Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » What reasons are given for removing Gods name from the Bible? Are any valid?

What reasons are given for removing Gods name from the Bible? Are any valid?


https://biblehub.com/psalms/110-1.htm
New International Version
Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

Posted - April 3, 2018

Responses


  • 5354
    Do you think gods name been removed?

    Considering Gods response when Moses ask what his name is, it would be more a matter of a unique being not needing a name. What other god is there for god to be mistaken for?

    see also Isaiah 44:6 This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at May 12, 2018 4:02 PM MDT
      April 3, 2018 6:32 AM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    Quote: "Do you think gods gods name been removed?"

    Not sure what that means but I know that Gods name has been removed from most English translations of the Bible.



    Quote: [Considering Gods response when Moses ask what his name is, it would be more a matter of a unique being not needing a name.] 

    Your understanding but not from the Bible.
    (Exodus 3:11-15) However, Moses said to the true God: “Who am I that I should go to Pharʹaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” 12 To this he said: “I will prove to be with you, and this is the sign for you that it was I who sent you: After you have brought the people out of Egypt, you people will serve the true God on this mountain.” 13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What should I say to them?” 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become has sent me to you.’” 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, 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 how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.



    Quote: [Who else is there to for him to be mistaken for?]

    Here are some names of some false gods that were common in the time of Moses:
    The Ten Plagues. By means of the plagues he visited upon the Egyptians, Jehovah humiliated and executed judgment upon their gods. (Ex 12:12; Nu 33:4; PICTURES, Vol. 2, p. 530) The first plague, the turning of the Nile and all the waters of Egypt into blood, brought disgrace to the Nile-god Hapi. The death of the fish in the Nile was also a blow to Egypt’s religion, for certain kinds of fish were actually venerated and even mummified. (Ex 7:19-21) The frog, regarded as a symbol of fertility and the Egyptian concept of resurrection, was considered sacred to the frog-goddess Heqt. Hence, the plague of frogs brought disgrace to this goddess. (Ex 8:5-14) The third plague saw the magic-practicing priests acknowledging defeat when they proved to be unable by means of their secret arts to turn dust into gnats. (Ex 8:16-19) The god Thoth was credited with the invention of magic or secret arts, but even this god could not help the magic-practicing priests to duplicate the third plague.
    The line of demarcation between the Egyptians and the worshipers of the true God came to be sharply drawn from the fourth plague onward. While swarms of gadflies invaded the homes of the Egyptians, the Israelites in the land of Goshen were not affected. (Ex 8:23, 24) The next plague, the pestilence upon the livestock, humiliated such deities as the cow-goddess Hathor, Apis, and the sky-goddess Nut, who was conceived of as a cow having the stars affixed to her belly. (Ex 9:1-6) The plague of boils brought disgrace to the gods and goddesses regarded as possessing healing abilities, such as Thoth, Isis, and Ptah. (Ex 9:8-11) The severe hailstorm put to shame the gods who were considered to have control of the natural elements; for example, Reshpu, who, it appears, was believed to control lightning, and Thoth, who was said to have power over the rain and thunder. (Ex 9:22-26) The locust plague spelled defeat for the gods thought to ensure a bountiful harvest, one of these being the fertility god Min, who was viewed as a protector of the crops. (Ex 10:12-15) Among the deities disgraced by the plague of darkness were sun-gods, such as Ra and Horus, and also Thoth the god of the moon and believed to be the systematizer of sun, moon, and stars.—Ex 10:21-23.
    The death of the firstborn resulted in the greatest humiliation for the Egyptian gods and goddesses. (Ex 12:12) The rulers of Egypt actually styled themselves as gods, the sons of Ra, or Amon-Ra. It was claimed that Ra, or Amon-Ra, had intercourse with the queen. The son born was, therefore, viewed as a god incarnate and was dedicated to Ra, or Amon-Ra, at his temple. Hence, the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn, in effect, actually meant the death of a god. (Ex 12:29) This in itself would have been a severe blow to Egypt’s religion, and the complete impotence of all the deities was manifested in their being unable to save the firstborn of the Egyptians from death.—See AMON No. 4.



    Question: Are you really not aware that Gods name has been removed from most English translations? If so, I understand your inability to answer the question.
      April 3, 2018 6:51 AM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    All I know is that the comparative small number of Christian who call themselves Jehovas Witnesses have added the name "Jehova" in a lot of places in their own version of the bible where no name was given before.

    one of those places is in exodus 3:15 most other versions of the bible say:
    NIV:Exodus 3:15
    God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, 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, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.

    You cannot prove a removal, by referencing the JW addition.
      April 3, 2018 7:09 AM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    Quote: [All I know is that the comparative small number of Christian who call themselves Jehovas Witnesses have added the name "Jehova" in a lot of places in their own version of the bible where no name was given before.

    one of those places is in exodus 3:15 most other versions of the bible say: 
    NIV:Exodus 3:15
    God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, 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, the name you shall call me from generation to generation. 

    You cannot prove a removal, by referencing the JW addition.]


    'in exodus 3:15 most other versions of the bible say...'
    I guess that answers this question of mine:
    Question: Are you really not aware that Gods name has been removed from most English translations? If so, I understand your inability to answer the question.

    I know what most other translations do. That's why I asked the question silly.

    Check out these translations.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+3%3A15&version=TLB;HCSB;ASV;NLT;CJB

     

    Exodus 3:15 New Living Translation (NLT)

    15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh,(a)the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.

    This is my eternal name,
        my name to remember for all generations.

    Footnotes:

    1. 3:15 Yahweh (also in 3:16) is a transliteration of the proper name YHWH that is sometimes rendered “Jehovah”; in this translation it is usually rendered “the LORD” (note the use of small capitals).
    This post was edited by texasescimo at May 3, 2018 11:01 PM MDT
      April 3, 2018 7:23 AM MDT
    1

  • 44614
    (God's)
      April 3, 2018 7:53 AM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    Lol. Randy's twin.
      April 3, 2018 8:09 AM MDT
    1

  • 44614
    We compete. He corrects me...I correct him.
      April 3, 2018 8:13 AM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    You are going in circles.
    JW org claim that a "proper name of God" have been removed from the bible.
    OK they (and you) are free to believe that, but belief is not proof. to prove it you will have to provide evidence.

    I pointed out that the reason God does not give not give a perper name for himself in the bible could be that he does not need one. How many gods of Abraham are there`? How many gods of Isaac are there? how many gods of Jacob are there? Whoever he is is uniquely identified by those 3 statements.

    For an experiment let us pick a name for god, lets call him "Richard". Instantly we have problems, lots of supreme rulers have been called Richard, that is no name for a 'one and only' being (who is jealous to boot). Would it be OK if Americans call him Lord Dick?. How many young teens who has just discovered sex, will giggle hysterically at that name?

    Languages change over time. descriptions can be translated to be true for all eterninty. "The god of Abraham" means the same today as it meant 300 years ago, as does "The god of Isaac" and "The god of Jacob".

    Or how about missionaries? Do you have the least bit of an idea about what "jehovah" means to a person whose native language is Swaheli? Does it sould like a "proper name" ? Is it the Swaheli word for 'laundry" or 'idiot' or 'pedophile'. I am willing to bet quite a lot that you dont have the foggiest notion.

    Could you credit your god with a bit of intelligence here?, Enough to foresee all those problems caused by a "Proper Name" and finding a good and sane solution that solves them all; well almost all, it does not solve the human tendency to draw idiotic conclusions, "I have a proper name, everyone have a proper name, therefore God MUST have a proper name", and saddling him with one (and thus bringing all the problems back)



    This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at May 12, 2018 4:12 PM MDT
      April 3, 2018 8:32 AM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    Man, do a little research. Not very many people are still ignorant about translations substituting LORD or GOD for the tetragrammaton. Google tetragrammaton.


    Look at this Hebrew - English interlinear and notice that LORD is substituted in the translation on the right while the tetragrammaton is transliterated as Yahweh in the interlinear:
    https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf

    יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh



    וַיּ ֹאמֶ ר 15:3 u·iamr and·he-is-saying עד oud further אֱ"הִ ים aleim Elohim אֶ ל al to ־ - מֹ שֶׁ ה mshe Moses כֹּ ה ke thus ־ - ת ֹאמַ ר thamr you-shall-say אֶ ל al to ־ - בְּ נֵי bni sons-of יִ שְׂ רָ אֵ ל ishral Israel יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh 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. 15 אֱ"הֵ י alei Elohim-of אֲבֹ תֵ יכֶ ם abthi·km fathers-of·you(p) אֱ"הֵ י alei Elohim-of אַ בְ רָ הָ ם abrem Abraham אֱ"הֵ י alei Elohim-of יִ צְ חָ ק itzchq Isaac וֵא"הֵ י u·alei and·Elohim-of יַעֲקֹ ב ioqb Jacob שְׁ לָ חַ נִ י shlch·ni he-sent·me אֲלֵ יכֶ ם ali·km to·you(p) זֶה ze this ־ - שְּׁ מִ י shm·i name-of·me לְ עֹ לָ ם l·olm for·eon וְ זֶה u·ze and·this זִ כְ רִ י zkr·i remembrance-of·me לְ דֹ ר l·dr for·generation דֹּ ר dr generation : :





    Here is an article that originally appeared in catholicnews but no longer there.
    https://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/liturgy/liturgical-quod-libets/95-liturgy/liturgical-quod-libets/288-yahweh-in-the-liturgy.html
    n
    https://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm
    HYMNS-YAHWEH Aug-12-2008 (840 words) xxxn
    No 'Yahweh' in songs, prayers at Catholic Masses, Vatican rules
    By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
    Catholic News Service
    WASHINGTON (CNS) -- In the not-too-distant future, songs such as "You Are Near," "I Will Bless Yahweh" and "Rise, O Yahweh" will no longer be part of the Catholic worship experience in the United States.
    At the very least, the songs will be edited to remove the word "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.

    The Tetragrammaton is YHWH, the four consonants of the ancient Hebrew name for God.
    "As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord,'" the Vatican letter said. Similarly, Greek translations of the Bible used the word "Kyrios" and Latin scholars translated it to "Dominus"; both also mean Lord.


    You accuse me of only using the NWT as proof.
    Which translation or translations do you accept? If only one, which one and why?
      April 3, 2018 8:51 AM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    I have read several. I probably know the Lutheran bible best (is there even a separate Luteran version?). But, not being a believer, I do not prefer any one of them over all the others. I leave that to you.

    I find your argumentation silly, when you ask a question based on the notion that your branch of Christianity have produced a version of the bible superior to all the other (earlier) versions.

    < edit >
    But i am sorry to hear that the Catholic church have forbidden the use of 'jahovah' as a name for god. That sounds like a political move against JWs, who are (as you no doubt know) disliked by several other Christian denominations. And by secular authorities on such occasions where blindly following JW dogma have lead to violations of peoples human rights. There have been such occasions here in Denmark too.
    < /edit > This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at June 6, 2018 10:32 PM MDT
      April 3, 2018 9:02 AM MDT
    2

  • 2657


    Quote: [I have read several. I probably know the Lutheran bible best (is there even a separate Luteran version?). But, not being a believer, I do not prefer any one of them over all the others. I leave that to you.

    I find your argumentation silly, when you ask a question based on the notion that your branch of Christianity have produced a version of the bible superior to all the other (earlier) versions.]

    I find it odd that someone would answer a question with a non-answer and then switch the thread to something that we are not discussing.


    Looking for Lutheran Bible online I found this website referring me back to a link to several translations that I gave you earlier that you rejected.
    https://www.lutherancentral.com/category/all-lutherans/online-bible-search-and-study-tools

    Online Bible Search and Study Tools

     


    https://www.biblegateway.com/


    Try to stay on the subject.
    Remember what we are discussing is rather or not translations have replaced God's name with titles like LORD and GOD, not rather or not you are a believer or rather a certain branch of Christianity have produced a version of the bible superior to all the other (earlier) versions.
    Can you not tell me the names of the several that you have read?



    EDIT: 
    This guy says at his Lutheran Church they use the ESV.
    https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-bible-and-lutherans.7753935/

    So here is the prevace to the ESV:

    https://www.esv.org/preface/

    The Translation of Specialized Terms

    In the translation of biblical terms referring to God, the ESV takes great care to convey the specific nuances of meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek words. First, concerning terms that refer to God in the Old Testament: God, the Maker of heaven and earth, introduced himself to the people of Israel with a special personal name, the consonants for which are YHWH (see Exodus 3:14–15). Scholars call this the “Tetragrammaton,” a Greek term referring to the four Hebrew letters YHWH. The exact pronunciation of YHWH is uncertain, because the Jewish people considered the personal name of God to be so holy that it should never be spoken aloud. Instead of reading the word YHWH, they would normally read the Hebrew word ’adonay(“Lord”), and the ancient translations into Greek, Syriac, and Aramaic also followed this practice. When the vowels of the word ’adonay are placed with the consonants of YHWH, this results in the familiar word Jehovah that was used in some earlier English Bible translations. As is common among English translations today, the ESV usually renders the personal name of God (YHWH) with the word Lord (printed in small capitals). An exception to this is when the Hebrew word ’adonay appears together with YHWH, in which case the two words are rendered together as “the Lord [in lowercase] God [in small capitals].” In contrast to the personal name for God (YHWH), the more general name for God in Old Testament Hebrew is ’elohim and its related forms of ’el or ’eloah, all of which are normally translated “God” (in lowercase letters). The use of these different ways to translate the Hebrew words for God is especially beneficial to English readers, enabling them to see and understand the different ways that the personal name and the general name for God are both used to refer to the One True God of the Old Testament.


    This post was edited by texasescimo at June 21, 2018 10:46 PM MDT
      April 3, 2018 9:16 AM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    If you bother to read what I wrote you will discover that I have consistently told you that god does not NEED a proper name to identify him.

    JakobA, over and out.
      April 3, 2018 9:26 AM MDT
    2

  • 2657
    Oh thank you for your opinion. I am sure it's worth two cents to someone.
    Unfortunately for your case, you are not God, you don't speak for God and when it comes to the Bible, you are the last person that I would take for their word. Too many threads with you here and on answerbag revealing your lack of knowledge and abundance of pride.

    It would have been nice to have given your opinion on the subject as to why it was removed. That may have been worth two cents.
      April 3, 2018 9:55 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    I can relate---in my case a JW would be the last person's word I would take on the Bible.  On second thought, no, not even then.
      April 3, 2018 11:48 AM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    You and your Church totally reject the Bible. You are allowed to read it now, although your Church still doesn't encourage it. Your Church doesn't burn people at the stake anymore for reading or translating the Bible.
      April 3, 2018 12:06 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    We don't reject the bible---we just don't treat God like a criminal and restrict Him to the statement of reality that He gave to mankind in the bible.

    We allow Him to continue to explain reality to us through the Church He established.
      April 8, 2018 2:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Quote: [We don't reject the bible---we just don't treat God like a criminal and restrict Him to the statement of reality that He gave to mankind in the bible.
    We allow Him to continue to explain reality to us through the Church He established.]

    Oh yes, sure. That reasoning can validate every strange teaching. Perhaps Muslims have the proper understanding or perhaps Mormons as they have modern day prophets in opposition to the Bible as well. Maybe Moroni can help you to visit Kolob. Hey, throw out the Bible and it's a free for all.

    You reject the Bible because it condemns your doctrines. You think that God used to be one but now he is 3? You think Jesus used to be the beginning of the creation by God or the first born of all creation but now he is God and never been created. You think the Bible used to condemn those forbidding marriage but now it's a good thing? What's been the fruitage of enforced celibacy on the Priest?



    Since in the first century God was one, how and when did he become three?
    (Romans 3:30) Since God is one, he will declare circumcised people righteous as a result of faith and uncircumcised people righteous by means of their faith.

    (Deuteronomy 6:4) “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.
    (1 Corinthians 8:6) there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.
    (Ephesians 4:6) one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
      April 27, 2018 8:02 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Even at two cents, there is a valid perception that his might be more valuable than yours---I can't imagine what it must be like to have put some much work into coming to the wrong conclusions.
      April 8, 2018 2:51 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Your wrong conclusions didn't require any work at all. Just have to blindly accept what you are told.

    "The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know."
     

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm


    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Athanasian Creed
    The Athanasian Creed. Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers ...

     

     

    At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down.

     

    The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible

     

    So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

     

    So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal

     

    Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death

     

    The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths..

    From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration.  The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know. 

      April 8, 2018 3:49 PM MDT
    1

  • 492
    The Watchtower acknowledges that most Hebrew scholars prefer “Yahweh” as the true pronunciation:

    Yes, many Bible scholars acknowledge that “Yahweh” more nearly represents the Hebrew pronunciation of the Divine Name (WT,[3] July 15, 1964, p. 423).

    Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation (Aid To Bible Understanding, 1971, 885).

    “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the Divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars (Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, vol. 2, p. 5).
      April 3, 2018 7:04 PM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    Are we not commenting in English? 
    "Jesus" is the best known English pronunciation of the Christ, although Yeshua is favored by most Hebrew scholars.

    Think about how others names are pronounced with similar letters like theophoric names. 

      April 4, 2018 4:31 PM MDT
    1

  • 492
    Thinking about how other names are pronounced with similar letters like theophoric names reminds me of how simple minded and fanciful humans can be when embedding a name of a god in terminology, to protect that divine being.

    Listen, Obey, and Be Blessed, Tex.

    Luke 11:28
    But he said: “No, rather, happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”
      April 5, 2018 4:28 PM MDT
    0

  • 2657
    Do you read it as "happy are those changing the word of God rather than keeping it" or "happy are those removing God's name from the word of God and deleting it"?

    Just as the Bible was transmitted in the language of the people when it was written, rather Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, it is also translated in to the language of the people when translating. Most English speaking people do not speak Hebrew, Latin, Arabic etc so no reason to prohibit translation in to 'the vulgar tongue' as the 'Church' used to forbid.


    EDIT:
    Funny how some make special rules to follow an unscriptural tradition like removing God's name. Can't translate to the English Jehovah because there was no J in ancient Hebrew but Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Joshua and Jesus are okay. This post was edited by texasescimo at April 5, 2018 5:39 PM MDT
      April 5, 2018 4:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 492
    I really don't care what name people call their private little god, cat dog, or goldfish. Our creator is not a person whom we assign a pronoun to, wanting  mankind to protect it in a theophoric fashion, like we do on our own free will. Our creator (non gender) has better things to do than be entertained and be pleased with well thought out, fabricated, names like we give our pets and other objects which give ourselves personal entertainment and pleasure.
      April 6, 2018 4:50 AM MDT
    0