What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

KJV and the Personal Name of God

I notice they mention the 1611 version as being reliable, but what about newer revisions of the KJV, such as the New King James Version or the 21st Century King James Version? Are those also reliable, or is it just the 1611 version? And no, I'm not going to wade through hundreds of MP3s to try to find the answer, I want to hear it from some of the KJV only people here on this forum.

The TOG​
 
Did you ever notice how few in the KJVO cult actually use the original 1611 version (the on from before all the corrections to it were made)? Take a look at what Bibles are being carried by the average person showing up on a Sunday morning at a KJVO church. I have. Very few if any actual 1611 versions will be found. Sure, some of them may actually own a 1611 version for a novelty or just so they can tell everyone they own one. But if they truly believed that was the only true word of God as they claim, THAT would be the one they would be carrying to church on a Sunday morning, not one of the newer corrected KJV Bibles.

Which makes me wonder, if this is truly the one and only true word of God (as the hardcore KJV cultists claim) yet so few of them actually use it, how do they live with the idea that God had to correct himself so many times in the newer versions of the KJV?
 
Obadiah said:
Did you ever notice how few in the KJVO cult actually use the original 1611 version (the on from before all the corrections to it were made)? Take a look at what Bibles are being carried by the average person showing up on a Sunday morning at a KJVO church. I have. Very few if any actual 1611 versions will be found. Sure, some of them may actually own a 1611 version for a novelty or just so they can tell everyone they own one. But if they truly believed that was the only true word of God as they claim, THAT would be the one they would be carrying to church on a Sunday morning, not one of the newer corrected KJV Bibles.
Click to expand...

There may be a reason for that. Here are a few verses from the 1611 KJV:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. (Gen. 1:1)

The sunne shall not smite thee by day; nor the moone by night.
The Lord shall preserue thee from all euill: hee shall preserue thy soule.
The Lord shall preserue thy going out, and thy comming in: from this time foorth and euen for euermore. (Ps. 121:6-8)

In the first yeere of Darius the sonne of Ahasuerus, of the seede of the Medes, which was made King ouer the realme of the Caldeans,
In the first yeere of his reigne, I Daniel vnderstood by bookes the number of the yeeres, whereof the word of the Lord came to Ieremiah the Prophet, that he would accomplish seuentie yeeres in the desolations of Ierusalem. (Dan. 9:1-2)

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of þe Iewes: (John 3:1)

Beloued, let vs loue one another; for loue is of God: and euery one that loueth, is borne of God and knoweth God.
Hee that loueth not, knoweth not God: for God is loue. (I John 4:7-8)

To him that ouercommeth, will I graunt to sit with mee in my throne, euen as I also ouercame, and am set downe with my Father in his throne. (Rev. 3:21)​

That odd looking letter in John 3:1 where we are used to seeing the word "the" is called a "thorn". According to Wikipedia, it was used in the Old English, Gothic, Old Norse and Icelandic alphabets, as well as some dialects of Middle English. Today it is only used in Icelandic, but seems to have still been in use to some extent in early 17th century English. But people can probably get used to unusual spelling, like we see in the verses above, but if you want a real 1611 version, it looks like this:

Revelation-Chapter-2-3.jpg


Which makes me wonder, if this is truly the one and only true word of God (as the hardcore KJV cultists claim) yet so few of them actually use it, how do they live with the idea that God had to correct himself so many times in the newer versions of the KJV?
Click to expand...

Yes... That is a bit of a puzzle, isn't it? I was under the impression that God didn't make mistakes.

The TOG​
 
The KJV as it looked in 1611. It actually is readable when you get used to the script and the variations of spelling. The change between the 1611 and 1769 versions is negligible considering. There's a whole lot more difference between the Byzantine text the KJV is based on and the Alexandrian text the NIV, ESV, NASB, and most other translations made since 1881 are base on.

The difference is a difference in philosophy. The Byzantine text is based on copies that are of a later origin. Most extant copies are of this type and constitute a majority of the copies. That which is called the Majority text is a Byzantine text and differs little from the text the KJV was translated from. The Eastern Orthodox use a type of text that's almost identical to the Majority text. The Alexandrian text is based on copies that are estimated to be prior to the fifth century. They are in the minority, a minority text. But because they are regarded as older, they are also regarded as superior. Something like the Catholics (and many Protestants) regard the "Church Fathers" to be important to what is believed today. If for no other reason than they are closer in time to the Apostolic age of the first century. The Western text, that which the Catholic Douay version was translated from, is about half way between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. It was less of a problem for them to switch over to the Alexandrian text. The New American Bible, just revised last year incidentally, is based on the new Latin Vulgate, which itself is based on the Alexandrian text. The original NAB (1970) was almost a paraphrase. The new NAB (NABRE) is a literal translation. And very good in my opinion.

I started out reading the KJV. So it became THE bible to me early on. That is important to the story that follows.

There are a group of New Testament verses that center on a particular understanding of the relationship between justification, faith, and Jesus Christ. Galatians 2:16 is one example. I talked to a well known KJV Onlyist about this. My intention was to get his wisdom on the KJV reading. To add to what I already believed to be true. That one is justified by the faith of Christ, not faith in Christ. I already knew about the controversy. The issue concerning how the Genitives are to be translated in these verses. I fully expected this individual to be on the side of the KJV. When he said that faith in Christ is the correct translation, I was needless to say taken aback. I said to him basically, You realize that pretty much destroys your position as a KJV Onlyist? His only response was, Sorry you feel that way. While I still believe the KJV translates those particular verses (except one that I know of) correctly, it pretty much destroyed any faith I had in the KJV Only view.

That one conversation opened my mind to a lot of things. One being the fact of discrepancies in the bible. Many Christians believe in a doctrine called the inerrancy of the bible. They interpret bible discrepancies in an attempt to make them say something other than they actually say. They believe in their own interpretations, rather than the bible itself. That fact alone could have made me return to being an Atheist. But instead I just accepted the fact that the bible has discrepancies and went on reading. The discrepancies amount to less than .01% of the bible. Of course, the discrepancies are exacerbated by the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian controversy. The last figure I heard was that it ups the ante to about 5%. Just taking the New Testament alone into account. I understand their are also differences between two kinds of texts in the Old Testament. I haven't checked into those differences. And I'm not talking about the Septuagint vs. Hebrew controversy. That's a whole other story.

Incidentally, there are KJV Onlyists who claim that the Septuagint is later than the first century, instead of two centuries before. And that accounts for so many New Testament verses agreeing with the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew. I've seen no evidence for such a thing other than their own opinions. And it certainly doesn't explain the discrepancy between the New Testament writers and their quotes vs. the Hebrew Old Testament. Makes the bible look worse than it really is. At least if they were quoting the Septuagint, they were quoting something they thought was a legitimate translation of the Old Testament.
 
turnorburn said:
has anyone seen this..

The King James Bible Defended!

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." —Hebrews 4:12

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

tob
Click to expand...
I'd be wary of that particular site, personally. I happen to know that the owner was convicted of raping an underage girl.
 
He's been accused of many things you say you know personally..do you know him or the source where the accusation came from?

tob
 
questdriven said:
I'd be wary of that particular site, personally. I happen to know that the owner was convicted of raping an underage girl.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is browse that site a little bit to realize the guy that runs it is a total extremist, legalistic nut case. Questdriven's advice to be wary of that site is well founded!
 
Do I know the guy personally, no. I was given links a while back by someone about the guy in the news and the court case. Although the links themselves were on someone's blog. I believe they did cite some news sources, but I don't know if I could dig up the links I specifically saw or not.
 
Just thinking those are very serious accusations peoples lives are destroyed every day by such just be sure of your sources.. whether he's radical or not radical.. know what i mean.. Years ago a Pastor was acused of the very same thing it destroyed him his family and all that knew him turned their backs on him come to find out he had been set up..

tob
 
True enough. If I remember correctly, the guy is actually in jail now. I realize that being in jail itself isn't absolute proof of guilt, though.
 
The Personal name of God is not Jehovah and that isn't a perversion, it is a mistake.
For many hundreds of years the Hebrew version of the Bible wasn't used by the Church. The Greek / Orthodox church used the Greek version and the Roman Catholic church used the Latin version.
About the time of the reformation scholars started to go back to the 'original' (well at least for the RCC) languages. (This was partly inspired by Greek scholars being Greek NT's into the RCC as they were fleeing the Moslems taking Constantinople). After going back to the Greek, scholars then started to go back to the Hebrew.
In the Hebrew Bible, God's name only has the letters YHWH. (It is called the tetragamma = four letters).
When the Jews read the Bible, instead of saying 'Yahweh' when they see YHWH in the text, they say 'adonai', which was to avoid using the Lord's name in vain.
Most Hebrew writing is written without vowel, even now if you see Hebrew writing in the background of news events in Israel there are no vowels.
When the put the vowels in the Hebrew text, instead of using the vowels for Yahweh, the Jews put the vowels for 'adonai', because that is what they read.
When the original German scholars transliterated the Hebrew text which had the vowels of adonai and the letters of Yahweh, they got Jehovah (For Germans the Y - yod is transliterated with a J, or English with a Y).
And that is why some people mistakely use Jehovah for God's name, rather than Yahweh (which is a guess based on the letters yhwh).
 
So with all this talk of how to pronounce God's name, why does it matter? Is what is important the sound that comes out of our mouths when we use our vocal chords, tongue, lips, etc in a certain configuration? Or is it the concept that is in our minds that we associate with that sound that's important? Does anyone really believe that when speaking to a Christian of average or better intelligence, or even most non-Christians for that matter, that when we say a name like "Jehovah" in the context of the Christian religion that they are going to think we are talking about something other than God?
 
veryberry said:
Have you ever accused someone of not believing the bible?
I believe Jehovah is the correct translation. Nothing perverted about it.
Click to expand...

I think that it is our intentions that matter. Obviously God understood that his name would be pronounced differently in other languages.
However, if you're searching for a more correct translation, keep in mind there are no "J" sounds in Hebrew. Even in English, the letter J traditionally was pronounced with a Y sound.
 
Obadiah said:
So with all this talk of how to pronounce God's name, why does it matter? Is what is important the sound that comes out of our mouths when we use our vocal chords, tongue, lips, etc in a certain configuration? Or is it the concept that is in our minds that we associate with that sound that's important? Does anyone really believe that when speaking to a Christian of average or better intelligence, or even most non-Christians for that matter, that when we say a name like "Jehovah" in the context of the Christian religion that they are going to think we are talking about something other than God?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Much is made of little by many. The Heart Matters.
 
Hebrew Alphabet is completely different then the Roman to English Alphabet. The letters may not be exactly the same, but the meaning is the same only spelled differently.

This is taken from Judaism 101 at www.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm

View attachment 4147


Transliteration

The process of writing Hebrew words in the Roman (English) alphabet is known as transliteration. Transliteration is more an art than a science, and opinions on the correct way to transliterate words vary widely. This is why the Jewish festival of lights (in Hebrew, Cheit-Nun-Kaf-Hei) is spelled Chanukah, Chanukkah, Hanuka, and many other interesting ways. Each spelling has a legitimate phonetic and orthographic basis; none is right or wrong.

• Hebrew uses a different alphabet than English
• Hebrew is written right-to-left
• The Hebrew alphabet has no vowels, but pronunciation aids are often added to English Alphabet
• There are several styles of Hebrew writing
• Hebrew letters have numerical values
• Writing in Hebrew may require a special word processor and fonts

Strong's Exhausted Concordance defines Jehovah as (yeh-ho-vaw) self existent or Eternal, Jewish national name of God - Jehovah the Lord
 
JLB said:
To translate is to explain the meaning of one language using the words of another.

To transliterate is to spell a word using the letters of another language.

"I am" is the English translation of the meaning of God's personal name.

The English transliteration of God's personal name is YHWH,

Later, some Christian translators mistakenly combined the vowels of “Adonay” with the consonants of “YHWH” producing the word “YaHoWaH.” When the Scriptures were translated into German during the Reformation, the word was transliterated into the German pronunciation, which pronounces “Y” as an English “J” and pronounces “W” as an English “V” — or “Jahovah.” Then in the early 17th century when the Scriptures were being translated into English with the help of some of the German translations, the word was again transliterated as “Jehovah,” and this unfortunate accident has carried over into many modern English translations.


Joshua = Yĕhowshuwa`- Strong’s Number: 3091

“YHWH is salvation” = the lord is salvation

If you need to add some letters to yhwh add these-

YHWH = YeHoWsHuwa = Jesus

JLB
Click to expand...

Ohh my goodness...
So many mis-understandings!

I Am comes from Exodus 3:14
I Am is
(Aleph) Hei Vav Hei (HVH)

LORD is
Yud Hei Vav Hei (YHVH)

Joshua is:
Yud Hei Vav Shin Tzadei (YHVST)

Exodus 20:7 says: Thou shalt not take the name of the YHVH thy Elohim in vain; for the YHVH will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Because of this command, the only time the name of God (Elohim) which is LORD (YHVH) would be spoken, would be once a year, and then only by the High Priest within the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) if my memory serves me correctly.

But what I do know, is that the name Adonia was the name the Jews called YHVH within their liturgy or prayer, so they would not be at fault for breaking Exodus 20:7. In day to day conversations, they would use the name Hashem as not to break the commandment given in Exodus 20:7

As far as the translation of Jehovah and Yahweh, I believe Jehovah is pronounced with the Y sound, not the J sound an in the spelling Yahweh, the w would take on the v sound. So we see that the two pronunciation are very close. But agian, both are translations and I doubt anyone who knows how to pronounce the name of the LORD correctly would actually speak it to any of us... So we don't really know what it sounds like.
 
How many here have heard of the famous composers Joseph Green and Lewis from Beet Harbor? Anybody? No, I didn't think so. How about Giuseppe Verdi and Ludwig van Beethoven? Sound a bit more familiar? We don't translate the names of famous composers. We may not pronounce their names exactly the way they did, but we try. That's how I see the issue of God's name and that of our savior. Whether a person pronounces God's name as Yah-way, Je-ho-va or whether he simply says "Lord", or whether he says Jee-zuz, Hay-zoos or Ye-shu-ah won't change wether he is saved or not. For me it's a matter of respect to try to pronounce the names correctly. But if someone else has that same respect in their hearts and pronounces the names differently, I don't have a problem with it.

The TOG​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top