The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sammaritans practiced their love of God outside of the Jewish Temple. That was, in effect, a "different" religion. Gerizim instead of Zion.

Indeed there was great antagonism towards the Samaritans on the part of the Jews, Jesus pointed to a religious system that would remove Temple based worship.

John 4:24 really is a key scripture on this issue.


JW

[Checkpoint]

Sammaritans practiced their love of God outside of the Jewish Temple. That was, in effect, a "different" religion. Gerizim instead of Zion.

Indeed there was great antagonism towards the Samaritans on the part of the Jews, Jesus pointed to a religious system that would remove Temple based worship.

John 4:24 really is a key scripture on this issue.


JW

John 4:24 is indeed a key scripture.

However, in it Jesus pointed away from any "religious system" to "worship in spirit and in truth[reality]".

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 111 by Checkpoint]

By "religious system" I meant worship that is in "spirit and truth" where two or three would meet together and he (Jesus) would be there with them, the "religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows" (James 1:27) and in which if anyone "doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like a Gentile and a tax collector to you" (Mat 18:17) and that would "go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them ..[and] teaching them." (Mat 28:19, 20)

JW

[bluethread]

I do not believe that the writings of the Apostles render the Tanakh null and void.

So why were you telling me that the Apostles didn't use Jehovah/YHWH? What was the point you were attempting to make?

I didn't say that the Apostles didn't use the term. I said, it is not in any of their writings. The point being, if it is imperative that YHWH be used whenever one is referring to the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov, then it would follow that the Apostles would do that. I also do not see where their not having used YHWH in their writings violates the Tanakh in any way. By the way, if accurate translation of names is also an imperative, why does the New World Translation translate Iokobos as James? That is clearly the Greek form of Yacov and totally unrelated to the name of the benefactor of the KJV. It doesn't even use the name Jacob, which would at least be consistent with the translation of YHWH as Jehovah and Iesous as Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do not believe that the writings of the Apostles render the Tanakh null and void.

So why were you telling me that the Apostles didn't use Jehovah/YHWH? What was the point you were attempting to make?

I didn't say that the Apostles didn't use the term. I said, it is not in any of their writings.

So what?! It's in the bible over 7000 times, unless we divide the Apostles writings off and try and make a point that is based only on what they wrote, where is the basis for even pointing this out if it were true (which it isn't)?

[JehovahsWitness]

The point being, if it is imperative that YHWH be used whenever one is referring to the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov

Strawman.

Did I ever say this?

CONCLUSION Jehovah's Witnesses do not insist that the Divine name be used to the exclusion of other fitting titles. Nor do we seek to control the personal discourse of others, we merely take seriously the honor and responsibility we have to educate people as to the identity of the True God and expose practices and traditions that fail to accord the Divine Name its rightful place in scripture, prayer and worship.

I said scriptural law or principle and yes, it violates bible principle to deliberately remove the Divine Name from scripture and replace it with an alternative which carries a different meaning.

[JehovahsWitness]

By the way, if accurate translation of names is also an imperative, why does the New World Translation translate Iokobos as James?

Bible names are not "translated" they are "transliterated", do you know the difference between the two terms?

What language did the Christian Scripture writers (Matthew to Revelation) write in Hebrew or Greek? What language were the scriptures they were probably quoting from? Hebrew or Greek? If they wrote in Greek which translitered names would be closer to what they (The Christian writers) originally penned under inspiration from God, Hebrew or Greek?

CONCLUSION Jehovah's Witnesses are not dogmatic as to whether bible names should be transliterated from Hebrew or Greek but have in their translation chosen to present the English spellings of transliteration from the Greco-Latin for names in books written in the Greek language. We do not believe this decision should be used to support the argument for the removal of YHWH's name from the bible.


RELATED POSTS

What is the difference between "pronunciation", "transliteration" and "translation"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 179#915179

[bluethread]

So what?! It's in the bible over 7000 times, unless we divide the Apostles writings off and try and make a point that is based only on what they wrote, where is the basis for even pointing this out if it were true (which it isn't)?

I didn't just pull it out of the air. You appeared to be insisting that not using Yehovah/YHWH was somehow a violation of HaTorah.

By the way, if accurate translation of names is also an imperative, why does the New World Translation translate Iokobos as James?

Bible names are not "translated" they are "transliterated", do you know the difference between the two terms?

Yes, I do. However, James is not a transliteration of Iokobos. Also, Jehovah and Jesus are not proper transliterations of YHWH and Iesous into English either. Yud in Hebrew does not make the English "J" sound and neither does Iota in Greek.

Now, none of this is generally a serious concern of mine. I only address this when someone insists that certain terms be used.

[JehovahsWitness]

So what?! It's in the bible over 7000 times, unless we divide the Apostles writings off and try and make a point that is based only on what they wrote, where is the basis for even pointing this out if it were true (which it isn't)?

I didn't just pull it out of the air. You appeared to be insisting that not using Yehovah/YHWH was somehow a violation of HaTorah.

Well I hope I have corrected your misunderstanding. Feel free to read what I actually said below.

CONCLUSION Jehovah's Witnesses do not insist that the Divine name be used to the exclusion of other fitting titles. Nor do we seek to control the personal discourse of others, we merely take seriously the honor and responsibility we have to educate people as to the identity of the True God and expose practices and traditions that fail to accord the Divine Name its rightful place in scripture, prayer and worship.

I said scriptural law or principle and yes, it violates bible principle to deliberately remove the Divine Name from scripture and replace it with an alternative which carries a different meaning.

[JehovahsWitness]

James is not a transliteration of Iokobos.

What language did the Christian Greek writer record his name in the bible canon? Hebrew or Greek? If Greek why are you asking about the Hebrew transliteration?

Jehovah and Jesus are not proper transliterations of YHWH and Iesous into English either.

What language are you suggesting they are? Swedish?! I take when you say "not proper transliterations" you mean they fail to follow the basic principles of transliteration. Please present your evidence to support this claim.

Bible names are not "translated" they are "transliterated", do you know the difference between the two terms?

Yes, I do.

You claim to know what transliteration means but your statement about the J sound indicates that this might not be the case. Perhaps you might like to present your understanding of what "transliteration" does or does not do including: Do transliterations invent new sounds in a target language? and, What sound did the English J originally make.


JW