The Name of God

[Jim Watt]

“*TWO ARE BETTER THAN ONE” MINISTRIES*

*Jim & Marie Watt*

*Tel: 253-517-9195 - Email: jmbetter at gmail.com*

*Web: www.2rbetter.org*

*2009-05-29
<http://www.2rbetter.org/>*


   *“THE NAME OF GOD”** - 2009.05.19*


 *Introduction: *


 It is only within the last year that I have begun to use the ASV '01 (The
American Standard Version, 1901). Originally, British and American Scholars
pooled their resources to make a new translation in 1881-1885. They had an
agreement that should the American translators not be satisfied with their
joint effort, that they would refrain from putting out their independent
translation for 14 years. 1901 released them to put out the ASV.


 One of the American goals was to use “Jehovah” as their translation for
“LORD”, as it appears in the Authorized King James translation of 1608.
Allow me to let them tell this in their own words:


 *Reasons for the ASV. *There were two rationales for the ASV. One reason
was to obviate any justification for the unauthorized copied editions of the
RV (The English version) that had been circulating. Another reason was to
use more of the suggestions the American team had preferred, since the
British team used few of their suggestions in the first place, even in the
latter version which they had published incorporating some of them.
Interestingly, while many of the suggestions of the American scholars were
based on the differences between American and British usage, many others
were based on differences in scholarship and what the American revisers felt
the best translation to be. Consequently, there were several changes to the
KJV text in the ASV that were not present in the RV.


 *Features of the ASV. *The divine name of the Almighty (the Tetragrammaton)
is consistently rendered *Jehovah** *in the ASV Old Testament, rather than *
LORD* as it appears in the *King James Bible*. The reason for this change,
as the Committee explained in the preface, was that “...the American
Revisers...were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish
superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered,
ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old
Testament...” Other changes from the RV to the ASV included (but were not
limited to) substituting “who” and “that” for “which” when referring to
people, and *Holy Ghost* was dropped in favor of *Holy Spirit*. Page
headings were added and footnotes were improved.


 *Revisions of the ASV. *The ASV was the basis of four revisions. They were
the *Revised Standard Version* (1946-1952/1971), the *Amplified
Bible*(1965), the
*New American Standard Bible* (1963-1971/1995), and the *Recovery
Version*(1999). A fifth revision is in the making, the
*World English Bible*. The ASV was also the basis for *Kenneth N.
Taylor's*Bible paraphrase,
*The Living Bible*, which was published in 1971.


 I have listed my study of this subject for the past 65 years, and the
reason for my final decision to use this edition for my OT Outline Studies,
and the use of “Jehovah” for the “Name of God.”


 I quite regularly receive objections for my decision, but really no
suggestion is given for anything more acceptable to God that I have
discovered. For those of you who no doubt have unexpressed doubts concerning
the wisdom of my decision, I believe you deserve to hear and know the
reasoning behind it.


 Many among you are correct in believing that numbers of students side with
retaining of the translation of the Tetragrammaton to the 4 Hebrew
consonants. However, there is also a very large number of students who
prefer the choice I have made. Dr. William F. Fouts, Professor of Old
Testament and Hebrew at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary of Chicago
expressed the following when I graduated in 1952. He preferred translating
the tratragrammaton “Ye-h*o*VAH.” We as a class heard him out in his
reasoning. Jehovah isn't exactly an English equivalent, but is far closer
that “YAHweh.”


 Once a year the High Priest of Israel on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement)
went into the Holy of Holies and pronounced the Tetragrammaton, and though
that ceased at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, numbers believe that
is was not “YAHweh” that he pronounced.


 In the Newberry Reference Bible by Thomas Newberry published by Kregel
Publications of Grand Rapids, Michigan - in his Introduction on p.xx, he
deals with the title Jehovah appearing 6000 times in the OT, and
demonstrates how it is based upon the 3 tenses of the verb “to be”,
according to Hebrews 13:8 and Revelation 1:8.


 But - most of all - I believe God would have us settle on the “Jehovah”
translation because of the Orthodox Jewish use of “Adonai” to replace the
Tetragrammaton. This is such a perversion of the true meaning, that it seems
to be time to challenge this corruption with what in the days of the ASV
answer this challenge so effectively. A number of times in the prophets the
combination of “Sovereign Jehovah” (Adonai Jehovah, Zephaniah 1:7; Zechariah
9:14, two of these) appears. Because the strictest of Religious Jews do not
believe in pronouncing the “Tetragrammaton”, and substitute “Adonai” for it
- they *now* have a problem with this combination of Sovereign LORD, which
would be “Adonai Adonai”. “Adonai Jehovah” would solve the problem.


 I studied Theology for a year and a half in a Modernistic Seminary, because
I felt God wanted me to thoroughly understand the perversion of Scripture
that takes place in these institutions. My forebears are Scottish
Presbyterian going back to the inventor James Watt, but Modernism has
degraded our early heritage. The Modernists are happy to discard the ASV
rendering. Later I graduated after 3 years from NBTS, an Evangelical
Seminary.


 Evangelicals often follow the use of Yahweh, but many of them acknowledge
that this solution is really not too satisfactory either.


 I have considered using the translation “Jehovah” for many years, but have
hesitated. What finally launched me in the last year of my 65 years of
ministry was Dr. Ivan Panin. He produced a Numeric Greek Text of the NT at
the turn of the 20th Century, and followed up with an English Translation of
this text. He later stated - “The ASV 1901 is closer to the Numeric Hebrew
OT than any other translation extant at that time. It was this word that
after more than 60 years encouraged me to take the stand to which many
object.


 I of course do not ask any to follow my example - but I do believe it
offers more merit than any other I have come across since 1944.


 One other point. Some are sticklers that the 4 Hebrew consonants of the
Tetragrammaton can not be translated.

Let me offer a challenge! *The Hebrew language has no vowels!* It wasn't
until the days of our A.D., that rabbis recognized many could no longer
pronounce their language, so they put in the present vowels we see; but they
are not inspired - just the 22 consonants. So what some object to concerning
the Tetragrammaton, applies likewise to the entire Hebrew language. To be
consistent, we would, if we held the above view, put ourselves into a
serious bind.


 Also, the Jerusalem daily papers have *no* vowels, the way it was at the
beginning. For in the beginning all Jews knew the Hebrew pronunciation for
their entire language apart from vowels, including Jehovah. Only in the
times when Jesus came to earth, the Pharisees and rabbis stopped pronouncing
the Sacred Name - but they did permit the High Priest to do so once a year.
So - do *we* follow the example of these Jews and *not* pronounce what they
*originally* did pronounce? I prefer to follow the reasoning of the ASV
translators.


 I have had but 5 years of Latin, Greek and Hebrew in formal schooling, so
see myself as a student, but do not count myself as a scholar. I have
however put in well over 40,000 hours on the Bible languages. I love God and
His Word. Today this email came to me: “The name “Jehovah” isn't in the
original text. It's supposed to be “YHVH”. Jehovah is a name made up by man.
It is a transliteration of the true name YHVH.”


 I have written the above answer to refute this Email. It is true that the
writer may not receive my answer, but perhaps some of you may see more sense
in my approach than this friend. - J.A.W.




 *TO SUBSCRIBE -- Please Email:
mailing-subscribe at 2rbetter.org<mailing-subscribe at 2rbetter.org?subject=Just%20hit%20send%20be%20automatically%20subscribed>
*


 *TO UNSUBSCRIBE -- Please Email:
mailing-unsubscribe at 2rbetter.org<mailing-unsubscribe at 2rbetter.org?subject=Just%20hit%20send%20be%20automatically%20unsubscribed>
*


 *FOR ARCHIVE ARTICLES -- Web: http://2rbetter.org/pipermail/mailing/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://2rbetter.org/pipermail/mailing/attachments/20090529/c7b04b06/attachment.htm>