Why we should stick with the (KVJ) King James Version

[TrevorL]

Greetings kjw47,

Unwise men claim they made up Jehovah's name. God has always made his name known, and Jesus promised to keep on making it known( John 17:26)
They aren't 100% sure if YHWH or YHVH is correct for the tetragramoton.
Jehovah is the true living God.

The following extracts from the earlier JW book are interesting, but this is mainly suppressed today in modern JW literature and practice, and you seem to reflect the present JW propaganda:

Excerpts from JW Book Aid to Bible Understanding - Article Jehovah

I was interested in reading the article “Jehovah” pages 882-895 in the JW Book Aid to Bible Understanding. The following are a few excerpts that I found to be relevant to the subject of this thread and to some of the things that have been discussed.

Page 882: “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, but “Yahweh” is preferred by most scholars.

Page 884: The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ‘Adho-nay’ (Lord) or ‘Elo-him’ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E. the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ‘Adho-nay’ or ‘Elo-him’ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name.

Pages 884-885: The pronunciations “Jehovah” and “Yahweh”: By combining the vowel signs of ‘Adho-nay’ and ‘Elo-him’ with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations ‘Yeho-wah’ and ‘Yeho-wih’ were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinised form “Jehova(h)”. The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugco Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favour “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation.

Page 888: Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” … Moses’ question was a meaningful one. God’s reply in Hebrew was “’Eh-yeh’ asher eh-yeh’.” While some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM,” the Hebrew verb (ha-yah’) from which the word ‘eh-yeh’ is drawn does not mean simply to exist. Rather, it means to come into existence, to happen, occur, become, take on (an attribute), enter upon (a state), or constitute. Thus, the footnote of the Revised Standard Version gives as one reading “I Will Be What I Will Be”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Unwise men claim they made up Jehovah's name. God has always made his name known, and Jesus promised to keep on making it known( John 17:26)
They aren't 100% sure if YHWH or YHVH is correct for the tetragramoton.
Jehovah is the true living God.

Yes, it is YHWH or YHVH, but it is not Jehovah in English. Yahweh is better.

Here is proof-Gen 1:27--HE created--not WE.

That is taking things out of context. You’re ignoring verse 26.

God alone has the power and wisdom to create. That is YHWH,

Yes, of course.

Jesus is not YHWH.

That is an error in reasoning known as begging the question.

 

[kjw47]

Yes, it is YHWH or YHVH, but it is not Jehovah in English. Yahweh is better.


That is taking things out of context. You’re ignoring verse 26.


Yes, of course.


That is an error in reasoning known as begging the question.

It doesn't start with Y in English, just like Job, Jeremiah, Joshua--J in English. Jehovah is the true living God.

 

[KV-44-v1]

We know 100% Jehovah IS Gods name.

From where?

 

[Free]

It doesn't start with Y in English, just like Job, Jeremiah, Joshua--J in English. Jehovah is the true living God.

Because it is based on an error, as is pointed out in the links I provided. It beings with a "y"ish sound, which at the time when the "j" came around had the same sound. But then the sound of the "j" changed to what it is now. It's all one big mistake and the whole JW enterprise is based on this mistake.

It's a good thing that God isn't as insecure as JWs make him out to be, as I'm sure he isn't all that concerned with English translations of his Hebrew name, the pronunciation of which was mostly lost.

 

[kjw47]

Because it is based on an error, as is pointed out in the links I provided. It beings with a "y"ish sound, which at the time when the "j" came around had the same sound. But then the sound of the "j" changed to what it is now. It's all one big mistake and the whole JW enterprise is based on this mistake.

It's a good thing that God isn't as insecure as JWs make him out to be, as I'm sure he isn't all that concerned with English translations of his Hebrew name, the pronunciation of which was mostly lost.

Face facts--Yob, Yeremiah, Yeshua=Jesus-- Our bibles use J not Y. All words in Hebrew beginning with Y is J in our language, our bibles are in our language.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again kjw47,

We know 100% Jehovah IS Gods name.

The JW website gives another perspective:
About a thousand years after the Hebrew Scriptures were completed, Jewish scholars developed a system of pronunciation points, or signs, by which to indicate what vowels to use when reading Hebrew. By that time, though, many Jews had the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Thus, it seems that when they copied the Tetragrammaton, they combined the vowels for the substitute expressions with the four consonants representing the divine name. Therefore, the manuscripts with those vowel points do not help in determining how the name was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Some feel that the name was pronounced “Yahweh,” whereas others suggest different possibilities.

The above agrees with the 1971 JW article quoted earlier, and also refer to Strong's #H3068 and H3069.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again kjw47,

its 2024--Jehovah is Gods name.

You had better tell the GB to update their website if they have only recently changed their opinion from the current website. Was the change in 2024? Could you quote the extract? Watchtower? My impression is that it is you that insists that Jehovah is the correct rendition, while the JWs leave this open, despite the fact they have chosen the erroneous form "Jehovah". Refer also Rotherham's introduction to his Bible translation, explaining why he used "Yahweh" and considered "Jehovah" erroneous.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Vinny37]

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press.

With all the different Bible translations we have floating around today, it seems a hard task to choose the most accurate one. You might even question the fact of there being an accurate account of the Bible, aside from the original Hebrew Scrolls. Much of this confusion has come about because many modern day religious translators have attempted to interpret the Bible, instead of merely translating it. Therefore, when they translate the Bible they add, change or delete certain words to make it confirm to their religious doctrine. God was aware that this would happen and had John write, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy,God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).

When King James had the Bible translated he appointed 54 scholars to do the work instead of religious people. This made it possible for him to change the form, from Hebrew and Greek to English, without changing the meaning. In other words he made the Bible say the exact same thing, only in another language. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11). The Lord knew that his people would not always remain in their own land, speaking Hebrew, so he had Isaiah to prophesy that he would have his word put into other languages.

Now I ask you, is this too hard for God to do? God has always worked through men, especially kings, to fulfill his word.


to be continue.....

The KJV translators made the point that they had merely made good translations better—not perfect. Their version (which disappointed the Puritans) took about 150 years to outlive public dislike for it while generations were squeezed into its mould: it was State (Anglican) imposed and promoted (see Alistair McGrath’s In the Beginning (2002)). John Wesley departed from it in many ways. Good Bible translation without interpretation—ie without an understanding of the meaning—is impossible, and the KJV was as much based on that process as is any reputable version today. No version is perfect; none can ever be; no interpretation is perfect throughout, nor is the skill of translation perfect. Today it offers both inferior text and outdated language (hardly fitted to evangelism and new converts), though like reading ancient poetry, some enjoy its style (which generally improved on, so mistranslated, the original writings). Overall the KJV did a fine job for English readers. A range of versions in current language is useful for those who require translation. You might enjoy this free-access book: https://archive.org/details/the-words-gone-global-exploring-bible-versions-2017-231024.

 

[kjw47]

Greetings again kjw47,

You had better tell the GB to update their website if they have only recently changed their opinion from the current website. Was the change in 2024? Could you quote the extract? Watchtower? My impression is that it is you that insists that Jehovah is the correct rendition, while the JWs leave this open, despite the fact they have chosen the erroneous form "Jehovah". Refer also Rotherham's introduction to his Bible translation, explaining why he used "Yahweh" and considered "Jehovah" erroneous.

Kind regards
Trevor

Jehovah draws close to all who draw close to him. That is how one knows.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Jehovah draws close to all who draw close to him. That is how one knows.

are you saying that God personally "reveals His Name" to them?

 

[kjw47]

are you saying that God personally "reveals His Name" to them?

When one is in the 1 religion that has Jesus, they know. Those get holy spirit when asking for it. Jesus made a promise to the ones taking the lead in his religion= that he would send holy spirit and guide them into all truth.

 

[Indentured Servant]

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press.

With all the different Bible translations we have floating around today, it seems a hard task to choose the most accurate one. You might even question the fact of there being an accurate account of the Bible, aside from the original Hebrew Scrolls. Much of this confusion has come about because many modern day religious translators have attempted to interpret the Bible, instead of merely translating it. Therefore, when they translate the Bible they add, change or delete certain words to make it confirm to their religious doctrine. God was aware that this would happen and had John write, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy,God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).

When King James had the Bible translated he appointed 54 scholars to do the work instead of religious people. This made it possible for him to change the form, from Hebrew and Greek to English, without changing the meaning. In other words he made the Bible say the exact same thing, only in another language. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:11). The Lord knew that his people would not always remain in their own land, speaking Hebrew, so he had Isaiah to prophesy that he would have his word put into other languages.

Now I ask you, is this too hard for God to do? God has always worked through men, especially kings, to fulfill his word.


to be continue.....

The translators of KJV, in the now-redacted introduction to this version, saw no reason to make a new translation. Their pursuit was to make it accessible to the people. They did not see this as an act of God. They thought it needless. The goal was to make it unique, not to honor the original text. It was a "fad" translation. It was rejected for years as being "not the word of God," and... The original 1611 text was found to have grievous errors, resulting in the retrieval and burning of those manuscripts, resulting in the re-printing of the 1611 two years later, in 1613. There is no 1611- all known copies were burned and replaced by the 1613.... Which has been updated and changed at least a dozen times... The KJV is the epitome of errant translation.

 

[Bro.Tan]

The translators of KJV, in the now-redacted introduction to this version, saw no reason to make a new translation. Their pursuit was to make it accessible to the people. They did not see this as an act of God. They thought it needless. The goal was to make it unique, not to honor the original text. It was a "fad" translation. It was rejected for years as being "not the word of God," and... The original 1611 text was found to have grievous errors, resulting in the retrieval and burning of those manuscripts, resulting in the re-printing of the 1611 two years later, in 1613. There is no 1611- all known copies were burned and replaced by the 1613.... Which has been updated and changed at least a dozen times... The KJV is the epitome of errant translation.

That's interesting, do have some history on that?

 

[tim-from-pa]

I noticed this thread about the KJV somehow got change to the name of God. All I know is the name is יהוה which the Jews (nor I for that matter) will not pronounce and there are stories to the effect that they have not pronounced it for so long that there is doubt as to how it actually is pronounced! When I was a child, I believe I could have heard the name in the night (clue: 3 syllables but not the vowels sounds normally heard) and I did not know it until later, so I think I know how its pronounced but I won't tell anyone. I understand I could be wrong just as I have calculated the exact birth and death dates of Jesus Christ but I haven't been telling anyone those dates either. When I come to such conclusions, it's based on evidence (due to my scientific nature) but evidence is not the same as fact necessarily so I am always open to the idea I could be wrong. In fact, I have changed beliefs over the years when I found out I was wrong. So I won't say anything more because right or wrong, it will still be judged 'wrong' in which case I will further investigate. Seems I am one of the few that do that. I can come back years later and things will still be the same outside of myself. See?

 

[Free]

The translators of KJV, in the now-redacted introduction to this version, saw no reason to make a new translation. Their pursuit was to make it accessible to the people. They did not see this as an act of God. They thought it needless. The goal was to make it unique, not to honor the original text. It was a "fad" translation. It was rejected for years as being "not the word of God," and... The original 1611 text was found to have grievous errors, resulting in the retrieval and burning of those manuscripts, resulting in the re-printing of the 1611 two years later, in 1613. There is no 1611- all known copies were burned and replaced by the 1613.... Which has been updated and changed at least a dozen times... The KJV is the epitome of errant translation.

I, too, would like to see any evidence of some of these claims, especially when other sources are saying there still are 1611 versions in existence.

https://library.samford.edu/special/treasures/2011/kjv.html

One can also find numerous images of 1611 KJV Bibles, which would be odd if they were all burned in and around 1611, since photography wasn't invented until the early 1800's.

There are, of course, reasons to not use the KJV, not the least of which is that the language is incredibly outdated and not all the words mean the same as they did back then.

 

[DavidT]

There's 4 acrostics in the Book of Esther revealing God's Name - YHVH, said as Yahaveh when supplied with the vowels. So YHWH is not correct.

In the Book of Esther, God hid His Name from His people because He said He would if they forgot Him. Yet, He put acrostics of His Name in the Book of Esther hiding His Name from the profane, and it was obvious that He did that because He was not going to let go of what He promised He would do through His chosen people.

The Name of Jehovah in the Book of Esther. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

levendwater.org

 

[tim-from-pa]

There's 4 acrostics in the Book of Esther revealing God's Name - YHVH, said as Yahaveh when supplied with the vowels. So YHWH is not correct.

In the Book of Esther, God hid His Name from His people because He said He would if they forgot Him. Yet, He put acrostics of His Name in the Book of Esther hiding His Name from the profane, and it was obvious that He did that because He was not going to let go of what He promised He would do through His chosen people.

The Name of Jehovah in the Book of Esther. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

levendwater.org

What you said gave me the chills (read my last message). Maybe I heard right. The funny thing is I have the companion Bible and missed that appendix. As I age, I can't read the smaller print and the cataracts forming don't help (like those old men of the Bible whose eyes went dim with age lol) I'm not that bad yet, maybe similar to a very slight case of "film" you get in the mornings, but I need a magnifying glass to see that small print. So, I bookmarked this link to Esther and I will read over the Hebrew and see what I come up with. It's the "vowels" I'm interested in. You briefly mentioned when the vowels were supplied as to how the name sounds. Just so that I'm on the same page, I was wondering where those sounds are supplied? No detailed answer is needed, just in regards to those words, etc and I can then figure out the details as I read the Hebrew. Thanks!

 

[KV-44-v1]

What you said gave me the chills (read my last message). Maybe I heard right. The funny thing is I have the companion Bible and missed that appendix. As I age, I can't read the smaller print and the cataracts forming don't help (like those old men of the Bible whose eyes went dim with age lol) I'm not that bad yet, maybe similar to a very slight case of "film" you get in the mornings, but I need a magnifying glass to see that small print. So, I bookmarked this link to Esther and I will read over the Hebrew and see what I come up with. It's the "vowels" I'm interested in. You briefly mentioned when the vowels were supplied as to how the name sounds. Just so that I'm on the same page, I was wondering where those sounds are supplied? No detailed answer is needed, just in regards to those words, etc and I can then figure out the details as I read the Hebrew. Thanks!

Woah!! New tim-from-pa post just dropped!

11 min ago!

 

[DavidT]

What you said gave me the chills (read my last message). Maybe I heard right. The funny thing is I have the companion Bible and missed that appendix. As I age, I can't read the smaller print and the cataracts forming don't help (like those old men of the Bible whose eyes went dim with age lol) I'm not that bad yet, maybe similar to a very slight case of "film" you get in the mornings, but I need a magnifying glass to see that small print. So, I bookmarked this link to Esther and I will read over the Hebrew and see what I come up with. It's the "vowels" I'm interested in. You briefly mentioned when the vowels were supplied as to how the name sounds. Just so that I'm on the same page, I was wondering where those sounds are supplied? No detailed answer is needed, just in regards to those words, etc and I can then figure out the details as I read the Hebrew. Thanks!

YeHoVah is how most would say it. Yah is a shortened name for God.

I had cataract surgery a few years ago. I have been near-sighted most of my life, needing glasses to see far away. Not anymore, I can see far away perfectly, but I now have to use reading glasses to read. The surgery replaces the rubber-like lens of the eye with a shaped custom lens for each eye. The surgery is painless, one eye done, then the next eye a month later. If you are retired, Medicare should pay for it.