tigger two

Mark 16:17, 18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...." - KJV. [My emphasis added] This is the justification for honest believers in some churches who handle rattlesnakes and drink poison as part of their church service. They view it as a command from Jesus himself. What do you think?

Take a look: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Common-English-Bible-CEB/

As my previous posts concerning huparchon have shown, it is more closely related with 'beginning' or 'coming to be.' And if you actually examine the places huparchon is used in the NT Greek scriptures, you will find that it is often referring to a thing or situation which has begun in the recent past and continues for only a brief time (certainly not from all eternity past to all eternity to come). You have not given the source for your quote beginning with "Morphe" above. Nor the quote beginning: "This word "huparchon" = subsisting, existing was selected instead of the Greek word "eimi" which means to be, or a status of being. The word "huparchon" is in the present tense participle form which refers to the ongoing continual status of Jesus Christ in the present...." They are certainly not from "the unaltered Bible." By the way, which Bible is the "unaltered Bible"?

JohnD wrote: I am referring to all translations. They all are translated by fallible men. For instance, how do all translations render huparchon (as I asked you, and everyone else, to look up) at Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19? Huparchon is written ὑπάρχων in NT Greek. So for those who don’t know how to look things up, here’s where you can see that huparchon does not mean “never ceasing to be” as JohnD’s source of information tells us. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/9-48.htm http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-2.htm http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/4-19.htm These show that huparchon is translated literally as “being,” and in various Bibles is rendered as “is,” “was,” “had been” (NASB), etc. And the context shows that it was a temporary thing (not something which was “never ceasing to be”) in all translations. Incidentally, John, I don't expect you to apologize for your mistaken accusations, but I would expect you to acknowledge your errors exposed in my previous posts: "the exact same grammar structure in John 20:17 that there is in John 1:1"; "en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theo† pros ton logos † noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns” ; "† Greek: 'morphe theos huparchon' the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God. "; "These kinds of things are what people must resort to who do not have the truth and who oppose the truth.”

I am merely looking for honesty in translation of certain verses. What I personally believe is of no consequence to the accuracy of translation. How about addressing the actual literal facts of my comments instead of your own subjective personal beliefs? If you don't understand something, please ask for explanation or investigate on your own before commenting in ignorance. Remember, Bible translators are translating from NT Greek manuscripts which are not always clearly understood. In most cases the translator will translate a verse in accord with his own personal beliefs (or the beliefs of those for whom he is translating). To know the alternate honest translations of those NT Greek manuscript verses takes some time and effort to uncover.

JohnD wrote: Well, of course! A Trinitarian writer will normally defend a Trinitarian translation or interpretation and ignore most others. This is completely understandable. That does not necessarily make it the true, intended meaning of the original writer. As for John 1:1c, I have seen notable Trinitarian scholars admit that John 1:1c may be literally rendered as "And the Word was a god." Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing. Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation: “A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977. The only reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God. And non-sectarian Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c: “ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003. Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing. And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985. What is amazing is that any Trinitarian scholar would make such an admission for perhaps the best 'proof' scripture available.

　　 I wrote: JohnD: …………………… I get my grammar rules from the same place all Bible translators and Trinitarian scholars do: From numerous widely recognized NT Greek Grammar experts (Trinitarians, by the way) and my double checking them by going to the NT Greek text. You, however, have shown that you get yours from man all right, but it is often incorrect when double checked by going to the actual Greek text. …………………JohnD: ……………… I see that you left out my answer (see second quote above which I have restored from the original post) to your strange Anglicized Greek and completely incorrect footnote. That does not seem to be an honest approach to discussion. For example, I didn’t intend the spelling of en or een to be a criticism. I sometimes spell them both that way myself. And, if you had included my response to your Greek, it shows that I did not emphasize that aspect in any way. But your completely off-base ending of John 1:1c (kai theo pros ton logos) I underlined and put in bold letters! Obviously that was what I was criticizing! It should be, obviously, kai theos een (or en, if you prefer) ho logos. You (or whatever man you may have gotten this from) have deleted the sigma ending from the nominative theos, added pros in place of een, used the accusative ton definite article with the nominative logos (articles must agree with the case of the noun they modify). - And, yes, we get such rules from scholarly men who have spent a lifetime studying NT Grammar, AND we can easily check to see if they are true by examining the same texts (made by men) used for translations (made by men). As for JohnD’s two footnotes ( for earlier Phil. quote: † Greek: "morphe theos huparchon" the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God - and the above John 1:1 quote: † noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns” they can easily be proven wrong by merely examining the NT Greek text. This was pointed out for his misuse of (the already erroneous) Sharp’s Rule which he refers to by using the distinctive phrase “noun kai noun.” Yes, some Trinitarians (men) still try to use Sharp’s Rule (many do not), but even if it were true, it simply does not honestly apply to John 1:1 as I have already pointed out in my previous answer. And I have seen the misuse of hupachon by a few men as meaning “never ceasing to be” at Phil. 2:6 (and only there) because the translators want that meaning to be true, but an honest examination of the scriptural use of this word shows that it is false. For example as I wrote in my original answer to this misuse by certain men: “Here are a few of the instances of huparchon in the NT - Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19.” They clearly do not mean “never ceasing to be.” You are clearly getting your information from man. The difference between us is that I check out any 'rules' from the NT Greek text before I support them. ……………. JohnD: ....................... I have no wish to impugn or discredit you, John, just your errors. I truly want accuracy in translation! And I did not make a production out of your spelling. JohnD: ................................................... I explained the problem of using John 20:17 already. If you don’t believe the noted scholars who have studied NT grammar for much of their lives, then actually examine the NT text yourself to see if what they say is true. Beyond that, there is no comparison between the “grammar structure” of John 1:1c and John 20:17 as you have said. John 1:1c uses an anarthrous nominative (of course) predicate noun (theos/god) before its verb. John 20:17 uses an articular accusative (of course) object noun (ton theon) after the verb followed by a series of anarthrous accusative nouns each connected by kai (“and”). This is a proper example of the inaccurate Sharp’s Rule (noun kai noun) and the rule that when the initial noun in a series of nouns of the same case has the article, the following nouns may or may not have to use the article. (Compare Matt. 22:32 with Mark 12:26) All NT Grammar is the “grammar of man.” Men spoke and wrote the various ever-changing languages. The inspired scriptures were given in the language man used. We even see different styles in grammar and usage by different scripture writers (men) who were inspired to write using their own style. All translators have used the grammar of man to translate. Nearly all NT Grammars and lexicons were produced by Trinitarian men. To deny this truth is only fooling yourself and spreading ignorance. “These kinds of things are what people must resort to who do not have the truth and who oppose the truth.”

I think you meant "the peace leaves." But I truly understand. If you will meet with them and politely tell them you don't want them coming to your door, they are supposed to put your name and address on the "Do not call" list. Errors sometimes happen, but normally you will not be contacted for quite some time. Eventually (because people move, and circumstances change) you will be called on again. Just politely remind them your name is supposed to be on the "Do not call" list, and you should have months of peace again.

This is completely untrue.

JohnD wrote concerning my lengthy list of Trinitarian sources admitting that "god" is used for angels, God-appointed judges, and kings: and JohnD also wrote: 1. Your quote from the Greek is terrible! It should read “en arche een ho logos, kai ho logos een pros ton theon, kai theos een ho logos.” This verse is composed of three different clauses, each separated by kai (‘and’). You have “bitten” on the misteaching of a man here. Apparently you are attempting to use Sharp’s Rule (a man’s rule which is also incorrect). But that rule was intended for ‘noun kai noun’ within the same clause and of nouns in the same case! You, however, (or whoever gave you this misinformation) have taken an articular noun in the accusative case and followed it with a noun in a different clause and in the nominative case. So we have a MAN giving you this erroneous interpretation of another MAN’s (Granville Sharp) incorrect ‘Rule.’ But you say you won’t accept any part of a long list of respected Trinitarian scholars’ verifying the scriptural use of ‘god’ for angels, kings, and judges. 　 JohnD wrote: Micah 5:2 (NASB95) 2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Either way, Jesus is eternal in his Spirit nature. From my personal study (also on my blog):　 Micah 5:2 Look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:1, 2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.) Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh. And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans. At the very least you should consider the ‘eternity’ translation as uncertain. (See how the word olam is translated in Isaiah 63:11; Amos 9:11; Micah 7:14; Malachi 3:4) ………………… I have quoted and cited TRINITARIAN sources in my posts. I am attempting to find truth and honesty in translation. Please stop implying that I am dishonestly trying to push an anti-Trinitarian belief here. 　 　

I don't wish to be censored or banned because of your perception of me.

JohnD: “You'll notice I did not bite on what man says as an authoritative citation because only the Bible has that authority.” JohnD: “Those who try to legitimize the false gods usually do so to bolster their attempt to undeify Christ by misusing the scriptures. “If the Emphatic Diaglott (by Benjamin Wilson, adopted by Christadelphians and later by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) were legitimate in its (mis)translation of John 1:1, then John 20:17 would also undeify the Father as "a god" because the article is missing in the Greek there too.” JohnD: “Philippians 2:6 (AV) 6 Who, being in the form of God†, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: † Greek: "morphe theos huparchon" the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God You’ll notice that John did not “bite on” what the many Trinitarian authorities admitted in my long referenced list concerning the obvious, that men and angels are sometimes called gods in scripture. (Even Jesus admitted this at John 10:34.) But he has “bitten” on the man who has defined huparchon as “never ceasing to be.” Huparchon is never used for God because, although often translated as “existing” or “being,” it literally means: “to make a beginning (hupo, ‘under’; arche, ‘a beginning’)” - W. E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as “to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE” - #5225. And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us: “[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2. to make a beginning of ... 3. to begin doing ... 4. to begin [doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to be begun” - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing. Here are a few of the instances of huparchon in the NT - Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19. Please show me how these can possibly be understood as “never ceasing to be.” And as for morphe: “Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1. Notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself: “... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8. “... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3. “...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5. “John 20:17 would also undeify the Father as "a god" because the article is missing in the Greek there too” There are two things you should already know about the Greek of John 20:17 “the father of me and father of you and god of me and god of you.” 1. When you have a series of nouns and the first one in the series has the article, the article can also be understood to be with the following nouns. 2. When a noun is modified by a preposition (or a genitive), the article may be understood although not present. Only context can decide in such cases. So John 20:17 certainly can be understood as using “[the] god” or “God.”

Because I want accuracy in the understanding of scripture (whether I believe in a trinity or not), I try to expose errors, or, at least, debatable, uncertain translations or interpretations of important verses. Truth in translation should be the goal of all Christians. JohnD wrote: But John, if you would actually read what I have posted, it would be clear that there are scriptures which show that God’s angels, judges, certain kings, etc. were called gods. Numerous respected Trinitarian scholars and early Christian writers (including the most respected, by Trinitarians especially, St. Athanasius and St. Augustine) had the same understanding. The word used in the NT texts at 1 Cor. 8:5 and 2 Thess. 2:4 simply means “called.” Translating it as “so-called” is simply translators’ interpretation. Notice that 1 Cor. 8:5 says: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;” - ASV. Instead of ignoring all the many Trinitarian references which admit that the understanding that theos IS sometimes used for angels and God-appointed men, how about addressing what I actually wrote (there is a lot there). …………………………. Thereselittleflower quoted me: And then said: “They actually taught the Trinity.” I believe I said more than once in my post that I was referring to statements by trinitarians. I even called the last two above “super-trinitarians.” This is all the more reason why what I was discussing in my post is true. 　

JohnD wrote: “The Bible teaches there are only two kinds of gods, the one true God and false gods. Jesus cannot be a little god with a small "g" as Witnesses teach and not be a false god.” Forget the JWs. Let’s just examine your statement above. Trinitarian scholars themselves admit that scripture calls God’s angels, certain kings of Israel, earthly judges, etc., gods. From my own personal study on a file on my computer (although much of it is also on my blog): God and gods The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'): "In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1. And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us: “The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187. The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us: “The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36: "Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - And Barnes’ Notes tells us in commenting on John 10:34, 35: The scripture cannot be broken. See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is, ‘If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word "god" as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah.’ - Barnes' Notes on the New Testament - Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”: “65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing, “430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.” The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43: Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...” Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek. The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 - “The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].” Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include: 1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint; 2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974; 3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984; 4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982; 5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2; 6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979; 7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing; 8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984; 9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985; 10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.; 11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189; 12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing; 13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992; 14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975; 15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6); 16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35); 17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36); 18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35); 19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1). 20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985. 21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co. 22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965. 23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35. 24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36. 25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187. 26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint. 27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965. 28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John. And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

As I understand it, it is not allowed to defend Mormon teaching or JW teaching. The major difference for JWs at least concerns the knowledge of God. This is to be discussed only with the traditional trinitarian point of view. So you are beating a dead horse here. There can be no honest defense of JW theology here.

That's why so many call it an inspired TRANSLATION. As for calling the removing of the name "Jehovah" (as the KJV itself transliterates it in Ps. 83:18) and replacing it with an entirely different word ("LORD") thousands of times a "false accusation," it is there for all to see in black and white! "LORD" is a clear mistranslation. Even the Jews, who superstitiously refused to SPEAK the name of God, did not remove the name in written form in their OT manuscripts! Who has the gall to remove the only name of God (Jehovah, according to the KJV) and replace it with an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning??

I think you misunderstood. This was intended for those who believe the KJV is the only inspired English translation. Therefore, when I refer to the mistranslation of YHWH thousands of times as 'LORD,' I am referring to the KJV. Since my quote of Psalms 83:18 is from the KJV, it is clear that those who believe it is a perfect, inspired translation must believe that God's name is JEHOVAH! Nearly every other Hebrew personal name is transliterated into English, including 'Jesus' (Yeshua in Hebrew and Iesous in NT Greek). The scriptures don't show the prophets, priests, and ordinary Jews avoiding the name of God in their speech. In fact it is the most-used personal name (by far!) in the OT. We see added vowels and mistransliterated consonants in hundreds of personal names throughout the KJV. My personal favorite is "James." But these are all understood as literally accurate by the people I am writing to.

The following is for those who believe the King James Version is the infallible, perfect word of God: Here is how Ps. 83:16-18 reads in the KJV: “16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [YHWH]. “17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: “18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH [YHWH], art the most high over all the earth.” (Boldfacing added) Never mind that YHWH is purposely mistranslated as ‘LORD’ thousands of times in line with the Jewish superstition that His name is never to be spoken (in spite of the fact that it is spoken by hundreds of prophets and men of God in prayer and conversation throughout OT Scripture)! We see here that YHWH in Ps. 83:18 translates that same name as JEHOVAH and tells us that it is God’s name alone! If the KJV is your infallible guide, we have the true pronunciation of God’s only [personal] name: JEHOVAH.

That ignores the whole point of my post.

The Hebrew text used by the writers of the KJV uses the only personal name of God (YHWH) over 5000 times throughout the OT. In nearly all of those places the KJV 'translated' it as LORD (Capital 'L' followed by ORD in smaller capital letters). However, please look at Ps. 83:18 in the KJV (one of the many places where YHWH is found in the OT Hebrew text): "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH (YHWH in the Hebrew text), art the most high over all the earth." Even when we disregard the fact that 'Jehovah' cannot be the original pronunciation of the name, we are stuck with the fact that the KJV is either incorrectly translating YHWH as Jehovah here and calling it the Most High God's only personal name - or the KJV is rendering this personal name of God incorrectly throughout the entire OT as 'LORD.' How can KJO folks reconcile these important facts?