Are all "bibles" the word of God?

Below is an interesting article / comparison that I read a while back. I would like the members of this forum, many who appear to be studied in the various mainstream bible versions to comment on this.

http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/snbibles.htm

 

Scott,

I can understand how you would come to that conclusion upon initial viewing, but the problem is a litter deeper than what it appears upon examination. The sacred name people believe that God and Jesus are pagan names. They believe that Jesus was derived from zeus, and that God was derived from gad, the "god" of fortune, so they actually despise the Name of God and Jesus. Their accusations are unfounded, and have no scholarly foundation. They have also taken their choice of Hebrew names, and inserted them randomly into a Greek text [NT]. Would this not effectively, be changing the word of God? Just a thought.

 

Scott:

The problem is that God is the English version of His name. Jesus is the English version of His name. At the beginning of time, their names were transliterated as "God" and "Jesus." I'm still confused as to why this affects their theology.

S&T:

Because they hate the name God and Jesus, and expound that they are from pagan origin. This is why they changed them. In Hebrew God has many Names. The closest approximation to God is El. Jesus is transliterated from the Greek Iesous to it's English rendering. It originated in Aramaic [Eeshoo] or Hebrew [Yeshua]. The Aramaic and Hebrew are in agreement [Yod / Shin/ Vav / Ayin ] It is fairly easy to see how Eeshoo became Iesou . No magic or paganism involved. They try to say that Jesus means "healing zeus". zeus in greek [if I remember correctly] is actually ze. It is all so ridiculous to "translate" your own bible because of such a notion, in my opinion.

 

Scott:

There are several words in the Bible that are transliterated to English from Hebrew. Many of the Hebrew place names, for instance. I don't have much of a problem if they, for instance, use the actual transliteration for the Hebrew "Elohim" or the Tetragammon. Why should I?

S&T:

They do this because they hate the name of Jesus.

 

Dr Bob:

[partial quote]
I LOVE the CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) that will use Hebrew words, names

S&T:

Upon closer examination, you will find that there is some terminology that is Yiddish in origin, not Hebrew. Also there are some Messianic groups that have claimed that there are problems with the TeNaKh translation. [errors]

 

Scott stated:

But they don't have His original name. That's the important part - who cares what they think of the English version of the name. There's no magic in it. The power is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

S&T:

His Hebrew Name transliterated in it's long form would have been Yehoshua, short form would be Yeshua. If you look at the Hebrew in this "translation", you will find that it is Yod / Hey / Shin / Vav / Ayin which transliterates as YAHshua. There is no such name in the Hebrew Masoretic text, therefore it is a made up name. Are they confessing another Jesus? In their attempt to eliminate that "pagan" name, they made up a new one. Check it out.

 

Scott:
You really don't know Hebrew, do you?

S&T:

State what's on your mind Scott. Speaking from a position of youthful pride is ugly.

[ December 30, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Spirit and Truth ]

 

Scott:

It's not youhtful pride at all. You've said before that you have a working knowledge of Hebrew. It sure doesn't seem that way, so why bother responding?

S&T:

Back up your statements Scott.

 

Scott,

Since you seem to be speaking from the lofty place of understanding, I was wondering what your opinion of this explanation is?

Yeshua (short form) or Yehoshua (long form)--Hebrew Joshua--comes across into Greek as Iesous. Greek has no consonant y, so it uses initial i (cf. Ioudaios for Yhudim), which comes out sounding like a y when it's pronounced together with a following vowel anyway. Greek also has no letter equivalent to Hebrew shin (/sh/), so the standard transliteration is sigma (/s/). The final a in the Hebrew forms is a glide-element that shows up in other Semitic languages but isn't really part of the word per se. The final vowel should be u, but because of the gutteral consonant 'ayin that comes at the end of the name, an a-vowel is added. So the final u-sound is paralleled by Greek ou (Greek upsilon would have a different sound--like French long-u or German u-umlaut). The s on the end is part of a standard conversion from other languages to Greek. Since Greek nouns almost always have case endings, including names, the s is added to give the name the right feel. We get the same rendering for Joshua in the Greek OT, so I don't see any reason that it would mean something different in the NT.

 

Scott:

Why do you not reference your works

S&T:

I never stated or even alluded to the fact that it was my work, I merely asked you for an opinion on it. [nothing dishonest there] It seems that you constantly like to criticize others, but I haven't seen you put up one explanation in Greek or Hebrew yet, but you continue to try and down the statements of others by attacking them.That is not debating Scott. If you are still angry about the message thread, let's forget about that Scott and move on. It's a brand new day.