Isaiah 12

4 And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Isaiah+12%3A4&ASV_version=yes&language=english&x=19&y=5

Exodus 3

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus+3%3A15&ASV_version=yes&language=english

John 17

26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=John+17%3A26&ASV_version=yes&language=english

There is no biblical basis for thinking that the name of God is too holy to be spoken. God wanted his name to be known and used.

And even if this thing about God's name being spoken being considered "in vain", that still doesn't explain replacing it with "LORD" in the bible.

It makes scriptures like Psalms 83:18 seem silly :

Psalm 83

18 That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 83
18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD -
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Psalms+83%3A18&NIV_version=yes&ASV_version=yes&language=english&x=20&y=11

Renee, my Tanach is at home, but I'd guess that for Isaiah 12:4, Exodus 3:15 and Psalm 83:18, the original Hebrew shows JHVH, pronounced "Adonai", and translated "the Lord".

My gue

"Pronouced Adonai" and "translated 'the Lord'"?

Sorry, that's called replacing, not translating.

From a certain point of view, Rene, you're actually right. It's a tradition to never speak the name of God. Even if the name is *printed,* one would *say* Adonai in its place as it was read. Some English texts show this by using "LORD" in place of JHVH, some (such as the Jerusalem Bible) print a transliteration of the Hebrew, and some do a mixture of both (usually indicating with footnotes what the original Hebrew word was). It's tradition, is all it is. If you don't happen to like this particular one, then either learn to read Hebrew or find an English translation that preserves some Hebrew words.

By the way, the citation you provide from John has nothing to do with speaking the divine name; one may make a thing known and yet forbid it to be spoken by mortal tongues.

Isaiah 12:4
v'mrtm byvm hhv' hvdv lyhvh qr'v bsmv hvdyjv bjmym jlyltyv hzkyrv ky nsgb smv. (Hebrew)

Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say, "Give thanks to Yahweh! Call on his name. Declare his doings among the peoples. Proclaim that his name is exalted! (World English Bible)

Isaiah 12:4
And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. (AV)

Exodus 3:15
vy'mr jvd 'lhym 'l-msh kh-t'mr 'l-bny ysr'l yhvh 'lhy 'btykm 'lhy 'brhm 'lhy y&xq v'lhy yjqb slxny 'lykm zh-smy ljlm vzh zkry ldr dr

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. (World English Bible)

Exodus 3:15
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations (AV)

Psalms 83:18
ybsv vybhlv jdy-jd vyxprv vy'bdv

Psalms 83:18
That they may know that you alone, whose name is Yahweh, Are the Most High over all the earth.(World English Bible)

Psalms 83:18
That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth. (AV)

Some translations transliterate the letters of NAME, some translate the NAME as "LORD." Some do both. All are clear. All translations in all languages translate/transliterate the names Peter, James, John, etc. (including Jesus/Joshua) into the closest equivalent, but we don't have a problem with that. What is your point?

Just out of curiosity, how are you transliterating the hebrew? I'm asking because it doesn't seem to make sense.

I'd give high odds that Exodus 3:15 begins (transliterated): "Vayomer Adonai al Moshe l'mor"

(where "Adonai" is the JHVH spelling)

BTW, Rene, that site is really interesting. You can get the text in just about any language EXCEPT Hebrew!

Here's Exodus 3:15 in the original Hebrew, in English, and in transliteration.

The JHVH spelling is used (in Hebrew and in the English), but if you look at the transliteration, it is pronounced "Adonai". Note that other English translations may vary as well.

Just out of curiosity, how are you transliterating the hebrew? I'm asking because it doesn't seem to make sense.

I used the Unbound Bible's "Transliterated Hebrew" "translation." I would have used the "Hebrew OT" "translation" but the Unicode for the Hebrew characters produces unpredictable results in fonts that don't have unicode Hebrew alphabet glyphs. Since I know only a few Hebrew words, and those few seemed OK except for the "missing" vowels, I assumed that it was basically correct. It is possible that the cut-and-paste changed some of the non-alphabetical characters. It has a tendency to do that on this site.

My point is, replacing JEHOVAH (there, I typed it out of a scripture quote) or Yahweh with "LORD" is an insult to God. How'd you like it if I called you "PERSON" or "HUMAN" instead of by your name?

As long as we're making analogies, how would a father feel if his kids called him by his first name all the time instead of "Father" or "Dad"? Just a thought.

Rene, the meaning is exactly the opposite. God is so holy, so perfect, that his name *cannot* be spoken by human beings without insulting it. Therefore, out of respect for the name and the power behind it, humans do not say it. It's the same principle that underlies not touching the ark of the covenant - some things are just too powerful for humans to mess with, even if the power is benign.

My only question is just how sure can anyone be of any translation of centuries-old texts in foreign languages that are no longer spoken, let alone written, or are they? I don't dispute what the experts say this or that text really says, since I'm not educated in that field. I'd just like to know how any of them could be 100% sure, is all.

Uh, Mark? Hebrew is spoken and written. It's the official language of Israel.

My only question is just how sure can anyone be of any translation of centuries-old texts in foreign languages that are no longer spoken, let alone written, or are they? I don't dispute what the experts say this or that text really says, since I'm not educated in that field. I'd just like to know how any of them could be 100% sure, is all.

1) Most cases of textual corruption occur when "margin notes" are copied along with the text. The Hebrew scriptures were considered too sacred for that, and all the commentaries were kept on separate scrolls, now known as the Talmud. The many layers of commentary in the Talmud can be quite daunting.

2) The scribes who copied the scriptures developed little "tricks" (similar to the mathematicians "trick" of casting out nines) to double-check that they didn't accidently mis-copy anything.

3) When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they were almost 200 years older than the oldest of the previously known manuscripts, and yet, when they quote the scriptures, the text is almost always identical to the extant text.

MarkN, to which languages are you referring? Hebrew is still spoken and written as it has been for thousands of years. Greek, likewise, if you're looking at the New Testament. These languages have been studied for quite a number of centuries. Of course there's always new interpretations to argue over, or new and older copies of manuscripts, but in general, we have a good understanding of how these languages work.

::Sorry, that's called replacing, not translating.:: Rene

It is translating if you believe as the Jews do about the nature of the many names they ascribe to God. Although I don't agree that something is "too" Holy, I do understand the idea.

Matthew, he could mean that Aramaic is not spoken or that certain original dialects are gone.

Matthew, he could mean that Aramaic is not spoken or that certain original dialects are gone.

Okay, but we have records of this stuff dating back to the time that it was spoken. People have been studying these things for quite some time.

I don't think Mark meant anything that needed to be commented on after Scott's post, when he spoke of dead languages. The entire post was a confession of ignorance of the situation and a request for information. The fact that Hebrew isn't dead is merely a part of that info he didn't know and was asking about.

Thanks again, Tom. You're correct. Please pardon my ignorance on the histories of languages, everyone, but I've never really made it a point to study them, either, because I was never interested in it before. I was thinking that with time languages change, whether written or spoken, so I was wondering just how accurate current interpretations of older languages (that I thought were long dead but I guess aren't) might be. I was unaware of how little Hebrew or Greek (or any other language, for that matter) may have changed over the centuries. I was probably confusing English with them all since it's an amalgamation of numerous other languages and changes (I'd assume) more rapidly than they do since it's the one I'm most familiar with, the one course of German I had 20 years ago notwithstanding.

"God is so holy, so perfect, that his name *cannot* be spoken by human beings without insulting it"

Where in the bible is that stated? Where is it prohibited from speaking God's name?

As far as I know, it is never directly stated. You'd have to check with an authority on ancient Jewish traditions to find out exactly how the commandment got so narrowly interpreted, as I am not one.

Your best bet is to ask Kira, but I'd guess that it was similar to the way that "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" became a blanket ban on eating milk and meat together.

As I mentioned earlier, it is based on their understanding of the third commandment. We may not agree with that interpretation, just as many of us do not agree with their interpretation of Deuteronomy 14:21,

Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

which results in separate meals and even dishes for meat and dairy (no cheesebugers or sausage pizza), or with the JW's interpretation of
Genesis 9:4,

But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat

to include forbidding transfusions, but we can respect that they do hold these interpretaions as sacred, and respect their honoring them.

IIRC Greek has changed alot between the classic age and now.

As a living language, Greek does continue to evolve. Additionally, there are alays variants and dialects while languages live. The Greek scriptures were not written in the literary dialect ("classical Greek") but in the dialect of the tradesman ("Koine Greek)", which had become a lingua franca throughout the eastern half of the empire.

Still, to someone who studiesthe language, the differences are small enough. It's similar to recognizing that the English would say "the bonnet on the lorrie," while Americans would say "the hood of the truck"; or running across the "anons" and "forsooths" in Elizabethan English

But all this still doesn't explain how God's name is replaced in bible translations.

What part of "We may not agree with that interpretation,...but we can respect that they do hold these interpretaions as sacred, and respect their honoring them," don't you understand?

Interpretation is one thing. But to change words because of that "interpretation", how is that justifiable? Especially when there is no evidence in the bible to justify it.

Although the original authors of the Bible were inspired by God, translators are not. Additionally, it is almost imossible to translate anything mor complex than a simple greeting without adding/losing a shade of meaning. Translators are always asking themselves "Whatis the best way to express this without changing the meaning too much?" or "How do I convey this nuance in my translation."

In this respect, translations are more like commentaries than like copies of the original scriptures. If you believe that the NAME should never be spoken aloud, and only written in the most sacred of writings, then a translation would not count.


It is for the same reason that the muslims consider the Quran sacred only in the original arabic.

Well, these people would be wrong. The writers of the New Testament quote from the Old Testament many times. Not only that, they quoted from a TRANSLATED Old Testament. And old Testament which contained God's name. And they used it.

Not only that, they quoted from a TRANSLATED Old Testament. And old Testament which contained God's name. And they used it.

The Septuagint, yes. The Old Testament... in Greek. Which does not, therefore, contain the Hebrew name of God.

Nor did it contain a transliterated version of the Hebrew name in Greek letters. It (gasp!) substituted the word "kyrie" --Lord (a translation of the Hebrew "Adonai") -- just like so many of the English translations.

-------

It is not necessary to agree with someone to be civil toward them, and to respect their beliefs.

Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.

Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus' own attitude regarding his Father's name, Jesus' disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.-Compare John 17:6, 26.

In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: "We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write H> within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments."-Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.

Volume 96, number 1 of what publication? And who was the author? If you are going to refer me to some authority, it would help to know what that authority was, wouldn't it? So I can see for myself.

Also, are there references to or reproductions of the specific manuscript copies of the Septuagint where the Tetragrammaton was preserved?

I was under the impression that the "Matthew" who wrote the Gospel of that name was almost certainly not Matthew the apostle. Didn't the Gospel writer live sometime in the 70-80s AD, after the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple?

Volume 96, number 1 of what publication? And who was the author? If you are going to refer me to some authority, it would help to know what that authority was, wouldn't it? So I can see for myself.

Um... read that quotation again. The title of the periodical and the author of the article are cited before the quotation begins.

I was under the impression (and still am for that matter) that the entire post was a quote from the periodical in question and that the Howard passage, like the Jerome passage at the beginning was a quote-within-a-quote

No. If you follow the quotation marks, the Jerome passage is from his De viris inlustribus and the Howard passage is from the Journal of Biblical Literature.

Wait, I think I see what TomM is saying. The portions of the post that aren't in quotation marks also aren't in anything near Rene's usual style; it certainly looks like the whole thing is lifted from some publication or another. However, I think both internal citations given refer only to the specific blocks of quoted material and not to the post as a whole.

I see what you mean... and you're right, it doesn't sound like Rene's normal style at all.

I, too, have often heard from Jewish friends that the name of God is not to be said... one of my friends goes as far as to write G-d in lieu of the word "God." Because a lot of what's been said on this board is confusing to we laypeople, I did my own fact-checking. What I learned is interesting, to say the least (and if I have any of this wrong, please correct me; I am trying to understand):

1. The name of God is represented in Hebrew texts by four letters (the Tertragrammaton): which are the equivalent of the English letters YHWH.

2. In an effort to prevent the name of God from being taken in vain or blasphemed, ancient Hebrew law makers concealed His name in the texts.

The Hebrew alphabet has no vowels. Instead, "points" are made above or below the letters to indicate the vowel sound. In this case, the scholars used the vowel points for the word adonai (which means "the Lord").

3. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) for the new Christians ignorant of Hebrew -- and who wanted nothing to do with anything Jewish -- the translators kept the four Hebrew letters (and their misdirected points). But they mispronounced it as "pie-pie."

4. When the Roman church translated the passages into Latin, YHWH became IHVH (as I and Y were equivalent and V made the same sound as W).

6. Tails began appearing on the I's, making them look to us like J's... but they still kept their vowel sound.

7. Names do not change pronunciation from language to language. Instead, names are often transliterated... given letters that sound like them (hence the variations of Osama/Usama bin Laden or Channukah/Hannukah). Due to the ancient scholars' misdirection with the vowel pointing, the name of God began being pronounced "Jehovah."

8. The Tetragrammaton is not pronounceable using the vowel pointing of adonai (hence the term "the ineffable name").

According to what I know (I'm a layman, too), in most ancient cultures there was the belief that the real name gave power over the person (the native americans for example), so you used a nickname. So God's secret name couldn't /shouldn't be spoken by humans.

Also, when using magic procedures in other cultures, it was custom to invoke the name of certain deities (this was also done till the middle ages when people tried to do magic), and thats the reason why Gods name shall not be spoken in vain.

Surely if the Lord wanted us to use his proper name in worship, he would have preserved it in this world. Since it was lost, We are not meant to use it. I think this is the same logic on why the Temple of Jerusalem has not been rebuilt.

ScottN posted this link in the General Discussion thread earlier this week. I'm re-posting it here because it relates to this discussion

If he didn't want us to use his name, it would not have been in the bible in the first place.

By that logic, we can say God approves of murder or else the concept would not have survived until this day.

"Some people render the four-letter Name as "Jehovah," but this pronunciation is particularly unlikely"

And I doubt Jesus is the correct pronouciation used 2000 years ago. Names are TRANSLATED. Duh.

And tell me why it's okay to use the name on a computer screen but not in print?

Read the link, Rene! It tells you why.

Read it. Laughed.

[sarcasm]
So can I write God's name with a pencil? It's not permanent. I can easily erase it.
[end sarcasm]

Reminds me of the Pharisees that added all sorts of laws and conditions that can be found nowhere in the Old testament.

"Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God."'

Letters are symbols. If you replace "o" by "-", it means nothing. Man, you must have a low opinion of God if you think he's so petty writing "-" instead of "o" makes any difference.

I see. And should I make fun of your religious views as well?

This is kinda getting scary. Rene is even more fundamentalist than I am!! I still have a hard time believing this is the same person who just as recently as a few months ago was deriding every opinion that I had, even on religion.

I have contacted the topic moderator, the Chief, and the Roving Moderators about this matter. That post was clearly way, way out of line, but I'm not sure it was, technically, ad hominem.

I agree with Jwb52z. I don't think it is Rene (baring a brain transplant).

Because it had to be used, back when multiple gods were worshiped by humanity. Now that there is only one God, we don't need a name, only a title.

Because it had to be used, back when multiple gods were worshiped by humanity. Now that there is only one God, we don't need a name, only a title.

Oh really? Tell that to my Hindu friend (I went to her weddign last month).

What's a weddign?

It's like a wedding, but spelled sideways

That's it! My ex and I had a weddign!

ScottN,

so how did the Hindu wedding look like to you (I guess not like the one in the Simpson ep. where Apu marries, including an elephant?)

Matt, well, other people still worship other gods, so I think the reason for the switch may be more symbolic than anything else.

Hard to say. Everyone was standing up front, and I didn't think it would be polite to shout "DOWN IN FRONT!" (not to mention that Mrs. ScottN and the girls would have killed me! ).

A lot of Sanskrit prayers and Hindu symbology. I was lost. But no more lost than a non-Jew at an Orthodox wedding would be.

But it was fun. It was actually a mixed marriage (Hindu & Sikh), and we only went to the Hindu ceremony. But they party almost as well as Orthodox Jews!

Sorry, I was thinking about Hebrews, not Hindus.

Hindu and Sikh eh? I was under the impression that was a no-no. Or have things changed?

I think you're thinking of Hindu/Muslim.

I still thought Hindus couldn't marry outside their religion.

Cut and pasted from The Onion.

God Quietly Phasing Holy Ghost Out Of Trinity
HEAVEN—Calling the Holy Trinity "overstaffed and over budget," God announced plans Monday to downsize the group by slowly phasing out the Holy Ghost. "Given the poor economic climate and the unclear nature of the Holy Ghost's duties, I felt this was a sensible and necessary decision," God said. "The Holy Ghost will be given fewer and fewer responsibilities until His formal resignation from Trinity duty following Easter services on April 20. Thereafter, the Father and the Son shall be referred to as the Holy Duo."

Mike C: If I recall correctly, Hinduism and Sikhism are the same religion from the Hindu standpoint (who consider everyone part of their religion in some way), but not from the Sikh standpoint. "Religion" isn't a very useful term east of Iran.

The earlier point is, why do monotheists need to name God?

Because if you name me correctly you win a prize.

Interesting discussion : )

Personally, I don't call God by name (i.e., YHWH...however people choose to pronounce it, or I AM.) I call him by the titles he's chosen. Lord, Father, stuff like that. Erm, that's when I'm refering to the Father. I don't think I would be far amiss to say all three of him are YHWH.

I call the Son by name though, although I call him by the mistransliterated name Jesus. (His name was really Yeshua [Joshua], but when made into Greek it becomes Iesus, from which we get Jesus. Joshua from Moses' time was also transliterated Iesus. Why they botched his name, I have no idea.) I don't usually call him by his titles. Sometimes I call him God, but when I say God, more often than not I mean all three of him.

I call the Holy Spirit just that...as far as I know, he doesn't have a name outside YHWH (again I'm assuming that's what the Father said all of his name was.) I don't generally use any of his titles.

I don't call any of him I AM, although that is his name. (Jesus claimed the name in John, so I would assume that the Holy Spirit would, too. IIRC, YHWH = I AM. I may be off on that.)

I don't call him Elohim either.

Now, as for the question Matt Pesti posed...*I* don't feel any need to name God. He named himself. In many Bibles the use of LORD is explained. I'm not sure of any reason it is done other than YHWH isn't pronounceable in English...the closest we can guess is it may have been pronounced Yahweh, but I really doubt a translator would want to put in a word they are unsure of (fact is, no one is certain now how to pronounce YHWH), and Jehovah is definately incorrect (although many translations have that also...not all translations are equal.) I guess, to me, having an unpronounceable Hebrew word in an English Bible wouldn't be a good idea, and I AM could make sentences very confusing. ...Although it would make what Jesus was talking about when he said, "Before Abraham was, I am." just a tad clearer to people who missed God giving his name as I AM : )

I see nothing wrong with calling him by his titles. God is his most common title.

Believe what you want about God, but Allah and Jehovah are NOT the same. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." Whether you are a Christian or Muslim, you must understand that neither God nor Allah ever claim each other's names. Ever.

Allah and Jehovah are NOT the same...you must understand that neither God nor Allah ever claim each other's names. Ever.

Interesting post. Is it your claim that the God (Elohim) who created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the LORD (YHVH) who planted the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:4-3:24 were different entities? That muslims worship the Creator God (Elohim = Allah) while Christians worship a derivative supplanter? (YHVH = Jehovah)

And what about those who understand the scriptures to claim there is only One God and that both names/titles (and all variants) refer to that One God?

Is it your claim that the God (Elohim) who created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the LORD (YHVH) who planted the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:4-3:24 were different entities? - TomM

Funny. That was Dave Sim's thesis in the "Chasing Yoohoo" arc of the comic series, Cerebus the Aardvark. One, Elohim, was the Male, original true God. "YHVH" ("Yoohoo" is how Cerebus chose to pronouce it) was the feminine offshoot, who believed she was God. It was not only confusing, but boring. Easily the worst arc of the entire series.