next »

[RRD]

The expression "Praise the Lord" appears 32 times in the King James Version. In every instance, however, it is apparent that "the Lord" has replaced the holy name (Yahweh/Jehovah).
http://tinyurl.com/vu7ee

In the World English Bible translation, "Praise the Lord" appears only once, in Romans 15:11, where it is evident that "the Lord", KURIOS, has been substituted for the holy name. The quote is from Psalm 117:1:

Praise Yahweh, all you nations! Extol him, all you peoples!  (World English Bible translation)

http://tinyurl.com/y3pn93

The World English Bible translation has "Praise Yahweh" 28 times and "Praise Yah" 24 times.
http://tinyurl.com/yyt83m
http://tinyurl.com/sb4ps

Likewise, the American Standard Version only has "Praise the Lord" in Romans 15:11, but it has "Praise Jehovah" 18 times, and "Praise ye Jehovah" 25 times.

Conclusion:

In actuality the phrase "Praise the Lord", so often heard in discourses, songs, prayers and testimonies, does not actually appear in the Bible at all. The holy name appears over 6,000 times in the extant Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). How many times it should appear in the NT cannot be accurately determined, because in the extant Greek NT manuscripts the holy name has been replaced with other words, such as Kurios (Lord), Theos (God), Dunamis (Power), etc.

Question:

Should we not be endeavoring to give praise to the holy name of the only true God by refraining from substituting titles or other words for his holy name?

Not that is wrong to use the title "Lord" in reference to Yahweh, for he certainly is "the Lord of all the earth" (Joshua 3:11; Psalm 97:5), "Lord of lords" (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:3), "Lord of kings" (Daniel 2:47), "Lord of heaven" (Daniel 5:23); "Lord of heaven and earth" (Matthew 11:25), etc. But, rather, the question pertains to making the title appear to be his name by substituting the title in places where the holy name should be used, especially in scriptural references where it is apparent that such titles have been substituted for the holy name.

Exodus 3:15 - God said moreover to Moses, "You shall tell the children of Israel this, 'Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations."

Psalm 105:48 - Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, From everlasting even to everlasting! Let all the people say, "Amen." Praise Yah!

Psalm 7:17 - I will give thanks to Yahweh according to his righteousness, And will sing praise to the name of Yahweh Most High.

Psalm 22:22 - I will declare your name to my brothers. In the midst of the assembly, will I praise you.

Ps 113:1 -  Praise Yah! Praise, you servants of Yahweh, Praise the name of Yahweh.

Christian love,
Roanld

[hitcherman]

Thankyou Bro Ronald for this timely thread, one thing that I have always admired about Jehovah's Witnesses is the way in which God's name has been put on high!While I realise that they are in error in other understandings of God's word the fact that they use God's name and have helped many to know it is something that I will always be grateful for,our family found this out via the door to door preaching work way back in 1962.

I must admit I am saddened that Bible Students seem to hide God's name away for some reason.Bro Charles uses God's name in the volumes yet that still does not seem to prompt the usage of the Divine name.

Christians Greetings to you Ronald .....I do hope your health is on the improve you are thought of fondly in this end of the world.
Jeff.

[freyd]

Hitch, I appreciate your concern about BS's apparently hiding the use of God's name, and glad you raised the issue. On another board  recently someone asked what positives came from your association with jw's. For me, it was that I came to a knowledge that I never would have attained to unless I'd attended a seminary. Number one on the list was God's personal name. And in a lot of ways, jw's are like a seminary where you have a highly structured and controlled environment necessary for learning, in most cases. Thinking further on the matter it's also like continuing education for a person say in the work force going to night school with meetings a couple times a week along with much personal study. But as for the the use of God's name, it appears nowhere in the NT except where the NWT has inserted it. Jesus himself only refered to YHWH as "father" which is a term that seems  more endearing that a proper name, which Paul also referenced in Romans 8:15 when he talked about "Abba", that is father. So I don't think it's a hiding of the name, but rather a preference for one that makes one closer in a family sense, which is what consecration is all about as you become part of God's family. Shalom.

[RRD]

Hitch, I appreciate your concern about BS's apparently hiding the use of God's name, and glad you raised the issue. On another board  recently someone asked what positives came from your association with jw's. For me, it was that I came to a knowledge that I never would have attained to unless I'd attended a seminary. Number one on the list was God's personal name. And in a lot of ways, jw's are like a seminary where you have a highly structured and controlled environment necessary for learning, in most cases. Thinking further on the matter it's also like continuing education for a person say in the work force going to night school with meetings a couple times a week along with much personal study. But as for the the use of God's name, it appears nowhere in the NT except where the NWT has inserted it. Jesus himself only refered to YHWH as "father" which is a term that seems  more endearing that a proper name, which Paul also referenced in Romans 8:15 when he talked about "Abba", that is father. So I don't think it's a hiding of the name, but rather a preference for one that makes one closer in a family sense, which is what consecration is all about as you become part of God's family. Shalom.

There are several translations that have endeavored to restore God's name in the NT. Most, however, go overboard in doing this. Some have done so with an attempt to make it appear that Jesus is Yahweh. The NWT is probably the best translation I have seen for restoring the holy name in proper places, and yet it is very conservative in doing so, for there are many places that it can be recognized that the holy name has been replaced by other words where the NWT does not so restore the holy name.

It is not quite true that the holy name does not appear in the NT. It is appears as part of many names, Jesus, Elijah, etc. It also appears in the expression, Hallelujah, used in Revelation.
http://tinyurl.com/2rzqyy

As it appears in the extant manuscripts, the New Testament would have Jesus referring to Yahweh as Kurios (Lord), and rather than having Jesus coming in the name of Yahweh, they would have Jesus coming in the name of Kurios (Lord). -- Matthew 4:7,10; 5:33; 21:9; 22:37,44; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:29,30,36; Luke 4:8,12,18,19;  10:27; 13:35; 19:38; 20:37,42; John 12:13,38.

I cannot see that Jesus came in the name of Kurios instead of Yahweh. "Kurios" does not actually identify the God of Israel, and is certainly not the name of the God of Moses. Such would actually be a denial that Jesus was the prophet spoken of Deuteronomy 18:15-19, since one of the identifying marks of that prophet was that he was to come in the name of Yahweh, and not in another name. "Kurios" does not mean "Yahweh", nor is Kurios a translation of the name, Yahweh.

Thus, I conclude that someone, after the apostles died, sought to replace the holy name with substitutes, either to keep the NT writings from being destroyed by the Jews who were forcibly destroying all writings of those they considered heretics that contained the holy name, or else it was replaced in an effort to make it appear that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or even for both reasons. I cannot imagine either Jesus or the Bible writers joining in the rebellious Jews in substituting other words for the holy name. Even the Jews, however, in general, did not substitute the holy name in the Hebrew text, but they did substitute Adonai rather than to speak the holy name.

One word for "Lord", used as a name of a false god, is "Baal", spoken of many times in the Old Testament, and the calling upon such a name was condemned. Another word is Adonai, which the Jews later used as a audible substitute for the holy name. Adonai is derived from adoni, and adoni is derived from Adon. Adonis, another name of a false god, is also derived indirectly from the Hebrew Adon. All forms of the word "Adon" are rendered from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) into the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) with forms of the word "kurios." There is nothing wrong with the usage of these words as titles, but nowhere in the Old Testament are any of these words presented as the personal name of the only true God. As such names, they are used of false gods.

http://name.reslight.net/dnnt.html

Christian love,
Ronald

[freyd]

There are several translations that have endeavored to restore God's name in the NT. Most, however, go overboard in doing this. Some have done so with an attempt to make it appear that Jesus is Yahweh. The NWT is probably the best translation I have seen for in restoring the holy name in proper places, and yet it is very conservative in doing so, for there are many places that it can be recognized that the holy name has been replaced by other words where the NWT does not so restore the holy name.

It is not quite true that the holy name does not appear in the NT. It is appears as part of many names, Jesus, Elijah, etc. It also appears in the expression, Hallelujah, used in Revelation.

I appreciate that Br Ron. I just had a thought about going overboard. Could the Jews have done so to the point of taking God's name in vain by making it commonplace, ie, like the muslims naming so many of their kids muhammed that it gets kind of weird? As an example, if your name were Bro Jah Is Great, it just wouldn't float and imho it wouldn't do anything to magnify God. And if you were to give a name like that to somebody who turned out to be less than an upstanding character, what would that do. Yes, the Jews professed holiness, but it was that professed holiness that Jesus condemned because they disregarded the weightier matters of the law and made the word of God invalid for the sake of tradition. Matthew 23:23, 15:6

[freyd]

Here's what some other people are thinking. http://yahushua.net/pagan_name.htm

IS JESUS a PAGAN NAME?
by Yahkov Hartley

    In a recent Messianic magazine there appeared an article that purported to address the question,"Is the name "Jesus" pagan?" The article was clearly a defense of the use of the name "Jesus", in spite of that author's admission that this is not the "original" name (birth name) given to the Messiah (by his Jewish mother, Miryam). The article leaves the reader with the notion that Jesus is just as valid, if not more valid, than Y'shua1 when referring to the Messiah. And it arrives at this deduction by the most careless etymology and stunted logic, ignoring the weightier matters of the issue. The "issue" raised in this article is a prize-winning deception, designed to decoy the unwary from the real issue of the word "Jesus".

    Early in the article, the author demonstrated the difficulty of transliterating from Hebrew to Greek and the ease of transliterating from Hebrew to English. A detailed letter-by-letter (from the Hebrew aleph-bet to the Greek alphabet) "transliteration" of the name, Y'shua to the Greek name, Iesous was brought forth as evidence. Because there are no equivalent sounds of many of the letters, this so called "transliteration" becomes in reality a translation. There is so little assonance between "Y'shua" and "Eeaysooce" that calling this a transliteration is an offense to even the most debased scholarship. There is no way to transliterate this name between these two languages! The best that can be done is to translate, which is what was done in the Septuagint by its Hebrew translators.

    The name, Septuagint, is late-Latin (the ecclesiastical tongue of the Roman Corporate Church) from septem + ginta which hints at the 70 (approximately) translators who produced the Greek version of the Tanakh (the "Old" Testament). A study of the etymology of the word "Jesus", in even as mundane a source as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, reveals that this name does not come directly from the Greek "Iesous", but derives from the early-Latin "Iesu", the "I" pronounced initially as a "Y" producing Yay-soo. The "I" in the middle-ages was differentiated into the "I' and the "J" in our Latin alphabet used for the English language. Thus, in late-Latin, the Iesou (Yaysoo) became Jesu (Jaysoo) which became Jesus in the English tongue. This relationship in the etymology is omitted by the author in his "apologetics".

    Regardless, the word Jesus has no direct ancestry from the Greek Iesous, as is implied by the author, but at best, it derives from the late-Latin Jesu , a fact completely missing in the cited article. However, all of this etymology, even with the missing link provided above, is a decoy to distract our attention from the real problem with this word "Jesus."

    We have never used the argument that Jesus is somehow a compound of Gee-Zeus (Zeus being the chief "god" of the Greek Pantheon) although there is certainly an extreme degree of assonance (which is the core of the art of transliteration) with the "Jesus" word. We have never pursued that possibility to any extent, since it is totally irrelevant. The only relevant issue is: What was/is the Messiah's name given him by his mother, Miryam, in accordance with the angelic messenger's revelation to her?

    Since the author of the subject article didn't have any problems with the name Y'shua being the Messiah's "original" name, why not look firstly at what is NOT the issue here? The issue is NOT, " whether the word Jesus is pagan!" The issue is NOT how to "transliterate" Y'shua into Greek! The issue is NOT how to "transliterate" Greek Iesous into Latin! The issue is NOT even how to "transliterate" the Latin Jesu into English! The issue IS how to transliterate the real name, Y'shua, from the Hebrew, into English. We certainly don't need to go through Greek into Latin and then from Latin into English. Why would anyone want to take such a circuitous route, unless he's trying to "prove" the validity of the erroneousness, "Jesus?"

    To transliterate the Hebrew Y'shua to English, we merely go to Y'shua1. Thus his name is pronounced Y'shua both in Hebrew and in English - perfect transliteration. What could be simpler? Whether Jesus is a pagan name isn't what matters! What matters is the fact that Jesus was never the name of the Messiah of YHWH, whose story is recorded in the new testament!

    Proper names are not translated from one language to another, if it is possible to transliterate. If that is impossible to accurately transliterate a proper name (as is the case in transliterating from Hebrew to Greek) then it is still possible to teach them how to correctly pronounce the name of the Messiah; similar to the way that English speaking people would learn how to correctly pronounce the Spanish word "Chihuahua" or the French word "resume"). They need someone who knows the correct pronunciation to teach them.

    The change of the Messiah's name from Y'shua (Yahushua) to Jesus (a mistranslation) certainly serves the purpose of obscuring his Jewish identity and his Jewish ministry. The true ministry of Yahushua the Messiah is and was dedicated to finding the "lost sheep of the House of Israel." History, both religious and secular, is clear that the "Church" has expended a vast effort to distance itself from the true nature, origins, and purpose of this Jewish messiah!

    The "scholarship" of the subject article is a paradigm (an example) of eisegesis pawned off as exegesis. If this represents the "best" understanding that these people have about such issues, then they are woefully inadequate to be the tool to accomplish the reunion of the Two Houses and restoration of the united kingdom of Yisrael. The "churches" and their teachings have not, do not, and will not ever cause the Tribes of Judah to become jealous!! Nor will they be able to bring the genuine Messiah to his people (see Romans chapter 11).

    It is no surprise that the number of "religious" people who want to bring "Jesus" to the Jews, clearly do not have a grasp of many of the Ephraim/Judah issues that plague the unity of those two Houses. Churchianity has been in the sun way too long, and it is going to be a tough process for them to discard the pagan and/or error filled baggage they bring with them. Judah (the Jew) has considerable Talmudic baggage to discard as well. I am reminded of the declaration of the prophet Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..."

    We are not interested in bringing "Jesus" errors to Judah; there are already enough groups doing that. We do support bringing Y'shuah Ha Mashiach (Yahushua the Messiah) to both Ephraim and Judah: and there is an immense historical difference between Jesus and Y'shua. People's eternal life depends on acceptance of the genuine and rejection of the false.

    Our king is totally opposed to perpetuating the centuries of misinformation and disinformation promulgated by the church leaders who have used their pulpits to disseminate their apostasy. The prophet to Israel, Jeremiah 16:19, prophecies: "O YHWH, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.'"

    We need to examine the Scriptures from a Hebraic perspective (not always a Jewish perspective) in order to glean all the truth and nuances of the Hebrew writers of those books and arrive at the intended (by YHWH) understanding of the Hebrew words of YHWH to the people to whom He entrusted the oracles. Those people were NOT the "churches."

    We take seriously the imperative in Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 58:1, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." We know that we are citizens of the Kingdom of YHWH and have no allegiance to any denomination on earth nor any man. Our Kohen HaGadol (High Priest) is Y'shua Ha Mashiach (Yahushua the Messiah) and he ministers in the Great Temple of YHWH our Father on our behalf.

    1 (Yeshua) is a contraction of (Yahushua)

[freyd]

I brought tha above up because it's always sort of bothered me that we don't use Jesus given name out of respect. If you met someone from latin America and they said their name was Juan, would you say to them that you were going to call them John? I don't think so.

[ppcm]

This is just me putting forth a little of my opinion toward  >what some other people are thinking.<

 >"Proper names are not translated from one language to another, if it is possible to transliterate."<
If it was/is not proper to do why do we find an example in the scriptures that it was done, without any statement against it?
'REV 9:11 And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.'

I am not an English professor but apparently, personal proper name translation did not use to be a problem culturally, For example, all the writers' names were in the past were generally adapted to the receiving language: example- in Italian, Carlo Dickens, Leone Tolstoi, Volfango Amedeo Mozart ect.

>"People's eternal life depends on acceptance of the genuine and rejection of the false."<
I don't think we have to worry about that now since all resurrected ones are going to be taught prior to the eternal destruction.  It will be an evil heart that sends one to eternal destruction, not ignorance.
'1TIM 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'
None of us has the whole truth and nothing but the truth, all of us are ignorant of much.

"If you met someone from latin America and they said their name was Juan, would you say to them that you were going to call them John? I don't think so."
I remember when I was in language classes in school one of the first things we were taught was our name in that language if it had a translation and we had to use them.  I don't know if that is still done being with the new politically correct ethnic pride flaunting attitude now.

We don't speak Hebrew we speak English. In older English translations God's name 'the tetragramation' 'JHVH/YHWH' is translated into English as Jehovah (mostly it has been replaced with Lord); and his son's name is translated into English as as Jesus. Also, in looking at how, for example, English has changed in a few hundred years I doubt seriously that any Hebrew speaker now even pronounces the names as Jesus and his apostles did; much less the way Moses, Abraham, or Adam did.

I think we should mostly be concentrating on not using God's or Jesus's name in in vain (That is to say that we belong to him, but yet not obeying them by turning from evil to doing good.)

God bless,
  PPCM

[RRD]

The name expressed as Jesus, Joshua, Jehosha, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, Yeshua, Jashue, Joshuah, Josue, Isa, Jesusa, Jozua, Iesos, Iesous, Iesu, Giosue, etc, or other formulations thought to be more like the original Hebrew, such as Yahshua, Yahoshua, etc., are all actually linguistical variations of the same name. The general idea prevalent today of understanding each variation as a "different" name appears to be of late origin. I remember reading a book (about 15 years ago) on linguistics that stated something to the effect, that each language's unique spelling and pronunciation of name, should not be viewed as actually a different name, but rather as variations of the same name.

As best as I have been able to determine, it has only been in within the last few centuries that a person's name began to not be expressed within the linguistical form as common to each language.

My name therefore, can be expressed as Rögnvaldr, Regenweald, Reynold, Reginald, Reinold, Ronaldo, Renaldo, etc. It is still the same name; just with different spellings and pronunciations.

See what I have written on this at:
http://name.reslight.net/nofm.html

Christian love,
Ronald

[freyd]

Thought I would bring up this thread as well in regards to the Divine Name.

The name expressed as Jesus, Joshua, Jehosha, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah, Yeshua, Jashue, Joshuah, Josue, Isa, Jesusa, Jozua, Iesos, Iesous, Iesu, Giosue, etc, or other formulations thought to be more like the original Hebrew, such as Yahshua, Yahoshua, etc., are all actually linguistical variations of the same name. The general idea prevalent today of understanding each variation as a "different" name appears to be of late origin. I remember reading a book (about 15 years ago) on linguistics that stated something to the effect, that each language's unique spelling and pronunciation of name, should not be viewed as actually a different name, but rather as variations of the same name.

As best as I have been able to determine, it has only been in within the last few centuries that a person's name began to not be expressed within the linguistical form as common to each language.

My name therefore, can be expressed as Rögnvaldr, Regenweald, Reynold, Reginald, Reinold, Ronaldo, Renaldo, etc. It is still the same name; just with different spellings and pronunciations.

See what I have written on this at:
http://name.reslight.net/nofm.html

Christian love,
Ronald

This is all very interesting and there are  number of issues I'd like to see addressed. I guess the first one is the change from Yahweh(two syllables) to Jehovah(three syllables). Taking your name, for example Br Ron, by changing vowel sounds changes the meaning of words even though they appear similar. But just because things are similar does not mean that they are equal. That's how counterfeiting operates. And then going from one language to another, you can wind up with names and words that are meaningless. Respect for individuals means pronouncing their names properly as best you can. If I were from some part of the world where "Ronald" wasn't known, I wouldn't try to attach some name to it that sort of had a similarity. This came up recently in a post I made regarding President Nixon when he made his infamous trip to China. The Chinese had no letter X in their  alphabet. So they wound up pronouncing the President's name NIKASON. They didn't turn it into Wang. But this is what appears to have happened in the case of Yahweh which is two syllables. I don't see how changing the vowel points changes the number of syllables, and how Y is changed to J, creating as you pointed out at http://reslight.net/divine.html the charge that Jehovah is really the name of the adversary. If this charge is remotely close to the truth, then it sort of creates some confusion by commendably restoring the real name on the one hand while having no objection to a substitute, that appears to be slanderous, for as you said, " NOTE: We have come to view this argument as just conjecture without basis. We see no reason to oppose anyone's use of "Jehovah" as the divine name, as this is one of the earliest pronunciations given in English, and is well known, . "


(15)  But some say that the word "Jehovah" does not correctly represent the Hebrew pronunciation either. Why not? As we mentioned above, the original Hebrew alphabet consisted only of consonants. Many years after the Bible was written, vowels points were added to the Hebrew text by some Jewish scribes. These Jewish scribes inserted into YHWH the vowels from Adonai (Lord) and Elohim (God), thus bringing the pronunciation "Yehowah", translated into English as Jehovah.

(16)  The Revised Standard Version, (Preface) states:

"The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word `Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew."

(17)  The Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edition) declares:

"The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

(18) There are some who have used this pronunciation ("Jehovah") to misrepresent God's purposes and promote idolization of an organization. Today, especially, the leaders of the "Jehovah's witnesses," misrepresent him as a very cruel God, ready to eternally destroy earth's present billions because they fail to listen or understand the "Watchtower" message. In so doing, they are actually bringing reproach upon his name. -- See our publication: Will Billions Be Eternally Destroyed in the Battle at Armageddon?

(19)  Additionally, some have pointed out that the structure of the word "Jehovah" indicates that it may actually slander the Creator! The prefix "Je" is often used to represent the shortened form of the Creator's name, "Yah." "Hovah" in Hebrew means "ruin" or "mischief." (See Strong's number 1943) Thus its meaning would be "Yahweh is ruinous," or "Yahweh is mischievous." Hovah is derived from havvah which means "eagerly coveting and rushing upon; by impl. of falling." (Strong) Thus some claim that this how insidiously Satan the Devil, the real mischievous one, the real "fallen angel" who "covets" the position of the Most High, has replaced the Creator's name with a name that describes himself! (Isaiah 14:12-14; Luke 10:18; 4:8,9) It is for this reason that some have said that the strange word "Jehovah" really refers to Satan (meaning "opposer") the Devil (meaning "false accuser, slanderer")! NOTE: We have come to view this argument as just conjecture without basis. We see no reason to oppose anyone's use of "Jehovah" as the divine name, as this is one of the earliest pronuniations given in English, and is well known. However, since many object on the grounds presented in paragraph 18, we generally use the term "Yahweh" in English to denote the divine name.

[RRD]

Thought I would bring up this thread as well in regards to the Divine Name.

This is all very interesting and there are  number of issues I'd like to see addressed. I guess the first one is the change from Yahweh(two syllables) to Jehovah(three syllables).

There are several speculations concerning why the Masoretes have three vowels. Most present their speculations as fact, when in reality, we cannot be sure of the history behind this. Most think that the Masoretes changed and added vowels so as to prevent the holy name from being pronounced.

The "theory" that I believe to be more probable is the other way, Yehowah, probably more correctly represents more closely the original pronunciation. Yehowah, taken from the Hebrew, probably was more correctly pronounced something like our English word "yeh," (as the English word denoting "yes," but with beginning sound similar to the beginning "J" in the french name Jacques, and with an almost silent "h") -- o -- wah (Was the last syllable originally pronounced like the English word "way" or the English word "wah," like the word used to express a baby crying, or in some other manner?). The Hebrew was brought into Greek first with Greek letters that correspond closely to our English letters IAOUE. Since the "O" was hardly pronounced, in later Greek writings it became "IAUE," probably the four vowels that Josephus mentioned. It is from the Greek "IAUE," not the Hebrew, that we get the English "Yahweh." The online pronunciations given to the holy name is actually a pronunciation of Adonai (Lord -- plural intensive), which does not at all represent the pronunciation of the holy name.

Thus seen, the English "Jehovah," is based on the Masoretic text, while the English "Yahweh" is based on the Greek. The two are actually the same name, just pronounced differently based on the two different sources.

If the Greek vowels IAOUE represent more closely the original Hebrew it is possible that the Hebrew may have been pronounced some like Yahoweh, and that the Masoretes added vowel points that do not actually represent the original pronunciation. Pronounced fast, the middle part becomes almost silent, thus sounds something like Yahweh. (Remember that I am discussing theories, not facts.) Other believe that IAUE more correctly represents the original pronunciation of the Hebrew, thus the claim that Yahweh represents the original pronunciation.

And then there are many, many, more theories circulating about how the holy name was originally pronounced. All of them sound plausible in their own settings, and yet all of them are also based on assumptions. The truth is we really don't know with a certainty whether any of all the various theories that are circulating actually represent the way the holy name was originally pronounced, nor can we be certain that it pronounced the same in Aramaic as it was in Hebrew, or that it was pronounced the same at various times even in Hebrew. Indeed, as one Hebrew scholar stated to me, we cannot be for 100% certain as to how any of the Hebrew words were originally pronounced.

Of course, neither the English letter "J" nor the English letter "Y" appear in the Hebrew; this, of course, is true for all letters of our English alphabet. The beginning Y in English used to be many times pronounced something like "th." Thus "Ye," when used as an article (as in "Ye Olde Booke Shoppe"), was pronounced something like our modern "the." In our modern English, all of the Hebrew names that begin with the Hebrew "Y/Jod" are represented with the English "J." The standard for such names in modern English is to use the English "J," not the English "Y."

If we take the name "Jesus," which has come to us indirectly via Latin from the Greek, we do not begin that name with "Y," but rather with a "J." That very same name when taken from the Masoretic Hebrew into English is usually rendered as "Joshua," not 'Yoshua," or "Yashua." It is also many times rendered as Jeshua. All of these are the same name, simply pronounced and spelled differently based on different derivations.

My name, Ronald, in Spanish is pronounced Ronaldo. It is the same name, only pronounced and spelled differently, due to linguistical background. When I was taking Spanish lessons in high school, the teacher and the class addressed me as "Ronaldo," not "Ronald."

As best I have been able to determine, it is only in recent centuries, probably due to better communications, that a person retains the original pronunciation of his name should he moved to a country of a different language, and therefore where his name would be pronounced according to the linguistical rules of that language. The Bible itself attest to name pronunication changing according to area, and sometimes according to time.

None of this gives us any reason to not pronounce the holy name, or pronounce the holy name as "Adonai," "Lord," "Hashem," "the Eternal," "Kurios," etc. There is nothing in the Bible anywhere to the effect that the only Most High changed his name to any of these pronunciations.

Regarding the idea that the name "Jehovah" means the devil, after having originally written the study, The Divine Name, the note added to the paragraph was to explain that I now realize that the whole argument is false, and based on false assumptions. There are many similar arguments made by those claim that the holy name has to be pronounced one certain way (whatever pronunciation has been assumed by the author) and not other way. It is similar to the false argument that "Jesus" is Zeus.

When I originally wrote the study on the Divine Name, I had not done as much of my own research as I have done since, but relied heavily upon the articles and materials as presented by various authors associated with the "Assembly of Yahweh." Having studied many more resources since, I see that there is much in the "Divine Name" study that I need to update, or replace it entirely with a new study, in order to reflect what I have since learned.

Christian love,
Ronald

[hitcherman]

Greetings Bro Ronald,
I will never forget not long after I had become baptised as a Jehovah's Witness I was out in the service,on my way home I noticed two mormons doing their preaching work.I pulled the car over got out and walked over to them with my bible and started to engage them in a bible discussion.We had been speaking for 15 minutes or so and during our conversation one of the mormon brothers asked in a self righteous manner; "How long have you been studying the bible for?" I said well I have only been baptised for 6 months and before I could say anything else he interrupted me and said, "well we have been studying the bible for years ....[they were roughly the same age as me at that time early 20's] and so we think that we know what we are talking about."
After He said that, we continued to chat and during the conversation I kept mentioning the name Jehovah instead of using God or Lord, finally one of them asked; "By the way who is this Jehovah you keep talking about?"
I said its God's personal name and its in your bible[I could see they were using KJV]
So after turning his bible open to see God's name, the silence became a very powerful momment[all praise to Jehovah] He did not know what to say and I felt priverliged in being able to show him.
Christian love Jeff.

[freyd]

Hitch- If you  ever run into mormonites again, have them open to the last page of the book of mormon where you also find Jehovah.

Br Ron - Thanks for your explanation. I have a great appreciation for liguistics and semantics although I don't begin to profess any skill. Kind of like art and music I guess. But I wonder if you take a name in one language and try to adapt it to another, what that does to the meaniing. Say if Hitch went to Mexico and introduced himself as Jeff and they said, they would call him Jeffo. It sounds kind of awkward, not to mention disrespectful to the visitor, to which he might reply, "No, just plain Jeff." Maybe I don't have the proper appreciation for when in Rome do as the Romans, but I am constantly reminded of Yeshua's words, "You make the word of God invalid for the sake of your traditions." Matt 15:6

[hitcherman]

Thanks for the tip Freyd re Jehovah's name being in the book of mormon.
I always wanted to know what my name would be in another language,of those that I have asked in the past from different lands they have said it would be the same,but I never did ask a mexican ;D

As far as me personally being offended if they could not pronounce my name correctly,I would much rather them make the effort in trying to greet me  personally even if it may not be quite correct than just give up and call me "sir".

I have given much thought to the pronunciation of God's name in the bible over the years,while it is true that the "correct" pronunciation may not be known,it would seem possible that God has allowed the use of Jehovah to be used as His name!
One would think that if it be highly offensive to God that He would not have allowed it to be translated as such.

If we are to accept that Bro Russell is the seventh messenger why then did he have no problem with using the name?
I am unaware of Bro Russell deliberating over its use or it's correct pronunciation,I would be interested if he did so.

Christian love Jeff.

[hitcherman]

ppcm Greetings Brother,
I somehow missed your post you said,

I think we should mostly be concentrating on not using God's or Jesus's name in in vain (That is to say that we belong to him, but yet not obeying them by turning from evil to doing good.)

You make an important point, not obeying God's commands would seem much more offensive to Jehovah,rather than possibly not pronouncing His name correctly.I have not read bible verse condemning sinners for mis pronouncing His name, yet much is written on not obeying God and repenting.
Thanks for giving such sound reasoning.
Jeff.