Jeremiah 16:21

[Mohrb]

I've seen a lot of discussions on particular verses, but I came across Jeremiah 16:21 again and realize I haven't seen people pay much attention to it.

In the KJV it reads:
"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD."

but that's not what the greek says. As the ASV, Darby Bible, English revised version, NWT, Websters, YLT, and any interlinear translation will point out, the tetragrammeton is used here. It should read:

"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah."

Translation is a process, I understand. And not all translations will be word for word identical. However, this is a VERY strong statement... God himself is speaking that humans will know his hand and his might and that his name is Jehovah! ... yet the translators of certain translation (the KJV, NIV, etc.) felt the need to remove the Father's name when he was declaring it?

How can a person be "Christian" yet not be utterly infuriated by this assault on God himself?

 

[jasoncran]

yahweh, not jehovah. and what does that name mean by definition.

if i recall it is one that implies the names of covenant names.

i am one of many names. i think

 

[Free]

The arguments that God's name is "Jehovah" and nothing else are weak. Without looking it up, chances are "THE LORD" is translated from the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. Iirc, there were no vowels in the Hebrew language so it makes it very difficult to say that God's name must be Jehovah. Therefore, there is no assault on God and no reason to be infuriated.

 

[Pard]

How can a person be "Christian" yet not be utterly infuriated by this assault on God himself?

First, it's YHWH (Yahweh), not Jehovah. To get Jehovah from YHWH we need to substitute J for the Y (need I remind you that J doesn't even exist in Hebrew?), we have to substitute a V for the W (easy to do in english, but in Hebrew they are very much different letters).

So trust me, it's not Jehovah, I asked a Jew once...

Furthermore, I am not mad at all, and I am a Christian. The Jews substituted YHWH's name for Adonai and Elohim because they feared saying the Lord's name out loud, less they accidentally take it in vain. If you want to make a statement that Jeremiah 16:21 is poorly translated, you might as well make that statement for the entire Old Testament (and considering the OT we have today hasn't changed at all from the DSS or even earlier copies... well, good luck!) because where it says "LORD" it is a substitute for YHWH.

This refusal [to say the Lord's name] among the Jews continued until time of the Masoretes (c. AD 6th - 10th century),11 who, having supposedly invented vowel pointing for the traditional Hebrew text, substituted the vowels of ‘adonai (yn"doa]) for the vocalization of JHVH, producing the popular, but “linguistically impossible,†Jehovah.

Source: http://www.geocentricity.com/bible/whoisyahweh.pdf

Lastly, the Lord gave us the scripture so we may profit from it. If He so wished for His name to be saved for all time, He surely would have ensured that His name be preserved in the Bible somewhere (referring to Hebrew OT and Greek NT), yet He did not preserve His name because it is not of importance when we consider our salvation and works for God.

:amen

 

[Mohrb]

yahweh, not jehovah. and what does that name mean by definition.

... if you want to get technical, it's just the four letters: Jod Hei Vav Hei. "Yahweh" is a possible pronunciation. However, most scholars, including the KJV translators (among many other bible translators) agree that it's most likely pronounced "Jehovah."


Here's an interesting article written about the subject:

In English, both "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" have a long tradition of representing the Divine Name ("YHWH", also known as "the Tetragrammaton"). At first glance, it might seem that Yahweh (which undeniably includes Y, H, W, and H) would more accurately pronounce the Tetragrammaton as it was pronounced by the ancient Hebrews. However, there is an enormous "but"...

Other common Hebrew names actually include the divine name WITHIN them, giving hints as to its original pronunciation. Increasingly, scholars are leaning toward a pronunciation similar to the three-syllable "Yehowah" rather than two-syllable "Yahweh". If "Yehowah" is close to the correct pronunciation, then it becomes a much more subjective answer about whether "Yehowah" is more similar to "Jehovah" or "Yahweh". Many or most English speakers are likely to embrace the pronunciation which their predecessors embraced at least four hundred years ago.

"Jehovah".

Thus, in English, the three most common Biblical names for God (in order of usage) are Jehovah, Yahweh, and Yehowah. To complete the discussion, Exodus 34:14 metaphorically says that YHWH's name is "Jealous" and Exodus 3:14 says that God's name literally means "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE" and "I SHALL PROVE TO BE"
...(Exodus 3:13-14, NWT) Moses said to the true God: “[What if the Israelites] say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?†At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.†And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’â€
...Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BEâ€
...Rotherham, “I WILL BECOME WHATSOEVER I PLEASEâ€


And to repeat, "God", "Lord", "Creator", and similar terms are NOT personal names but impersonal titles.

 

[Mohrb]

So trust me, it's not Jehovah, I asked a Jew once...

Then you'll understand that the tetragrammaton isn't "the english letters: YHWH." It's the hebrew letters
???? ... The first letter Yodh, pronounced in"Jod" or "Jud." The second letter being "He," the third letter being "Waw" (pronounced "Vav"), then "he" again.

Yes, it would most closely be -spelled- "YHWH"... but most closely be -pronounced- "JHVH."

Perhaps this reference would be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet

Furthermore, I am not mad at all, and I am a Christian. The Jews substituted YHWH's name for Adonai and Elohim

And everything the Jews did was appropriate? Did Jesus usually agree or disagree with the Sadducees and Pharisees in his time? Who was it again that went out of their way to attempt to stone Jesus repeatedly, and eventually call for his torture and execution based on their interpretation of the law?

.... just saying. "The jews did it" doesn't make it right.

Jesus prayed first for God's name to be sanctified, and that the whole world should know that his Father is the only true God (John 17:3)

 

[jasoncran]

please. this is coming from the denomation that adds words to the bible in order to make it fit thier doctrine.

 

[Mysteryman]

please. this is coming from the denomation that adds words to the bible in order to make it fit thier doctrine.

Hi Jason

Show me one denomination that does not do this ?

Thanks

 

[jasoncran]

the jw's. in all these threads that has been mentioned by free and others.

 

[Mohrb]

the jw's. in all these threads that has been mentioned by free and others.

A: the question MM asked was "Show me one denomination that does not do this." You repeating your objection to the NWT doesn't respond to the fact that there are inaccuracies in every translation. Specifically, the topic of this thread, how many of the most popular translations remove God's name from nearly all (if not all) of the bible, including a clear declaration where the Father was stating that we should KNOW that his name is (changed)."

B: This isn't "coming from the religion that....." anything. This is a question as to why most of Christianity tolerates such a disrespectful alteration. Do you deny that it's an alteration? Do you believe that it's appropriate by any stretch of the imagination? Do you believe the original manuscripts use "Adonai" rather than "YHWH?" here, and thus "My name is THE LORD" is a better translation?

Or do you simply accept this deletion as acceptable on the basis that you don't like a certain other translation?

 

[Mysteryman]

the jw's. in all these threads that has been mentioned by free and others.

Hi Jason:

As Chris just mentioned, you didn't aswer the question posed to you. What denomination does not do this ? I know for a fact that all denominations do this to support their own agendas.

It is so easy to point fingers without any quilt or shame towards another without first looking at the whole picture without any bias. However, this happens way too often !

Does this not mimick - take the beam out of your own eye first ?

 

[Mysteryman]

the jw's. in all these threads that has been mentioned by free and others.

A: the question MM asked was "Show me one denomination that does not do this." You repeating your objection to the NWT doesn't respond to the fact that there are inaccuracies in every translation. Specifically, the topic of this thread, how many of the most popular translations remove God's name from nearly all (if not all) of the bible, including a clear declaration where the Father was stating that we should KNOW that his name is (changed)."

B: This isn't "coming from the religion that....." anything. This is a question as to why most of Christianity tolerates such a disrespectful alteration. Do you deny that it's an alteration? Do you believe that it's appropriate by any stretch of the imagination? Do you believe the original manuscripts use "Adonai" rather than "YHWH?" here, and thus "My name is THE LORD" is a better translation?

Or do you simply accept this deletion as acceptable on the basis that you don't like a certain other translation?

Hi Chris

Just a little heads up here. I would be more careful about using the phrase --- "original manuscripts", as there are no originals. We only have copies of copies, and they are only as good as how man preserved them. Which means that you can not give the manuscripts a clean bill of health.

 

[Mohrb]

Good point. True we don't have the absolute original ink. But we have to believe that those manuscripts use all the original wording. I'm sure there has been errors made from time to time, but the sheer number of manuscripts available make it obvious if one has a mis-transcription.

 

[veteran]

An acrostic in the Book of Esther has it as YHVH. Closest transliteration to English, with vowels, would be YaHeVeH, not Jehovah.

 

[jasoncran]

the jw's. in all these threads that has been mentioned by free and others.

Hi Jason:

As Chris just mentioned, you didn't aswer the question posed to you. What denomination does not do this ? I know for a fact that all denominations do this to support their own agendas.

It is so easy to point fingers without any quilt or shame towards another without first looking at the whole picture without any bias. However, this happens way too often !

Does this not mimick - take the beam out of your own eye first ?[/quote}
i miss read that. only the jw do this. why
see the earlier arguements by free on the trinity and where the additions are.


i didnt read the bible in the greek nor armaic nor the hebrew to accept the trinity. the holy spirit told me that it was the truth.

the jw accpeted the kjv long before mohrb was born, i was one at the time. they started using the nwt in 1980. so what was so good about the kjv if its that bad.

 

[jasoncran]

An acrostic in the Book of Esther has it as YHVH. Closest transliteration to English, with vowels, would be YaHeVeH, not Jehovah.

thus yahweh.

 

[dadof10]

please. this is coming from the denomation that adds words to the bible in order to make it fit thier doctrine.

Hi Jason

Show me one denomination that does not do this ?

Thanks

I think Jason's point is that the JWs go into Scripture with a preconceived bias and purposely mistranslate certain words/phrases to fit that viewpoint.

There have been some errors in translation with some (all?) denominations through the years, but the errors don't ALL revolve around ONE doctrine like the NWT's mistranslation of ANY verse that alludes to the Trinity.

That's the difference here.

I don't know of any Protestant denominations that do this, or any that accepts the NWT as authoritative.

 

[jasoncran]

you hit the nail on the head with that.

 

[Mohrb]

I think Jason's point is that the JWs go into Scripture with a preconceived bias and purposely mistranslate certain words/phrases to fit that viewpoint.

There have been some errors in translation with some (all?) denominations through the years, but the errors don't ALL revolve around ONE doctrine like the NWT's mistranslation of ANY verse that alludes to the Trinity.

What makes you so sure that it's the JWs with a bias against "any verse that alludes to the trinity" as opposed to trinitarian denominations that have a bias against any verse that could possibly be construed as trinitarian (and any verse directly opposing the trinity)?

For example, Jesus telling the Jews "Amen amen, lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi" ... the simple, contextually sound translation is a statement that Jesus pre-existed Abraham. Yet trinitarians see Jesus use "Ego Eimi" and say "that can be translated 'I am... therefore let's put it in all caps to insinuate that Jesus is using the same phrase his Father used when speaking through the burning bush (Ehyeh asher ehyeh)... and since Jesus is saying something (many other people have said) that can be translated to the same english phrase as the completely different phrase God said, we can use it to support the trinity!

... yet, trinitarians can "conveniently overlook" simple verses such as John 17:3, where Jesus prays to God "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (notice Jesus calling the Father alone the "only true God" and specifying himself as the one God sent forth, not God)


... I agree, -someone's- doing some "creative interpretation."

 

[Mysteryman]

the jw's. in all these threads that has been mentioned by free and others.

Hi Jason:

As Chris just mentioned, you didn't aswer the question posed to you. What denomination does not do this ? I know for a fact that all denominations do this to support their own agendas.

It is so easy to point fingers without any quilt or shame towards another without first looking at the whole picture without any bias. However, this happens way too often !

Does this not mimick - take the beam out of your own eye first ?[/quote}
i miss read that. only the jw do this. why
see the earlier arguements by free on the trinity and where the additions are.


i didnt read the bible in the greek nor armaic nor the hebrew to accept the trinity. the holy spirit told me that it was the truth.

the jw accpeted the kjv long before mohrb was born, i was one at the time. they started using the nwt in 1980. so what was so good about the kjv if its that bad.

Hi

Every denomination I know of, uses the scriptures in such a way as to support their own view on certain subject matters. This is why Baptists and Methodist do not worship in the same building on the same day . Some of the differences are minor, but none the less, they all claim that their understanding comes from reading the bible. Baptism and the man made communion service is a great example of manipulating the reading of scripture to justifiy their acts of worship. And some denominations allow women to be pastors and still claim that they found their justification from the bible for allowing women to be pastors.

You can not show me one denomination that does not manipulate the scriptures for their own selfish and self righteous justification. This is why you are not rcc, or whatever denomination that does not follow your belief in the scriputres to the letter.