also Rom. 10:9-13; Heb. 1:10-12; 1 Peter 2:3; 3:15).

Sincerely in Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
it has been my understanding that where ever the LXX interpolated the vowels
for Kurios (Greek for Lord) over the tetragrammaton consonants then the
English translation uses LORD (which is distinguished from "Lord" in as far
as that the tetragrammaton does not appear in the original Hebrew. Where the
vowels for theos (Greek for god) appear in the LXX, then the English
versions use GOD cf. God.

I stand to be corrected if anyone has another understanding.


Yours

Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: <teamcanman@...>
To: <evangelicals_and_jws@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 8:10 PM
Subject: [evangelicals_and_jws] Question for All


> Limiting the scope of my question to the English translation of the
> Old Testament, how did "LORD" come to be used to represent the
> Tetragrammaton in most English Bibles?
>
> Ken Anderson
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evangelicals_and_jws-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Limiting the scope of my question to the English translation of the
Old Testament, how did "LORD" come to be used to represent the
Tetragrammaton in most English Bibles?

Ken Anderson

Hey Pete

Got your letter the other day.

You wrote to Greg:


>Many thanks for your response, it was appreciated.
>I think I meant some Jws 'fear' the misinterpreted version of the
>trinity rather than fear the trinity as an accurate interpretation. I
>do believe the images of three faces (often goulish faces at that)on
>one head does strike a cord of horror in some.  I certainly dont like
>to see those images...whether goulish or not



As a JW, I was never fearful of the teaching of the Trinity, but I had a
terrible fear whenever I called on a house where the person had, for
example, a cross hanging on the wall.  I was convinced, as a child, that if
I stayed around that cross, then Satan would attack me!



>Though I am aware that such images are not a product of the
>Watchtower I am sure the Watchtower makes good use of them.

It's a pity that, when JWs insist that Trinitarians believe in a
three-headed God, they are grossly misrepresenting the way Christians
understand God.


" rather than, "A lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because
>it has
>> been misrepresented by the WTower."

And a lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because they fear it may lead them
away from the "truth".  The fear, imo, has more to do with losing good
standing in the organisation than with the supposed false teachings
themselves.

Jeanette:-)

Hello Greg
Many thanks for your response, it was appreciated.
I think I meant some Jws 'fear' the misinterpreted version of the
trinity rather than fear the trinity as an accurate interpretation. I
do believe the images of three faces (often goulish faces at that)on
one head does strike a cord of horror in some.  I certainly dont like
to see those images...whether goulish or not

Though I am aware that such images are not a product of the
Watchtower I am sure the Watchtower makes good use of them.  If a
person is then on the verge of leaving the Watchtower they often
ask 'Where shall we go now?'  It is at this stage they become closed
minded towards or 'fear' accepting trinitarian views because of the
images that are recalled in their minds, for some the images are just
silly and unbiblical but for others horrid and unacceptable,
consequently closing the door on further discussion on the subject.

In saying all of this I am probably reffering to the 'fears'of a
minority within the Watchtower so your point is taken, it would have
been far better to echo your opinion and say:

"you would be better off saying, "A lot of JWs [do not
> understand Trinitarian] doctrine because it has been misrepresented
by the
> WTower," rather than, "A lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because
it has
> been misrepresented by the WTower."

Thanks Greg, I see your point, I think you hit the nail on the head.

God bless
Pete

It is nice to see "DaBerean" is on this e-group.  Howdy Gus, How's that
little girl of yours?  I am sure that this group will be quite stimulating
since we have Rob Bowman and Greg Stafford on hand.

Thanks,

David Race (ProveAll)

In a message dated 06/29/2001 4:18:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
PETE@... writes:

<< Just to say hello all :)
  Isn't this a great Idea? A lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because
  it has been misrepresented by the WTower, like who wants to worship a
  three headed God anyway?  I do hope this takes off and many fears
  will be overcome by a clear representation of Christianity.

  God bless Y'all
  Pete >>


Greetings to you, too, Pete.

I am not sure why you say we JWs "fear" such doctrines. While it is true that
WT literature has misrepresented classical Trinitarianism (though not
always), I have never gotten the sense from other JWs that they "fear" things
like a "three headed God." They just think it's silly and unbiblical because
of the way the WT has presented it and because of their own research into the
matter, however limited it may have been. But "fear"? I think not.

They are generally not informed enough about the true doctrine to understand
why some accept it and many if not most Trinitarians (let's be honest!) do
not fully understand the particulars of the doctrine either. So, when you put
two (or more) persons together, one who accepts and the other who rejects a
particular doctrine with neither of them fully understanding its
implications, each are likely to end up thinking the other has no
appreciation for truth, etc.

So, in my opinion, you would be better off saying, "A lot of JWs [do not
understand Trinitarian] doctrine because it has been misrepresented by the
WTower," rather than, "A lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because it has
been misrepresented by the WTower." Of course, it is also true that 'A lot of
Trinitarians do not understand Witness doctrine because it has been
misrepresented by various evangelicals and others.'

Best regards,

Greg Stafford

Just to say hello all :)
Isn't this a great Idea? A lot of JWs fear Christian doctrine because
it has been misrepresented by the WTower, like who wants to worship a
three headed God anyway?  I do hope this takes off and many fears
will be overcome by a clear representation of Christianity.

God bless Y'all
Pete

>  Hey Gus - good to see your name pop up!
	 ________________
	 Hey jeanette! How's life in the King's country treating you!

	 shalom
	 Gus

send

Dear friends,

Welcome to the Evangelical and JW Theologies group.  If you have been
subscribed to this list and do not wish to remain, please feel free
to unsubscribe.  (Several persons seem to have been subscribed
automatically who were supposed to receive an invitation.)

In Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
List Moderator

Welcome to the evangelicals_and_jws group at Yahoo! Groups, a
free, easy-to-use email group service. Please
take a moment to review this message.

Some of you may know me by my handle which is Gus da berean. Im a 3rd gener ex-JW. And glad to be here!

shalom
Gus  

 

Hey Gus - good to see your name pop up!

Jeanette:-)

----------
From:   evangelicals_and_jws Moderator[SMTP:evangelicals_and_jws-owner@yahoogroups.com]
Sent:   Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:27 AM
To:     astacio-agustin@...
Subject:        Welcome to evangelicals_and_jws




Hello,

Welcome to the evangelicals_and_jws group at Yahoo! Groups, a
free, easy-to-use email group service. Please
take a moment to review this message.

Some of you may know me by my handle which is Gus da berean. Im a 3rd gener ex-JW. And glad to be here!

shalom
Gus