I have noticed a trend going on (of which I confess that I am a partaker of) which, I feel, is causing confusion in our brethren.

It is replacing or restoring words in translations such as the KJV, without any acknowledgement that the word has been replaced or restored.

I think it would be good if brackets or parenthesis were inserted in KJV verses wherever a word has been replaced/restored so that it prevents confusion for those new in the faith.

An example of confusion:

1 Corinthians 12:3 (Original KJV)
"... and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost."

Someone might decide that the word "Lord" refers to "Elohim" or "Yahweh" and so when they replace the words, they make it appear like this:

"...and that no man can say that Yahushua is YHWH, but by the Ruach Ha Kodesh."

Now, for some who have been brought to believe that YHWH means only just the Father (which was what I thought) to them this might mean that the Son is the Father... which is confusing.

However, if they put in brackets or parenthesis, for example,

"... and that no man can say that Yahushua (Jesus) is Elohim (the Lord), but by the Holy Ghost."

or

"... and that no man can say that Yahushua (Jesus) is Yahweh (the Lord), but by the Holy Ghost."

this will keep the KJV in its original translation, plus it lets the others know of the changes that have been taken place, so they can see and decide for themselves if it's an acceptable change.

Just my two cents.

Imean, if we refer to the epistle of James as "James" or "Ja'acob", or if we quote from a Spanish Bible and use their "Santiago" (where'd they get THAT from?! )I think we all know what is being referred to- and can substitue the names of our choice, if it's important to us.

I don't mean to criticize anyone, but I tend to think that a preoccupation with names, tends to take the emphasis off of what is really being said- which is the important thing.

Just my view...

But I see where you're coming from now Harvey. Great post (The Name Game!) by the way. Will lead to interesting discussions I hope.

(Shalom Tracey, I was wondering where you came from. Now I know. I see you're a member of our forum.)

Shalom,
Sentinel Editor (Click to view profile: )

We do not translate the names of foreign dignitaries into English do we? Do we translate Boris Yeltsin or Francois Mitterand into English or do we transliterate their names regardless of what they mean in their own language?

Yahweh has not given us the exact meaning of His name as far as I know. "The Eternal" is a guess. He has, however, expected His people throughout history to vocalize His name, not its meaning.

It may be a good suggestion to put His name in brackets for the sake of those just learning (as well as other translation corrections), but it is sad to even think that that might be necessary. Had the translations been correct in the first place, there would be no need to do so.

You do have to understand that you are mixing apples and oranges, though. Names in modern western culture do not usually have any meaning. i.e. George of Fred or Harry are not words that mean anything- so in such cases, transliteration is appropriate, since it is the sound of the name only that distinguishes it from another.

Conversely, in Hebrew, and other modern and ancient cultures, it was the meaning of the name that was important- not the sound of the letters.

There is no evidence that Hebrew is some pure, heavenly language (in fact, there is much evidence to the contrary!)- so your assumption that it is important to preserve the sound of the Tetragrammaton fails- because the Tetragrammaton was merely a translation of ONE of Elohims names' into Hebrew.

It would be like if a woman had the name "Joy". If that name was translated into Spanish, it would be "Alegria" (I think...). Now if a Chinese person were to make an issue of preserving the exact pronounciation of "Alegria" when writing the name in Chinese, it would be kind of silly, because the meaning of the name would be lost- AND there is nothing really important about the sound "Alegria", because that's not even the sound of the original name, but it was just a translation into another language from the original. But that is what you are advocating we do with the Tetragrammaton.

And O-K, it might seem strange to write TheFatherOfAMultitude everywhere the name Abraham appears; but that is only because of the mechanics of English. I really don't think we should let the mechanics of our language dictate that a name should be transliterated, just because it would be inconvenient to translate its' meaning.

I do believe the scriptures would take on a deeper meaning if the names of people and places were translated rather than transliterated. The sound of the letters is nothing.

The very word for "name" in Hebrew, conveys something far more substantial than the mere phonetic sound.

That is why in scripture, we read that our actions can profane Elohims name, as in Proverbs 30:9: "Lest I be full, and deny [thee], and say, Who [is] the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God [in vain]".

Notice Revelation 9:11 "And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon."

Here, I would say Elohim is setting an example for us to follow, because the inspired Scripture itself translates a Hebrew name with a Greek name that does not replicate the sound of the Hebrew "Apollyon", but rather its' meaning.

Can you see my point?

Harvey

I think you're forgetting that the purpose of a person's name is not to completely describe the person, but to identify him. When you hear that "sound" (which you so vehemently belittle), you know exactly who is being referred to.

For a name to do what you suggest, it would have to be so long that it would be totally impractical to use it. The Almighty's name (by your standard) would be something like "TheForgiverHealerDelivererShepherdKing ... ShieldCreatorAlmightyAllknowing ... AllwiseLovingJustRighteous ... EverlivingOne". (The "..." is for everything i may have left out). Can you imagine vocalizing the above monstrosity every time you encountered the simple Name "YHWH" in the Scriptures.

The WORD "YHWH" when translated/demoted to a mere Title, only describes ONE of the Almighty's attributes, albeit a very important one - He Who Lives Forever.

But the NAME "YHWH", being the "sound" that personally identifies the Almighty, implicitly describes ALL of His attributes (like the lengthy "Name" given earlier). His Name means Him, including everything you know about Him. And the more you learn about Him, the more His Name "YHWH" means (to you).

The various nations may have different words for all of YHWH's Titles, but His Name is the same for all of them (or at least will be when they are educated).

I hope you get the point.

"Conversely, in Hebrew, and other modern and ancient cultures, it was the meaning of the name that was important- not the sound of the letters.

There is no evidence that Hebrew is some pure, heavenly language (in fact, there is much evidence to the contrary!)- so your assumption that it is important to preserve the sound of the Tetragrammaton fails- because the Tetragrammaton was merely a translation of ONE of Elohims names' into Hebrew."

Since the meaning was so important to Hebrews, then why is it that just about every Hebrew name in Scripture is transliterated? I submit to you that reading Scripture would be incredibly tedious if all those names were translated by meaning.

I did not mean to imply "Yahweh" is a Hebrew name. I do believe, however, that it is heavenly. Yahweh chose that name for Himself and He taught it to Adam and Eve. That is why Eve said, "I have gotten a man from Yahweh". Yahweh told them His name (before Hebrew existed, if Hebrew is not the language of heaven) and they told their children His name . . . on down the line.

"I do believe the scriptures would take on a deeper meaning if the names of people and places were translated rather than transliterated. The sound of the letters is nothing."

When a person learns that "Abraham" means "father of a multitude", it takes on deeper meaning. It is simply a matter of learning the meaning of the name. If, hoever, we translated Abraham's name, he would no longer be "Abraham". His identity would be lost. Yahweh identified Himself by four letters that, if transliterated, would allow the entire world to worship Him in unity. The sound of the letters is everything.

Henry Ford is known throughout the world as "Henry Ford". It is by that identifying name that he can receive the honor for creating the automobile. If we substitute a title for his name such as "THE INVENTOR", he loses his identity. Your view of substituting "THE ETERNAL" for His name would rob Yahweh of His identity and it would translate His name into something it may not even mean.

"Here, I would say Elohim is setting an example for us to follow, because the inspired Scripture itself translates a Hebrew name with a Greek name that does not replicate the sound of the Hebrew "Apollyon", but rather its' meaning."

What about the earliest copies of the Greek "Septuagint" and Origen's "Hexapla" in which the Name was written in Hebrew letter within the Greek text?

Belief that we should return and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations such as Jesus, Adonai, the LORD, HaShem, GOD, etc.

Again, those who do not agree with the above scriptural understandings are free to post their questions to "The True Faith" forum or browse posts in any public forum.,

We all agreed to these rules in order to post here, so there should be no problem then following these intstructions. It is a command and an honor for me to flee the appearances of evil, and knowing the pagan roots of so much, and then with the beauty of knowledge abounding, knowing the names removed are so easily restored, is a thing of beauty in my humble opinion.

Blessings,
Tamar

I really do not see why there should even be a discussion about using the Eternal's true name. If you meet some one you might call him Sir or Miss or whatever, but once you get to know them, you don't do that anymore. You know their name and so you use it! And if you should tell someone else about them, and you ignore to use their name but say that"sir" or that "Miss", how could they ever know who exactly you are speaking about.
It's the same with the name of our Elohim.
There are lots of 'gods', but there is but one YHWH. Why should we degrade our Elohim to the level of non-existing 'gods'. If YHWH chose to reveal His name to us, that would be so we could know HIM and to address Him by His OWN name, not by a meaningless title.
I know, if someone I knew addressed me by "Missy" or "girl", I wouldn't react...they could be calling any girl or woman.
As is so well put in posts above... a name gives one an identity.

I can see how someone who doesn't know the Eternals name or His Son's name would use "GOD" or "Jesus", but once one does know the right names isn't it just normal to use them? Perhaps just my opinion?

I do believe that people that have used a certain Bible translation for the greatest part of their lives, it is but normal that they are most at ease with that translation, take for instance the KJV (King James Version), but there is a Restored Name King James Version available too. Perhaps that could be the alternative?

Yah bless

Yahdaim

quote:

---

Names in modern western culture do not usually have any meaning. i.e. George of Fred or Harry are not words that mean anything- so in such cases, transliteration is appropriate, since it is the sound of the name only that distinguishes it from another.

---

With Bob, which comes from Robert, which in turn comes from the Germanic elements "hrode," meaning counsel or fame, and "beraht," meaning bright, one could get seriously lost, but because of etymology, we see that Bob has an origin, and in fact, a meaning. Originally it means "bright fame," but one has to dig deep to find this out. Now we see that the combination of "hrode" and "beraht", perhaps RodeBeraht somehow became "Robert," but one can see this is far from obvious. Why? Because of translation, which strips away the basic elements of names.

With George too, which comes from the Latin Georgius (the Greeks transliterated this as best they could to Georgios) we find an origin and meaning, "husbandman, farmer," from ge "earth" and ergon "work".

And it goes on and on. Over time, some original names get "lost in translation" (to borrow a phrase) for whatever reason, but to retain names is to retain the meaning behind them. When you say:

quote:

---

Conversely, in Hebrew, and other modern and ancient cultures, it was the meaning of the name that was important- not the sound of the letters.

---

I say both the sound and meaning are important and should be retained, for those are the elements that essentially make a name. I don't think we should strip down the elements of names for the sake of our understanding. By leaving everything intact it only lends to our understanding, for we can glean a little bit more about a language and even a culture by digging for the origin of names.

True it is that "Bob" in and of itself means nothing. This was your point I think, but it takes a bit away from your argument, for in and of itself "Jesus" means nothing. But when you go to the root origin of "Bob" and "Jesus" you arrive at something that makes sense, and contains meaning. Now not all pronounce the name of our Messiah exactly the same, or even spell it the same, but as with the Latin Georgius and the Greek Georgios you see a close enough attempt at retaining the sound and spelling and thus the meaning of the original name through transliteration. That attempt is what really matters, so I am thrilled with anyone in YHWH who strives to retain the names as they were handed to our forefathers.

Shalom,
Sentinel Editor (Click to view profile: )

what I learnt from when I was university, is that when you write an assignment, and quote from a source, you do it in a way that the quote is as it is from the source.

For example,

If you quote from KJV, you give the quote as it is from KJV

If you quote from HRV, you give the quote as it is from HRV

If you quote from the Restored Name KJV, you give the quote as it is from the Restored Name KJV

If you quote from The Scriptures, you give the quote as it is from The Scriptures

And any changes that we make in the quotes, we acknowledge with a bracket or parenthesis, or better still, make the replaced or restored word in italics.

I feel this is keeping the integrity of each translation (KJV, HRV, etc).

I realise I might be appearing maybe a little bit dogmatic about it. The reason why – is because of Revelation 22:19 “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Elohim shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

I take it to mean that it is a sombre warning for any one attempting to change His Word.

You know, in EliYah’s forum here, if I post in something, and then I read what I posted, and I thought, “hey, perhaps I should’ve written this in another, better way” then retrieve it and change my post, then there will automatically be an open-for-all to read sentence on the bottom which says that the post has been edited:

[This message has been edited by bluesun (edited 06-30-2005).]

EliYah is protecting the integrity of his forum by letting us know when a post has been edited. This way, we won’t be confused or misled, “didn’t the earlier, original post say something different??”

We should be protecting the integrity of Yahweh’s Word by letting others know when we have edited any of the translations that we have been using.

Yahweh’s Word is life to us, it is so much more precious. So we should be more diligent in protecting His Word (the translations that we have been using).

I just wanted to let you know what I’ve been thinking. So just that you know how I feel about it. If anyone feels it is still okay to edit translations without acknowledging the changes, I still love that person!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesun:
I think what I was trying to say is that, what I learnt from when I was university, is that when you write an assignment, and quote from a source, you do it in a way that the quote is as it is from the source.

For example,
If you quote from KJV, you give the quote as it is from KJV
...

And any changes that we make in the quotes, we acknowledge with a bracket or parenthesis, or better still, make the replaced or restored word in italics.

I feel this is keeping the integrity of each translation (KJV, HRV, etc).

---

Without question, you are grammatically & academically correct, and in most situations i do just what you are suggesting. If i get an email from someone who uses "GOD" or "LORD", when i reply to them, i edit their message with "[the Almighty]" or "[YHWH]" in brackets.

However, on this forum all of the users know what we're doing and why, and we quote so many Scriptures, and restore the Name so many times, that it really is an unnecessary burden (IMO) to add brackets every time. I know you feel that we are doing an injustice to the KJV (or whatever version), but see my comment below.

quote:

---

I realise I might be appearing maybe a little bit dogmatic about it. The reason why – is because of Revelation 22:19 “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Elohim shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

I take it to mean that it is a sombre warning for any one attempting to change His Word.

---

quote:

---

We should be protecting the integrity of Yahweh’s Word by letting others know when we have edited any of the translations that we have been using.

---

quote:

---

Yahweh’s Word is life to us, it is so much more precious. So we should be more diligent in protecting His Word (the translations that we have been using).

---

So i hope you will forgive those of us who don't see the need to [bracket] the Name of YHWH in our quotes.