Ship of Fools: Jehovah

Thread: Jehovah Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027846

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

What difference is there in different churches? We have Jehovah friends, who always call God "Jehovah". They also have a different translation in their Bible. They are good believing Jesus rescued us.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I assume that by "Jehovah friends" you mean Jehovah's Witnesses. That group is heretic, following the teachings of Arius. They deny the divinity of Christ, having him as no more than a creation of God. You cannot say any of the 3 main creeds (Nicene, Apostles and Athanasian) and be a Jehovah's Witness, and those creeds are common to all Christianity.

Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :

Unfortunately, the translation (New World) of the Bible that that Jehovah's Witnesses use is not what you could call accurate or well-rendered.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Can we keep the discussion on the use of the name 'Jehovah' - the belief's of Jehovah's Witnesses would be more suited to Purgatory.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've been told that 'Jehovah' comes from a mis-rendering of the sacred name, sort of using the consonants that are normally printed with it. Those belong to the word 'adonai' which means Lord. I suppose one could argue that this therefore produces a word that is still 'a name' but is no longer 'the name' and therefore perhaps no longer unspeakable.

The convention though, has always been that where the sacred name appears, one replaces it with Lord, which is why it is pointed with the vowels of 'adonai'. This is why in most respectable translations of the Old Testament, the sacred name appears as LORD, rather than Lord or Jehovah.

What one must never do is attempt to sound the sacred name as a name. There are one or two translations which print it as a rendering of the name itself. I believe Pope Benedict gave a clear reminder a year or two ago, that when reading from those translations, Roman Catholics must never speak even what might be a rendering of the name itself and always convert it into LORD.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

daisymay

I've noticed that the black-led Afro-Caribbean churches sing songs in which God is referred to as Jehovah. But this is rare in British hymnody. We have 'Guide me, O thou great Jehovah', which is sometimes changed to '... great Redeemer'. But generally speaking, the idea of referring to God by a more descriptive biblical name is a problem for us. I don't know why.

[Ah, cross-posted with Enoch....]

[ 15. January 2014, 21:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

Isn't the Lord God referred to as Jehovah in the Authorised Version of the Bible at times? I think so, but may be wrong.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

What Enoch says, but to follow on, Jehovah comes from the tetragrammaton JHWH, which embodies the one true Name. My understanding is that Jehovah is not that name, although close to it. The only person entitled to say the Name was the High Priest, once year and at little more than a whisper so no-one else could hear it. The Name was never written and therefore was passed down by a proper education in the meaning and derivation of JHWH, such that the successor's guess was correct. The common practice of using Lord or Adonai avoids any problem.

Robert Graves in his very odd book The Whie Goddess finds JHWH in Aaron's Blessing and says that the Blessing declares the eternity and majesty of the Trinity:

JH - light and the Shining
W - life
H - peace.

Perhaps he's right, perhaps not. It still for both of us is a great meditation.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

By and large "Jehovah" is a contemporization or perhaps Europeanization but not I think merely Anglicization of the Not-To-Be pronounced Tetragrammaton "YHWH" ... and like "Yahweh" is offensive in intent to the Hebrews ... it should be avoided, really

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
Isn't the Lord God referred to as Jehovah in the Authorised Version of the Bible at times? I think so, but may be wrong.

Not often!

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

It is a blending of the Hebrew YHWH the sacred name for God and Adonai the word for Lord. the vowels from the latter are fitted into YHWH to produce Jehovah.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I was privileged to sit at the feet of Martin MacNamara, one of the planet's experts of the relation between the Targum and the NT, and he said that he guessed that the pronunciation was likely Yeh:wêh but the one thing of which he was certain was that it was not Jehovah.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

"Jehovah" is probably a lot closer to the Hebrew than other Anglicised names like "James", "John", "Joseph", and "Jesus" are.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I always heard it came from Martin Luther, who misunderstood the pointing for Adonai in the Sacred Name and so put the vowels in with the consonants. That's why yod is rendered with a "J," because in German it's pronounced like yod (like English "y" when y is a consonant).

I don't like when Jehovah is used in church (hymns, etc.), since it's an ignorant translation. And I don't like when "Yahweh" is used, because that's a pronunciation of the Sacred Name. Even if Christians aren't forbidden to say it (which some argue), it's still disrespectful to Jews.

So it's a matter of finding alternates that, when necessary, scan (as with hymns—e.g., "Guide me, O thou great Redeemer").

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't see why the Church should be bound by Jewish scruples. They can not pronounce the Tetragrammaton all they like, but that doesn't mean that I can't say it.

[ 16. January 2014, 02:45: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see why the Church should be bound by Jewish scruples. They can not pronounce the Tetragrammaton all they like, but that doesn't mean that I can't say it.

A little tricky, as we really don't know how to say it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see why the Church should be bound by Jewish scruples. They can not pronounce the Tetragrammaton all they like, but that doesn't mean that I can't say it.
A little tricky, as we really don't know how to say it.

Even less reason to be worried that saying Jehovah might offend Jews then.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Even less reason to be worried that saying Jehovah might offend Jews then.

I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was "that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah". [Snigger]

(Couldn't resist it)

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Even less reason to be worried that saying Jehovah might offend Jews then.
I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was "that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah".

(Couldn't resist it)

You got there first!

"He said it again! He said it again!"

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see why the Church should be bound by Jewish scruples. They can not pronounce the Tetragrammaton all they like, but that doesn't mean that I can't say it.
A little tricky, as we really don't know how to say it.

And to an English-speaker 'Yahweh' just sounds ridiculous- reminiscent of 'yah boo', yahoo', and so on. If we are going to use a name (not something I've ever felt much need to do), Jehovah is the form that we have in our language and it is the one that we should use- just as no-one (well, no-one sensible) would think of not using the Anglicised forms James, John, Matthew, Thomas, Mary - or for that matter Jerusalem- and so on.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I believe Pope Benedict gave a clear reminder a year or two ago, that when reading from those translations, Roman Catholics must never speak even what might be a rendering of the name itself and always convert it into LORD.

The one I'm thinking of was a little longer ago than that, and it only related to the Liturgy. Whenever I see it written in English or Hebrew I've pretty much trained myself now to read it as "haShem" ('the name'), which reminds me what's actually there.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I believe Pope Benedict gave a clear reminder a year or two ago, that when reading from those translations, Roman Catholics must never speak even what might be a rendering of the name itself and always convert it into LORD.

The trouble with that is we apply the LORD to Jesus as well and sometimes its good to be certain of the difference between Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

There's a fairly popular Christian contemporary song called "At Your Name (Yahweh Yahweh)" which as one might imagine features the name repeated numerous times.

It's news to me that this is taboo.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
The trouble with that is we apply the LORD to Jesus as well and sometimes its good to be certain of the difference between Jesus Christ and God the Father.

We're getting into complex theological territory here, but is the LORD, Hashem that cannot be spoken, God the Father, or the Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity, seen from outside and so with the three members undifferentiated from each other?

The confession 'Jesus is Lord' is not just a statement of submission. It is also a statement that Jesus is God, kyrie, adonai, LORD.

I don't think Christians should purport to pronounce the sacred name. I think we should avoid doing so, not so as not to offend Jews, but because it is God's sacred name. We should not utter it. We should use circumlocutions such as LORD, Hashem or 'the Name' to avoid doing so.

Something curious about 'the Name' which I've never seen mentioned is this. I'm sure Sir James Frazer or Robert Graves or someone must have mentioned this, but I've not found their works on this subject all that gripping reads. The chief god, king of gods, of the Romans was Jupiter. Long ago, when I did Latin, Jupiter declined irregularly. The accusative and other cases switched from being Jupitrem etc as one might expect to Jovem, Jovis, Jove, hence 'jovial'. Nobody really knows how classical Romans pronounced their language. When I did Latin, 'v' was still pronounced 'v' but there was disagreement whether the Romans pronounced 'j' as a 'j' or as a 'y' like in German. Since then, there's been a widespread claim that the Romans actually pronounced 'v' as 'w' and that those learning classics should do likewise. If that were the case, the ablative case of Jupiter, Jove, would sound something like 'yo-wé'. Which sounds strangely similar to modern attempts to render 'the Name'.

If there is anything in this, could it have been an encouragement to the development of the notion that the Romans had something in common with the Jews, which seems to have developed under the Maccabees (see 1 Mac 8 etc)? Or was this no more than my enemy's enemy is my friend?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I believe Pope Benedict gave a clear reminder a year or two ago, that when reading from those translations, Roman Catholics must never speak even what might be a rendering of the name itself and always convert it into LORD.
The trouble with that is we apply the LORD to Jesus as well and sometimes its good to be certain of the difference between Jesus Christ and God the Father.

But there is an ancient strand of Christian thought which associates the LORD of the Torah and the Prophets with the second person of the trinity, not with the Father. Ezekiel saw "one like a Son of Man", i.e. God in human form. Isaiah had some vision of the LORD in theTemple. Some psalms associate the appearance of God in the Temple with that of the king on his throne. Abraham and Isaac and Hagar (don't forget Hagar!) saw the Angel of God in human form. The LORD walked and talked with both Adam and Moses.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Yahweh is used a lot in evangelical circles, I am also surprised that it's considered taboo here.

The Matt Redman song 'Blessed be the name of the Lord' uses it in the bridge (?).

(I am sure Karl/someone else will correct me on the musical terminology! And obviously I am not endorsing Matt Redman because I have ears [Biased]

)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I will admit I am uncomfortable with "Yahweh" because it is an attempt to pronounce the unpronounceable name. It's the chief reason I can't read the Jerusalem Bible. I find it jarring. I'd almost rather the translaters printed YHWH and let each person read it as they saw fit -- "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "The LORD" or "Hashem" or "Adonai" or "Kyrios" or "ho On" or "Bob" or whatever.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see why the Church should be bound by Jewish scruples.

Churchgeek didn't say that, he said we should be respectful of the Jews. What's wrong with being respectful? Surely that might be covered in that "do unto others" thing that that Jeheshuashosha guy said.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
It is a blending of the Hebrew YHWH the sacred name for God and Adonai the word for Lord. the vowels from the latter are fitted into YHWH to produce Jehovah.

Yep.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"Jehovah" is probably a lot closer to the Hebrew than other Anglicised names like "James", "John", "Joseph", and "Jesus" are.

Jesus, not so much. The initial consonant is altered and the final vowel; the central consonant is voiced where the Greek was unvoiced. That's all. Now you could say Iesous is a mangling of the Hebrew Yeshu'a (or Yoshu'a) but that's assuming a lot, and not entirely relevant, as Jehovah came straight from Hebrew.

James from Iakovos is a long (documented) slog, and matches only the final phoneme, and then only almost, as it voices the unvoiced ς. Its use in the King James Bible was of course a political decision, and inconsistent as the same name in the Old Testament was left "Jacob."

John from "Io'annes" is a little better than James but not by much.

"Joseph" gets the initial consonant and the final vowel wrong, but hits everything else, probably the best match of the lot.

"Jehovah" gets none of the phonemes of the original right, whatever exactly the original was. It is far and away the worst of the lot.

[ 16. January 2014, 16:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Jehovah became fashionable in some circles in the mid-70s, as I recall, particularly in US charismatic circles. I never understood why, unless it was part of the whole Pentecost thing they were striving for.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yahweh is used a lot in evangelical circles, I am also surprised that it's considered taboo here.....

Suffice to say that it would make me very uncomfortable.

This may be the wrong reaction, but I'd find it difficult not to think that the writer and those using it had fully appreciated who and how holy God really is.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yahweh is used a lot in evangelical circles, I am also surprised that it's considered taboo here.....
Suffice to say that it would make me very uncomfortable.

This may be the wrong reaction, but I'd find it difficult not to think that the writer and those using it had fully appreciated who and how holy God really is.

Oh I appreciate that, it's just so normal in evangelical circles that the responses here surprised me a bit. Given the evangelical focus on the holiness of God, I wonder why they are usually quite comfortable with talking about Yahweh? When I was in evangelical churches it wasn't explained, it was just accepted as the norm.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

'Cos He's their mate, isn't he? Or the very least, if Jesus is their boyfriend, He's their boyfriend's dad. [Projectile]

[ 16. January 2014, 19:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Churchgeek didn't say that, he said we should be respectful of the Jews. What's wrong with being respectful? Surely that might be covered in that "do unto others" thing that that Jeheshuashosha guy said.

I wouldn't sit next to a Jewish guy on the bus and grumble the name of God at him just to offend him, but what business is it of his if I say Psalm 83 in Church?

[ 16. January 2014, 21:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
The trouble with that is we apply the LORD to Jesus as well and sometimes its good to be certain of the difference between Jesus Christ and God the Father.
We're getting into complex theological territory here, but is the LORD, Hashem that cannot be spoken, God the Father, or the Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity, seen from outside and so with the three members undifferentiated from each other?

The confession 'Jesus is Lord' is not just a statement of submission. It is also a statement that Jesus is God, kyrie, adonai, LORD.

I don't think Christians should purport to pronounce the sacred name. I think we should avoid doing so, not so as not to offend Jews, but because it is God's sacred name. We should not utter it. We should use circumlocutions such as LORD, Hashem or 'the Name' to avoid doing so.

Something curious about 'the Name' which I've never seen mentioned is this. I'm sure Sir James Frazer or Robert Graves or someone must have mentioned this, but I've not found their works on this subject all that gripping reads. The chief god, king of gods, of the Romans was Jupiter. Long ago, when I did Latin, Jupiter declined irregularly. The accusative and other cases switched from being Jupitrem etc as one might expect to Jovem, Jovis, Jove, hence 'jovial'. Nobody really knows how classical Romans pronounced their language. When I did Latin, 'v' was still pronounced 'v' but there was disagreement whether the Romans pronounced 'j' as a 'j' or as a 'y' like in German. Since then, there's been a widespread claim that the Romans actually pronounced 'v' as 'w' and that those learning classics should do likewise. If that were the case, the ablative case of Jupiter, Jove, would sound something like 'yo-wé'. Which sounds strangely similar to modern attempts to render 'the Name'.

If there is anything in this, could it have been an encouragement to the development of the notion that the Romans had something in common with the Jews, which seems to have developed under the Maccabees (see 1 Mac 8 etc)? Or was this no more than my enemy's enemy is my friend?

The pronunciation of Latin "j", which wasn't even written as a "j" by the Romans, who wrote it as "I", has always been known to be a yod; it's pretty much only the English and French within Europe who'd even consider pronouncing the letter otherwise. The "v", similarly, was not distinguished in writing from "u" and comparative linguistics is unanimous that its pronunciation was that of the modern English "w" - it developed into a bilabial fricative in late Vulgar Latin, from whence it didn't develop any further in Spanish, but to a labio-dental (as in English "v") in the other Romance languages. Borrowings from the Imperial period show the "w" - note English has "Wine" from "Vinum", and "Wight" from "Vectis". We also know that the labial fricatives were unknown to the Romans, as they always transliterated the Greek beta as a "b", never a "v", even though by the 1st Century beta had become a fricative.

Nevertheless, the resemblance between reconstructed pronunciations of YHWH and Iouis (or Jovis if you prefer) are in fact coincidental. The Latin Iou- stem derives from earlier Dieus-, and is related to the generic word 'deus' for a god, and cognate with Greek 'Zeus' and proto-Germanic *Tiwaz, who gives us Anglo-Saxon Tiw and Norse Tyr, not to mention the Vedic Dyauṣ Pitrā.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

From the preface of my NRSV Bible:

quote:
Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton" (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios ("Lord") for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus ("Lord"). 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. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

Here is the full text.

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

The sole time we say "Jehovah" in church is when this term appears in a hymn, such as "Guide me oh thou great Jehovah."--and even here, some people substitute Redeemer for Jehovah.

In canticle 8 of the USA BCP, God's name is rendered Yahweh ("The Lord is a mighty warrior, Yahweh is his name"). I usually substitute "The Lord" .

Praying either Jehovah or Yahweh just sounds weird and archaic to me. God doesn't need to be differentiated by name from Zeus, Osiris, or Mithra.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Confusingly, we sing "Guide me, O though great Redeemer".

But we do get Jehovah when the choir sings Purcell's Iehovah quam multi sunt hostes mei (Psalm 3).

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

It was always "Guide me O thou great Jehovah" at Cardiff Arms Park....

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

It usually is "Jehovah" when we sing it in church.

But we have been mightly blessed with a complete absence of bowdlerised Kevin Mayhew hymnbooks.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I was always taught that it was Redeemer for the English, and Jehovah for the Welsh.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It usually is "Jehovah" when we sing it in church.

But we have been mightly blessed with a complete absence of bowdlerised Kevin Mayhew hymnbooks.

I understand that "redeemer" is both a more accurate translation from the Welsh and the older usage in English. So not really a Kevin Mayhew bowdlerisation.

John

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I've checked the words in Welsh. It's Arglwydd - "Lord". So Jehovah is arguably more accurate given that's how YHWH is traditionally rendered in English translations of the Bible.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Another baulker checking in ... merely as a mark of respect to our Jewish cousins.

Growing up, incidentally, in a very Anglophile boarding environment it was always "thou great redeemer" in my world, and I was shattered when, as a young convert, I sung "Jehovah" in a Baptist church - I thought I'd eneded up in a JW gig by mistake. We sang from Old and Mouldy, and since "Kevin Mayhew Publishing was founded in 1976",* by which time I had been at school many years and was trying to get expelled (more into Les Zep, Jethro Tull and His Bobness than Cwm Rhondda I suspect "Redeemer" predated his efforts. Our copies of Old and Mouldy were about 60 years old, but I doubt it had changed much from the 1861 original.

Though I suspect "Jehovah" was paralleling "redeemer" even in the 1860s, as suggested above, with a checkpoint on the River Wye.

At any rate, avoiding nomenclature offensive to the Hebrews is a common decency ... I would probably avoid "Allah" and the Māori Io, for example, on the same basis (or Zeus, Jupiter and the mob for that matter).

*from their website

[ 22. January 2014, 17:12: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The English words aren't really a translation so much as a different version of the song, made in English with the approval of the author. I'm pretty sure Jehovah was the original.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

At any rate, avoiding nomenclature offensive to the Hebrews is a common decency ... I would probably avoid "Allah" and the Māori Io, for example, on the same basis (or Zeus, Jupiter and the mob for that matter).

*from their website

Allah, so I've heard, is simply the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. I don't know if they offend Muslims by doing so.

I've never heard that Jehovah's Witnesses were offensive to Jews due to their use of the name 'Jehovah'.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Confusingly, we sing "Guide me, O though great Redeemer".

But we do get Jehovah when the choir sings Purcell's Iehovah quam multi sunt hostes mei (Psalm 3).

/tangent query/

Purcell's 'Jehovah quam multi …' is a splendid piece, but can anyone point me to the source of his text, as it is not the Vulgate Psalm 3. Its use of the J-word would seem to indicate a back translation of some Lutheran-influenced psalter, if as one is told Luther is the source of 'Jehovah.'

(All of which reminds me to get that piece back into the choral rotation.')

/ending tangent query/

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

At any rate, avoiding nomenclature offensive to the Hebrews is a common decency ... I would probably avoid "Allah" and the Māori Io, for example, on the same basis (or Zeus, Jupiter and the mob for that matter).

*from their website
Allah, so I've heard, is simply the Arabic word for God. Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. I don't know if they offend Muslims by doing so.

Malasian muslims object to it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Malaysian muslims object to it.[/URL]

Some do. Including this week's king. But there are racist wankbadgers everywhere.

The proper thing to do is to be sure to carry on use the word as a stand against bigotry.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I agree.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am quite sure there was a time when Jehovah was a popular use. It is not just Guide me O thou Great Jehovah but

Jehovah's Perfect Law
Before Jehovah's awful throne
Like a River Glorious with its chorus: "Stayed upon Jehovah, hearts are fully blest"
Hallelujah Praise Jehovah

Now most have dropped from common use, and I think the use of "Jehovah" is part of it, the same way you tend not to get hymns with "Ebenezer" (yes they do exist) and "Zion" and "Salem" (short for Jerusalem). Given also that quite a few of these are actually metrical psalm I suspect that the requirements of meter had something to do with the original use.

I think I am against the removal of "Jehovah" on the whole. On the grounds they are pretty rarely used these days (except "O Guide me "), and there is a good chance it will render, the already mangled, completely incomprehensible.

Jengie

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Christians were using "Allah" in the middle east centuries before anybody in Malaysia ever heard the word. They're being possessive of something that isn't even their possession.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am quite sure there was a time when Jehovah was a popular use. It is not just Guide me O thou Great Jehovah but

Jehovah's Perfect Law
Before Jehovah's awful throne
Like a River Glorious with its chorus: "Stayed upon Jehovah, hearts are fully blest"
Hallelujah Praise Jehovah

Now most have dropped from common use, and I think the use of "Jehovah" is part of it, the same way you tend not to get hymns with "Ebenezer" (yes they do exist) and "Zion" and "Salem" (short for Jerusalem). Given also that quite a few of these are actually metrical psalm I suspect that the requirements of meter had something to do with the original use.

I think I am against the removal of "Jehovah" on the whole. On the grounds they are pretty rarely used these days (except "O Guide me "), and there is a good chance it will render, the already mangled, completely incomprehensible.

Jengie

I've noticed that it appears more often in worship songs, or at least a certain type of worship song.

We might also note that in Rastafarianism the shortened form of Jehovah - Jah - is ubiquitous. The use of Jah is also used by Christians, due partly to the influence of reggae music.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

We just got told by Jehovah people, that Jesus was not killed in a "square" bit of a tree, but just the bit straight up and He was pinned in with his hands high up. We always believe that it is the one that many were killed in that had the bits above and across. What is "real"?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
We just got told by Jehovah people, that Jesus was not killed in a "square" bit of a tree, but just the bit straight up and He was pinned in with his hands high up. We always believe that it is the one that many were killed in that had the bits above and across. What is "real"?

Roman crucifixion was done on T-shape crosses afaik. Not sure about the bit above.

Jehovahs Witnesses use a different Bible FYI.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The difference of the JWs translation is often greatly exaggerated. It's mostly a pretty straightforward updating of the mainstream AV/RV/RSV tradition, a bit oldfashioned, with some of the Trinitarian prooftexts translated differently. Some in ways that would have some scholarly support.

It's easy to find websites listing the bad bits of the translation from an orthodox Christian point of view. To be honest there aren't many more of them than there are dubious bits of OT readings in the NEB, or deliberately sexisms in the NIV (The NIV NT is significantly less gender neutral than the AV. Or the original Greek. It arbitrarily and unnecessarily introduces words like "he", "him", and "man" where there is no textual warrant for it)

As far as I know, which isn't that far as I have never really studied it, the New World Translation has two really big bugbears. The worst one seems to be the way it turns talk of the Spirit of God into an impersonal force rather than a person.

And then there is their obsession with the idea that the Cross had no crossbar. I have no idea why they care about that so much but they do. If you look up "cross" in a JW Bible Dictionary (I did, last week) it cross references to "torture stake". (The other entries I looked up all semed quite OK to me)

As far as I know there is evidence that Romans crucified people on both T-shaped and +-shaped crosses, and possibly X-shaped and single stakes as well. And there is no evidence as to which one Jesus was killed on in the New Testament, but a strong and early tradition that it was cross-shaped (though not unanimous I think, there are some early pictures of crucifixion on a T-cross) I don't see why it really matters and I don't know why the JWs do think its so important.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I think the business about the cross is because the koine Greek for cross is stauros, which means a stake. The Latin is crux (= cross) and since it was the Romans who did the crucifying I think they can be counted as reliable in the matter.

The usual reason given for the Greek word is that regular places of execution would have had the uprights fixed in the ground - which makes sense if you think about it. Hard-baked earth would be very resistant to regular excavation and give support to a heavy object like a cross. You would have to carry the crossbeam, but it would mean once dead you could be brought down rapidly, and the next unfortunate crucified. I only pass this one on - I can't see what difference it makes either way to be honest.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Interestingly some of the more anti-orthodox-Christianity Messianics* I know also refer to the cross as the 'torture stake' and view the cross as a Constantinian/RCC invention. No idea why other than to discredit the RCC (most Messianics I know are very anti-Catholic).

*not from a Jewish background, these are gentile Messianics

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
We just got told by Jehovah people, that Jesus was not killed in a "square" bit of a tree, but just the bit straight up and He was pinned in with his hands high up. We always believe that it is the one that many were killed in that had the bits above and across. What is "real"?

Did you get any sense from them about what (if any) difference that makes theologically? It seems to me the important thing is that Jesus died for our sins, not what the exact implement of execution was.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

They still believe that Jesus saved us and loves us. But they don't like the tree with the two bits of it, up and across.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
They still believe that Jesus saved us and loves us.

Maybe, but they have a pretty strange view of exactly how many are going to Heaven.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
They still believe that Jesus saved us and loves us.
Maybe, but they have a pretty strange view of exactly how many are going to Heaven.

Yes, but some of that is the rather Biblically defensible notion that the vast majority aren't destined for the Temple worship in the eternal presence of God in heaven but for the resurrection in the new Earth.

(why am I defending the JWs so much?)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
They still believe that Jesus saved us and loves us.
Maybe, but they have a pretty strange view of exactly how many are going to Heaven.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Interestingly some of the more anti-orthodox-Christianity Messianics* I know also refer to the cross as the 'torture stake' and view the cross as a Constantinian/RCC invention. No idea why other than to discredit the RCC (most Messianics I know are very anti-Catholic).

*not from a Jewish background, these are gentile Messianics

Are they Messianics or Sacred Namers? The latter get very exercised about Jesus' name, and maintain that he should be called Yeshua because Jesus is not "right" : "The Hebrew language doesn't even have a J," they point out.

Of course, they continue to refer to Joseph, Mary, James and other NT personages by the Anglicized versions of the Hellenized versions of their Hebrew or Aramaic names...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Interestingly some of the more anti-orthodox-Christianity Messianics* I know also refer to the cross as the 'torture stake' and view the cross as a Constantinian/RCC invention. No idea why other than to discredit the RCC (most Messianics I know are very anti-Catholic).

*not from a Jewish background, these are gentile Messianics
Are they Messianics or Sacred Namers? The latter get very exercised about Jesus' name, and maintain that he should be called Yeshua because Jesus is not "right" : "The Hebrew language doesn't even have a J," they point out.

Of course, they continue to refer to Joseph, Mary, James and other NT personages by the Anglicized versions of the Hellenized versions of their Hebrew or Aramaic names...

Messianics (and use Hebrew/Aramaic names for everyone in the Bible). Only celebrate OT festivals, no Christmas/Easter, keep to OT food laws etc.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0