independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > “Jehovah” in the Bible……?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 06/30/21 8:59pm

AvocadosMax

“Jehovah” in the Bible……?

Agnostics/Atheists and Christians are welcome… any real information is helpful

Now, the official JW website says that the name “Jehovah” was in the original Bible over 7,000 times and that many translations took it out (until the ‘New World Translation’ came along ig)

From what you know, how true is this and why does this mean we should call God Jehovah’ instead of Father?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/01/21 10:16am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

God has no name. Jehovah is not ...name.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/01/21 2:41pm

IanRG

Jehovah is not a name.

.

The name of God in the Hebrew books often written as YHWH (there are other names or titles of God in the Jewish scriptures and traditions). This is known as the Tetragrammaton. It is just the consonants of the word as vowel marks in Hebrew were a later development.

.

This is generally understood as probably pronounced as Yahweh. But no one knows if this the correct pronunciation. The reason no one knows for sure how it was pronounced is sometime after the 6th century BCE but at least a century or two before Christ, saying the Name of God was considered offensive. So whenever they read YHWH, they said the word for My Lord (Adonai).

.

Jehovah is a made-up word. It is generally understood to created by the Latin translation of the consonants of YHWH being JHVH with the vowels of Adonai being a schwa (the a in about) often written as an "a", an "e" or phonetically as an upside-down "ə"., the "o" and the "a".

.

Straight away you can see that people who say Jehovah the way that the JWs do, have this wrong. As American English speakers they pronounce "J" as in Jump, not "J" as "Ja" (The German word for "yes"). Think about the word "Hallelujah", especially that the "Jah" is pronounced "Yə" (with an English Y and a schwa). This means "Praise God" where the Jah/Yə is a shortening of the Tetragrammaton.

.

As to the accuracy of the Bible translations, different Old Testament translations before the JW translation do use Jehovah, although most use My Lord or equivalents. Neither is incorrect - One is what was written, the other is what was said. However, the problem comes in the New Testament where the Tetragrammaton was never in any finalised forms. The JWs have selectively changed where these had the Greek word for "My Lord" or "Lord" here to say Jehovah when it is referring to God, the Father whilst leaving the same word as "Lord" or "My Lord" when referring to Jesus. This is because they believe Jesus to be the Archangel Michael. So when St Thomas (the doubting Thomas) says to the Risen Jesus "My Lord and My God", the JWs change this to break apart "My Lord" and "My God" and add to what was written by imagining that St Thomas looked at the Risen Jesus and said, "My Lord", then looked up to the sky and said, "My God" to God the Father. This is the reason their promotional material make a big point of this and their studies of the Tetragrammaton are locked unto what is likely a mistake in pronunciation and form from the past.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/01/21 4:17pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Just because ToeJam is a character doesn't mean he can't exist...
He exists in a cartoon, crusty feet and all. And for some that's good enough! In other words, believe what you want to believe. If you think Jehovah is the mother lode divinity figure, supreme being reigning over all other beings (and unicorns), that's your prerogative.

In this Jehovah Witness pamphlet, the caption reads "Serve Jehovah God, Not Satan".
They had me at Jehovah 436339616866369553.png?v=1

1101991217_univ_cnt_1_xl.jpg


Touched by the hand of god, or is that john the baptist?

<

[Edited 7/10/21 22:11pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/02/21 12:34pm

Strive

AvocadosMax said:

Agnostics/Atheists and Christians are welcome… any real information is helpful Now, the official JW website says that the name “Jehovah” was in the original Bible over 7,000 times and that many translations took it out (until the ‘New World Translation’ came along ig) From what you know, how true is this and why does this mean we should call God Jehovah’ instead of Father?

The wikipedia on Jehovah is pretty solid.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#Introduction_into_English
.
If you want a (fair) look at the Jehovah's Witnesses. I suggest the books

.

- God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World by David L. Rowe

- Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by B. W. Schulz

- A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887 by B. W. Schulz

- A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization by B W Schulz

- Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution by Shawn Francis Peters

- Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change (Routledge New Religions) by George D. Chrysside

.

All of those are fair books written either by neutral historians or (in the cast of B.W. Shulz) a practicing Jehovah's Witness.

.

It's worth noting that the original name of God had no pronouncation. I don't think it hurts to call God by any name. It's true he wants us to have a personal relationship with him, but God will reach you wherever you are.

.

That comes from somebody that studied with the Witnesses and went Catholic. Everybody says they have the truth but I felt God in both places. As long as you obey his wishes and make yourself Christ-like, God is there.

.

The path to hell is wide, the path to heaven is narrow. But I just can't believe some of the people I studied with and who live their life in accordance with Christ's teachings would be rejected on the final day for where they worshipped. That seems mighty unjust for a God that wants all of us to be saved. (Granted they don't believe in the trinity but they also don't speak ill of the holy spirit so they should still be ok)

.

[Edited 7/2/21 12:37pm]

"When you deny people the option to not pick a side, you may not like the side they'll pick."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/02/21 3:51pm

IanRG

Strive said:

AvocadosMax said:

Agnostics/Atheists and Christians are welcome… any real information is helpful Now, the official JW website says that the name “Jehovah” was in the original Bible over 7,000 times and that many translations took it out (until the ‘New World Translation’ came along ig) From what you know, how true is this and why does this mean we should call God Jehovah’ instead of Father?

The wikipedia on Jehovah is pretty solid.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#Introduction_into_English
.
If you want a (fair) look at the Jehovah's Witnesses. I suggest the books

.

- God's Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World by David L. Rowe

- Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by B. W. Schulz

- A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887 by B. W. Schulz

- A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization by B W Schulz

- Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution by Shawn Francis Peters

- Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change (Routledge New Religions) by George D. Chrysside

.

All of those are fair books written either by neutral historians or (in the cast of B.W. Shulz) a practicing Jehovah's Witness.

.

It's worth noting that the original name of God had no pronouncation. I don't think it hurts to call God by any name. It's true he wants us to have a personal relationship with him, but God will reach you wherever you are.

.

That comes from somebody that studied with the Witnesses and went Catholic. Everybody says they have the truth but I felt God in both places. As long as you obey his wishes and make yourself Christ-like, God is there.

.

The path to hell is wide, the path to heaven is narrow. But I just can't believe some of the people I studied with and who live their life in accordance with Christ's teachings would be rejected on the final day for where they worshipped. That seems mighty unjust for a God that wants all of us to be saved. (Granted they don't believe in the trinity but they also don't speak ill of the holy spirit so they should still be ok)

.

[Edited 7/2/21 12:37pm]

.

This is without a shadow of doubt the best post you have ever made in P&R.

.

I don't know if it true that there was no pronunciation of the name of God - The Ancient Hebrews had many names or titles for God. It is likely that before they started saying "Lord" when they read the "YHWH", that they did have a pronunciation of the tetragrammaton. But I also don't think it matters how people refer to God.

.

But otherwise I completely agree with this - especially how it does not push one organisation's beliefs over another. Ultimately belief is always by the individual and between themselves and God.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/06/21 5:45am

toejam

avatar

Yeah, as others have said. יהוה‎ (i.e. YHWH) (Hebrew) in the Old Testmanent is translated in capitals to THE LORD in most English versions, and to the name Jehovah in others. Half the confusion stems from the fact that the New Testament/early Christian authors were primarily writing in Greek, and the Greek versions of the Old Testament typically translated YHWH to κυρίου, which in English means "lord". But κυρίου was also used to translate other words also. So there are plenty of confusing moments. Perhaps most famously, that of Psalm 110:

The Hebrew reads:

YHWH (יהוה‎) says to my lord (לַֽאדֹנִ֗י), “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This was translated in the Greek to:

The lord (κυρίου) say to my lord (κυρίου), “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This sort of thing causes plenty of confusion for those who believe the Bible teaches a consistent Christology (one's understanding of the nature of Jesus, in particular his relationship with, or status as, capital-G "God"). So it's little wonder Trinitarians (Catholics, most mainline Protestants) and non-Trinitarians (JWs, Christadelphians, Unitarians, etc.) battle this out.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the JWs translating YHWH to Jehovah. Though things do get slippery when they use it in passages where YHWH isn't present. Translating is a tricky business! The JWs certainly wouldn't be the only ones who are conveniently selective in their translations. Recommended: https://www.amazon.com.au...0761825568

.

[Edited 7/6/21 5:50am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/06/21 2:14pm

IanRG

toejam said:

Yeah, as others have said. יהוה‎ (i.e. YHWH) (Hebrew) in the Old Testmanent is translated in capitals to THE LORD in most English versions, and to the name Jehovah in others. Half the confusion stems from the fact that the New Testament/early Christian authors were primarily writing in Greek, and the Greek versions of the Old Testament typically translated YHWH to κυρίου, which in English means "lord". But κυρίου was also used to translate other words also. So there are plenty of confusing moments. Perhaps most famously, that of Psalm 110:

The Hebrew reads:

YHWH (יהוה‎) says to my lord (לַֽאדֹנִ֗י), “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This was translated in the Greek to:

The lord (κυρίου) say to my lord (κυρίου), “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This sort of thing causes plenty of confusion for those who believe the Bible teaches a consistent Christology (one's understanding of the nature of Jesus, in particular his relationship with, or status as, capital-G "God"). So it's little wonder Trinitarians (Catholics, most mainline Protestants) and non-Trinitarians (JWs, Christadelphians, Unitarians, etc.) battle this out.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the JWs translating YHWH to Jehovah. Though things do get slippery when they use it in passages where YHWH isn't present. Translating is a tricky business! The JWs certainly wouldn't be the only ones who are conveniently selective in their translations. Recommended: https://www.amazon.com.au...0761825568

.

[Edited 7/6/21 5:50am]

.

Except it was not translated into Greek as "κύριος" and "κύριος". It was translated into Greek as "κύριος" and "κυρίω μου", which is why it is translated into English as "Lord" and "my Lord".

.

The linkages to the Messianic tradition by Jewish people followng the Hebrew scriptures and by the Aramaic, Hebrew and only possibly Greek speaking Peter when he linked this to Jesus in the New Testament is not because of any confusion in the Greek translation.

.

The OP's question is not is Jehovah an acceptable way of writing the Tetragrammaton in an English Translation today, it is was is this what was in the "original" Bible as claimed by the JWs?. To this the answer is no. The Bible is a Christian collection of books. It is partly assembled by Christians from different sets of Jewish Scriptures to form the Old Testament. But there was no original Jewish Bible before this Bible and none of their scriptures said "Jehovah". The translation to the made up word "Jehovah" is much more recent than the Jewish Scriptures.

.

But I also have no problem with them using it except where they add it selectively to places it was not used before.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/06/21 4:20pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Mark appears to be the first of the gospels written, and as such can claim some legitimacy to original material.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke derive their source material from 'Q source', thought to be a collection of stories and sayings attributed to Jesus, as well as from Mark.
Now what the Witnesses make of that is not commonly known. They do follow a different translation of the Bibble. They seem more concerned by the idea Jesus was not part of a Trinity, but the first son begotten to God the Father, whatever that means, and began life in heaven, wherever that is. And what do the Witnesses have to say to the - conspicuous by its absence - omitted virgin birth and resurrection of Christ stories? Which are seen as integral to the belief in Jesus' divinity by many, especially since the gospel of Mark contains the David Copperfield miracles in between.
What if we could actually trace the true Q source, long since extant, to decipher its actual content? I wonder if the Witnesses try to fill the missing link in the chain with other scriptures, beside what other Christian denominations believe in?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/06/21 5:42pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:
Except it was not translated into Greek as "κύριος" and "κύριος". It was translated into Greek as "κύριος" and "κυρίω μου", which is why it is translated into English as "Lord" and "my Lord".

Sure. But it's the same root word for both. That's all I was getting at. Two different words in the Hebrew translated to the same (root) word in the Greek.

There is no such thing as "the original" of the Bible, as it has always been a developing collection of texts and variations of those text. That said, I agree that "Jehovah" is not part of what scholars often call the "earliest attainable form" of the text.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/06/21 7:10pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:
Except it was not translated into Greek as "κύριος" and "κύριος". It was translated into Greek as "κύριος" and "κυρίω μου", which is why it is translated into English as "Lord" and "my Lord".

.

The linkages to the Messianic tradition by Jewish people followng the Hebrew scriptures and by the Aramaic, Hebrew and only possibly Greek speaking Peter when he linked this to Jesus in the New Testament is not because of any confusion in the Greek translation.

Sure. But it's the same root word for both. That's all I was getting at. Two different words in the Hebrew translated to the same (root) word in the Greek.

There is no such thing as "the original" of the Bible, as it has always been a developing collection of texts and variations of those text. That said, I agree that "Jehovah" is not part of what scholars often call the "earliest attainable form" of the text.

.

But it is not what you said.

.

Where I disagree with you is not that you tried to say the two different words for "Lord" and "my Lord" caused confusion by only mentioning the root word. It was in the part you edited out: This Psalm was used in Hebrew by Jewish people as a reference to the Messianic prophecies. It was understood by the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Peter, a person who may only have known minimal Greek, as a reference to the Messiah. The Psalm in Hebrew can be read as being specifically about King David and about the Davidic Line, including the foretold Messiah from that line.

.

The confusion you want to see is not present in Hebrew, yet the reading is the same.

.

On the second paragraph, we are agreed.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/06/21 7:27pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

In the Bible it says "I am what I am." God is too vast to be named.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/06/21 7:54pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

In the Bible it says "I am what I am." God is too vast to be named.

.

Too vast, or too vague?

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/07/21 8:24am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

toejam said:

Sure. But it's the same root word for both. That's all I was getting at. Two different words in the Hebrew translated to the same (root) word in the Greek.

There is no such thing as "the original" of the Bible, as it has always been a developing collection of texts and variations of those text. That said, I agree that "Jehovah" is not part of what scholars often call the "earliest attainable form" of the text.

.

But it is not what you said.

.

Where I disagree with you is not that you tried to say the two different words for "Lord" and "my Lord" caused confusion by only mentioning the root word. It was in the part you edited out: This Psalm was used in Hebrew by Jewish people as a reference to the Messianic prophecies. It was understood by the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Peter, a person who may only have known minimal Greek, as a reference to the Messiah. The Psalm in Hebrew can be read as being specifically about King David and about the Davidic Line, including the foretold Messiah from that line.

.

The confusion you want to see is not present in Hebrew, yet the reading is the same.

.

On the second paragraph, we are agreed.

A bit like the word 'alma'. Does it mean virgin, or merely a young woman of childbearing age? hmmm

There there's the Book of Mormon, where another Alma is mentioned, only this time it's a DUDE. hmm

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/07/21 8:38am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You atheists seem to know God more than we do. Hitchens compared God to North Korea, even though Jesus said love your enemies, love your neighbor.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/07/21 2:43pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

IanRG said:

.

But it is not what you said.

.

Where I disagree with you is not that you tried to say the two different words for "Lord" and "my Lord" caused confusion by only mentioning the root word. It was in the part you edited out: This Psalm was used in Hebrew by Jewish people as a reference to the Messianic prophecies. It was understood by the Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Peter, a person who may only have known minimal Greek, as a reference to the Messiah. The Psalm in Hebrew can be read as being specifically about King David and about the Davidic Line, including the foretold Messiah from that line.

.

The confusion you want to see is not present in Hebrew, yet the reading is the same.

.

On the second paragraph, we are agreed.

A bit like the word 'alma'. Does it mean virgin, or merely a young woman of childbearing age? hmmm


.

Both. The denotation of alma and alamot is a young woman of childbearing age suitable for marriage. The connotation is that, therefore she is a virgin.

.

Rebecca was an alma found to suitable for marriage to Isaac.

.

The Jewish translation of their own scriptures into Greek before Christ directly translates alma to virgin.

.

In regard to the Song of Songs and the Isaiahic prophecy, to allude to the woman who is going to conceive and bear a son, the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a queen, or a “malkah” in Hebrew, but to an “almah”, that is to say, a “young woman suitable to be married”, a term that was customarily taken to connote virginity as shown by the fact that prior to the rise of Christianity it was always translated as virgin. For example, in the Song of Solomon 6:8 the term “young woman suitable to be married” (“alamot”) appears in parallelism with “queens and concubines”, and the “alamot” are surely a separate group from those including the wife of the king. What is more, the “almah” referred to in Isaiah 7, the woman who in the near future will conceive and give birth to a son, is described as being an “almah” but King Ahaz’s wife had already had Hezekiah at least four years prior to this prophecy and is most unlikely to be have been described as an “almah”. The context and historical understanding prior to Christianity suggests that she was not already married, was a virgin and cannot have been the wife of the reigning Jewish king, Ahaz, at the end of the 8th C BCE.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/07/21 8:27pm

toejam

avatar

^The term 'almah' doesn't necessitate virgin. It just means young woman. Sure, most young women are virgins, and so it initially probably wasn't a big deal translating to the Greek 'parthenos', which is more explicitly a virgin. But virginity is still not a requirement of 'almah'. And there's nothing in the Isaiah passage to suggest this young woman is going to conceive without the intervention of a male. Matthew completely takes the passage out of context. It's not about the mother of Jesus, but of a woman living at the time of Isaiah hundreds of years earlier, and what would happen by the time her son reaches the age of maturity. It's not about a woman living hundreds years later miraculously conceiving a child.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/07/21 11:26pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^The term 'almah' doesn't necessitate virgin. It just means young woman. Sure, most young women are virgins, and so it initially probably wasn't a big deal translating to the Greek 'parthenos', which is more explicitly a virgin. But virginity is still not a requirement of 'almah'. And there's nothing in the Isaiah passage to suggest this young woman is going to conceive without the intervention of a male. Matthew completely takes the passage out of context. It's not about the mother of Jesus, but of a woman living at the time of Isaiah hundreds of years earlier, and what would happen by the time her son reaches the age of maturity. It's not about a woman living hundreds years later miraculously conceiving a child.

.

We have discussed this before and you failed to prove your assertion then.

.

You are right about the denotation of the word but wrong about the context and its connotation to the people that said it, wrote it and read it - The Jewish people only stopped considering their use of Almah in their scriptures as being a reference to virgins AFTER Mary. Only after they would otherwise have to admit anything about Jesus.

.

Just as Psalm 110 can be read as referring to King David and the Davidic line (including the Messiah), Isaiah can be read as referring to the immediate and more distant future (including in reference to the Messiah).

.

As it is an "almah" having a child and it was generally understood at the time that an Almah is a young woman of childbearing age who was suitable to be married, then it understood as a reference to a virgin birth.

.

It does not matter one iota what a 20th / 21st-century atheist considers is necessitated when it was directly and specifically translated to the Greek word for virgin by the people of the very religion the scriptures came from long before Christ, Peter and the author of Matthew were born. It even gels with a mythical story commonly known to these Jews where almah is most definitely a direct reference to a young woman being a virgin, yet having a child.

.

Your unequivocal assertion is nothing but an assumption based on your religiously held beliefs.

[Edited 7/7/21 23:33pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/08/21 4:34am

toejam

avatar

IanRG said: "Isaiah can be read as referring to the immediate and more distant future"

Have your cake and eat it too.

The passage isn't talking about a virgin conceiving without the intervention of a male. If you want to believe that 2,000yrs ago a Jewish apocalyptic preacher was born from a virgin woman on the basis that the Gospel of Matthew says so, then so be it. I think that's a ridiculous thing to believe.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/08/21 5:38am

IanRG

IanRG said:


We have discussed this before and you failed to prove your assertion then.

.

You are right about the denotation of the word but wrong about the context and its connotation to the people that said it, wrote it and read it - The Jewish people only stopped considering their use of Almah in their scriptures as being a reference to virgins AFTER Mary. Only after they would otherwise have to admit anything about Jesus.

.

Just as Psalm 110 can be read as referring to King David and the Davidic line (including the Messiah), Isaiah can be read as referring to the immediate and more distant future (including in reference to the Messiah).

.

As it is an "almah" having a child and it was generally understood at the time that an Almah is a young woman of childbearing age who was suitable to be married, then it understood as a reference to a virgin birth.

.

It does not matter one iota what a 20th / 21st-century atheist considers is necessitated when it was directly and specifically translated to the Greek word for virgin by the people of the very religion the scriptures came from long before Christ, Peter and the author of Matthew were born. It even gels with a mythical story commonly known to these Jews where almah is most definitely a direct reference to a young woman being a virgin, yet having a child.

.

Your unequivocal assertion is nothing but an assumption based on your religiously held beliefs.

toejam said:

Have your cake and eat it too.

The passage isn't talking about a virgin conceiving without the intervention of a male. If you want to believe that 2,000yrs ago a Jewish apocalyptic preacher was born from a virgin woman on the basis that the Gospel of Matthew says so, then so be it. I think that's a ridiculous thing to believe.

.

I put this back together because picking out a part of a sentence to just address a point taken out of context is rude, intellectually lazy and you only do it because you have never been able to address what is said to you.

.

This is your opinion and nothing more. Your pre-determined belief system drives your interpretation on the basis of unprovable assumptions and fabrications of what other's believe.

.

What you think of my beliefs is irrelevant because what I said was that we know for a fact that the Jewish people before Christ knew that what they meant by almah in their scriptures was virgin. This is proven by them translating almah to the Greek word for virgin long before Christ. But you edited this out because you cannot address this.

.

I did not design Ancient Jewish prophecy structures. They existed long before you and I were born.

.

You always want to imagine that the basis of my belief is the Bible. This is wrong. It is a ridiculous thing for you to keep on stating you believe this when I have repeatedly told you this wrong. I believe in God, not the Bible. Also, I do NOT believe Jesus was just an apocalyptic preacher - that is your belief.

.

The topic is NOT my beliefs. It is broadly about the accuracy of translations of key words and specifically about the name of God. You expanded it to Lord and were caught out making up imagined confusion that simply does not exist by falsely stating the Greek word for "Lord" and "My Lord" was the same. Your unconvincing excuse that you meant the root of the word was the same fooled no one. This is a bullshit line - no one confused Lord and My Lord.

.

Another atheist jumped in to add the myth that alma never had the connotation of virgin to the Jewish people before Christ. This is despite the fact that the Jewish people translated this to the Greek word for virgin and never complained about this translation until quite a while after Christ. And all you could do was seek to turn the thread to make it about anyone who disagrees with provably wrong atheist beliefs.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/10/21 10:10pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

I like how two aussies are deep in intellectual combat over the word 'alma/almah'.
It's a word that demands to be spoken with an australian accent.
Just as 'repo' is a word that has to be spoken with a geordie accent in order to fully process.


200w.gif?cid=ecf05e4753inv8mzmilqeklzdmgefq4wlbq04bfede0jqhf9&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

[Edited 7/10/21 22:21pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/20/21 2:56am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

fortuneandserendipity said:

Just because ToeJam is a character doesn't mean he can't exist...
He exists in a cartoon, crusty feet and all. And for some that's good enough! In other words, believe what you want to believe. If you think Jehovah is the mother lode divinity figure, supreme being reigning over all other beings (and unicorns), that's your prerogative.

In this Jehovah Witness pamphlet, the caption reads "Serve Jehovah God, Not Satan".
They had me at Jehovah 436339616866369553.png?v=1

1101991217_univ_cnt_1_xl.jpg


Touched by the hand of god, or is that john the baptist?





One time I had a couple of Jehovah Witnesses at my door, trying to hook me with their 'Jehovah is the real father of Jebus' message. I looked at the Watchtower magazine they handed me, and saw immediately talking animals on the front cover, in a pictorial depiction of heaven. Somewhat puzzled, I enquired whether the lion featured could be Aslan from the Narnia novels. They in turn looked puzzled at me, so I conjectured whether unicorns could be a possiblity in the afterlife...
Again, met with silence. neutral

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > “Jehovah” in the Bible……?