"According to some scholars letter "J" is not in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet"

a reply to: whereislogic

Isn't that what I said?

This would depend on the language you're working with... in Latin the J would sound like EE...

Perhaps it wasn't worded correctly... but yes, there is no J in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew

what I was trying to say is "where the J would be in English... the sound in Latin would be EE"

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You don't understand how language works neighbour. We've established this many many posts ago.

English has its roots in the Indo-European language tree, and in particular the Germanic branch. That in of its self shapes the language. Words are inherited and etymology is the study of this.

Thus you rabbited on about letters that are or are not in a language spoken when your supposed messiah is said to have lived. You then muttered about J being invented to cover a sound which was always there.

As I said, you do not understand how language works.

The first Christians (those closest in time to your so called messiah) were not speaking Enlish. Nor were the first Christians in what is now England. They spoke latin and variousCeltic Languges endemic to the island , then they spoke Anglo-Saxon and on and on, until we have modern English.

Thus if you think a deity is going to reveal their works based on a single language (and that is your implication), you must have a lazy or incompetent deity. That is the take away message, that if the best copies of your Gods words had to wate for a modern form of English to convey them, that deity is lax.

So yes once again, you confirm that language is your Achilles heel.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Wow what a mess
You have confused so many covenants together and made up your on religion

Jesus died, brought a new covenant to humanity, all mankind if they choose

Prior to Jesus there was a Judaic covenant and a Jewish law, they are now finished for those in Christ
You seem confused

Also not all Christians believe the KJV is perfect, many think it has errors, only certain fundamentalists need the bible to prove Jesus, othere don't need the bible to prove Jesus, we have the Holy Spirit

How did I confuse covenants? My point, my only point, was about Hell. I think you have sidestepped, but I am sensitive to that particular debate trick.

Oops my apologies, right you are
I misread the context and unfortunately cant take it back
Again sincerely, sorry

No harm. No foul. No worries.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh my own ATS Stalker at it again.

You like the Kavanaugh accuser just spewing lies for no reason but to slander.

While we get many of our Words from Latin, German, French, Greek etc, you fail to understand English is its own language and does not need the support of other languages. While we can find your point for etymology it means nothing to the English language.

a reply to: ketsuko

You are incorrect to surmise the idea that any could not be translated and would be misunderstood, there have been over 100 translations of the AV into foreign languages and they all did fairly well in understanding them. there were languages that didn't have any formal written alphabet that came about from Missionaries who translated the AV into their language, not only did they get a Correct Bible Translation but they got their national language in a written form.

a reply to: whereislogic

You go right on believing scholars (that is what JW"s do best deify man) I will believe God over men everyday and any day over you or them.

a reply to: chr0naut

Re-inspiration is an English word it means: to inspire again. Re is a prefix that means again, anew, over again as in return, repay or renew, restore. When re is used as in re-inspiration gives it another definition from the original word inspired in this case to re-inspire, to inspire again, to renew inspiration.

You would do well to consult a dictionary.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You posted a thread that anyone can reply too, in a forum I regularly am replying in. That is not stalking neighbour.

I have spewed zero lies. I have spoken the truth. I am compelled to speak the truth. An fhírinne a insint

Lating, German, French, Greek are all Indo-European languages. So no I don't fail to understand how English works. I actually understand where words come from. I even speak a little Proto Indo-European (PIE), the theoretical parent language.

So we have the words host and guest both comming from a parent word *ghosti. But the word ghost also comes via that word. It origionally meant stranger. So your holy ghost is the holy stranger in english Word meanings change. Look at the word "nice' it origionally meant strange or a bit odd. Now it does not.

I understand how language works much more than you. Language is an important part of my spiritual path neighbour. I make an effort to understand it.

So nope, not stalking, I just happen to understand this better than you.

Off you go.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
That makes no sense in response to my comment. There were no scholars involved in the facts I mentioned in my comment, it just is what it is. It requires no indepth scholarly research, just a quick glance at the biblehub website to see how those translations I mentioned translate Ps 83:18 for example.

Akragon: no, if we're talking about the translation and transliteration of names (which we are), then a "J" is only used in English for the consonant usage of "I" in Latin (as in the Latin "Iehova"), not the vowel usage (which is determined by the context in Greek or Latin). The "J" just never sounds like your "EE" (a vowel sound) in any language that I know of. Only the "I" does, and only when it represent a vowel in Latin, in which case the letter "J" isn't involved at all. The correct way to say it is:

Where a "J" is used in English translations of names in the bible, there is or would be an "I" in Latin, which still sounds like the "j" in the expression "Hallelujah" for example. Which is the same sound as the "Y" in the English "Yes" or the "J" in the Dutch and German "Ja". That is btw how all j's in German and Dutch are pronounced most of the time (unless it's a word borrowed from the French like "joules" for example, off the top of my head).

The Latin "Iehova" doesn't sound like "Eehova", it still sounds like the German and Dutch "Jehova" (some German translations will leave out the "h" there at the end, but I'm talking about the pronounciation of the first letter now). To avoid the weird way English speaking people pronounce the "j" nowadays, one could say it sounds like "Yehova" in English. Only the English add a bit of a 'dj' sound when they read a "j" as far as I know.
Why is the name missing from many Bible translations?

The reasons vary. Some feel that Almighty God does not need a unique name to identify him. Others appear to have been influenced by the Jewish tradition of avoiding the use of the name, perhaps out of fear of desecrating it. Still others believe that since no one can be sure of the exact pronunciation of God’s name, it is better just to use a title, such as “Lord” or “God.” Such objections, however, lack merit for the following reasons:

- Those who argue that Almighty God does not need a unique name ignore evidence that early copies of his Word, including those preserved from before the time of Christ, contain God’s personal name. As noted above, God directed that his name be included in his Word some 7,000 times. Obviously, he wants us to know and use his name.

- Translators who remove the name out of deference to Jewish tradition fail to recognize a key fact. While some Jewish scribes refused to pronounce the name, they did not remove it from their copies of the Bible. Ancient scrolls found in Qumran, near the Dead Sea, contain the name in many places. Some Bible translators hint that the divine name appeared in the original text by substituting the title “LORD” in capital letters. But the question remains, Why have these translators felt free to substitute or remove God’s name from the Bible when they acknowledge that it is found in the Bible text thousands of times? Who do they believe gave them authority to make such a change? Only they can say.

- Those who say that the divine name should not be used because it is not known exactly how to pronounce it will nevertheless freely use the name Jesus. However, Jesus’ first-century disciples said his name quite differently from the way most Christians do today. To Jewish Christians, the name Jesus was probably pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛. And the title “Christ” was Ma·shiʹach, or “Messiah.” Greek-speaking Christians called him I·e·sousʹ Khri·stosʹ, and Latin-speaking Christians Ieʹsus Chriʹstus. Under inspiration, the Greek translation of his name was recorded in the Bible, showing that first-century Christians followed the sensible course of using the form of the name common in their language. Similarly, the New World Bible Translation Committee feels that it is reasonable to use the form “Jehovah,” even though that rendering is not exactly the way the divine name would have been pronounced in ancient Hebrew.

Our Readers Ask: Why Use God’s Name if Its Pronunciation Is Uncertain?

No one today knows exactly how God’s name was pronounced in ancient Hebrew. Significantly, however, God’s personal name appears in the text of the Bible some 7,000 times. Jesus made God’s name manifest when on earth, and he instructed his disciples to pray for the sanctification of that name. (Matthew 6:9; John 17:6) Thus, one thing is certain​—the use of God’s name is of utmost importance to Christian faith.
...
Of course, Bible names, when spoken in a modern-day language, probably sound nothing like the original Hebrew, and hardly anyone objects. This is because these names have become part of our language and they are easily recognized. So it is with the name Jehovah.

The first-century Christians were called a people for God’s name. They preached about the name to others and encouraged them to call upon it. (Acts 2:21; 15:14; Romans 10:13-15) Clearly, it is important to God that we use his name in whatever language we speak, appreciate its significance, and live in harmony with what it stands for.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

Re-inspiration is an English word it means: to inspire again. Re is a prefix that means again, anew, over again as in return, repay or renew, restore. When re is used as in re-inspiration gives it another definition from the original word inspired in this case to re-inspire, to inspire again, to renew inspiration.

You would do well to consult a dictionary.

Where does the word occur in the AV?

a reply to: chr0naut

Scholars call it Re-inspiration I just call it inspiration. It is scholars that say God can't inspire his word in English and people need to go back to "original" that they don't have, do not exist and they never saw one piece of an original and wouldn't know it if it bit them on the nose.

For the sake of argument I was using the word to show how God inspired once and then inspired again and added more to it. In Jeremiah the original was completely destroyed there were no copies even made of God's words to Jeremiah.

But when Paul told Timothy "2Tim 3:15-16 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:", the very scriptures Timothy knew since a child were only copies not even Timothy had any originals.

My point is and always has been that God inspired his words into English in the AV 1611, that later replaced the I's with J's where it was that the sound was that of an English J like John, James, Jasper and so forth. I believe God inspired His words as a means of preserving it, when the trade language in the world changed to English. There were no originals when they made the first whole and complete English Bible, they used copies to guide them. Where they were not sure they prayed and let God guide them to add words to the copies they had, or ignore the copies and write it as God inspired them too. I showed once before about the name Jesus is found in scriptures 942 times, 935 times it is translated from the Greek word Iesous, 6 times it is added by inspiration of God to the translators of the AV when it was not in the Greek Texts (That means you will find the name Jesus 6 times in the AV 1611 Italicized for the AV Translators Italicized all words they added to the text). And you will find that the name of Jesus was inspired once when the Greek word autos was used. Because if they did not you would have read that the man in who's house they were eating did something Jesus actually did.

Scholars have got most Christians and almost every Christian University in the world believing God did not inspire any scriptures in English by saying "no version is inspired" and the only reason they claim that is because they have made versions that they hold copyrights to so they can make money off the word of God. The Bible doe s not say only the originals were inspired, it says just as it says above "2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". All Scriptures is all scripture. But we have seen god doesn't inspired additional Hebrew or Greek or English. He does it once and it is up to men to copy it correctly for others to hold in their hands so they can learn it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

Scholars call it Re-inspiration I just call it inspiration. It is scholars that say God can't inspire his word in English and people need to go back to "original" that they don't have, do not exist and they never saw one piece of an original and wouldn't know it if it bit them on the nose.

For the sake of argument I was using the word to show how God inspired once and then inspired again and added more to it. In Jeremiah the original was completely destroyed there were no copies even made of God's words to Jeremiah.

But when Paul told Timothy "2Tim 3:15-16 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:", the very scriptures Timothy knew since a child were only copies not even Timothy had any originals.

My point is and always has been that God inspired his words into English in the AV 1611, that later replaced the I's with J's where it was that the sound was that of an English J like John, James, Jasper and so forth. I believe God inspired His words as a means of preserving it, when the trade language in the world changed to English. There were no originals when they made the first whole and complete English Bible, they used copies to guide them. Where they were not sure they prayed and let God guide them to add words to the copies they had, or ignore the copies and write it as God inspired them too. I showed once before about the name Jesus is found in scriptures 942 times, 935 times it is translated from the Greek word Iesous, 6 times it is added by inspiration of God to the translators of the AV when it was not in the Greek Texts (That means you will find the name Jesus 6 times in the AV 1611 Italicized for the AV Translators Italicized all words they added to the text). And you will find that the name of Jesus was inspired once when the Greek word autos was used. Because if they did not you would have read that the man in who's house they were eating did something Jesus actually did.

Scholars have got most Christians and almost every Christian University in the world believing God did not inspire any scriptures in English by saying "no version is inspired" and the only reason they claim that is because they have made versions that they hold copyrights to so they can make money off the word of God. The Bible doe s not say only the originals were inspired, it says just as it says above "2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". All Scriptures is all scripture. But we have seen god doesn't inspired additional Hebrew or Greek or English. He does it once and it is up to men to copy it correctly for others to hold in their hands so they can learn it.

Scholars.