Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes
LSM’s Special Pleading
LSM’s justification for “Jehovah” rests, not on its use in the biblical text, but on its “heritage...in classic English literature.”
LSM’s Specious Argument
LSM argues for “Jehovah” based on its “heritage...in classic English literature.” However, the widely-used alternative, “LORD,” has a longer history than Jehovah.
LSM’s tendentious defense of ‘Jehovah’
LSM’s tendentious defense of ‘Jehovah’ implicitly assumes there are only two options for rendering YHWH, God’s personal name—either as, Jehovah or the title, ‘LORD.’
Using ‘the LORD’—“Deference to Ancient Religion”?
LSM’s editors contend that “deference to ancient religion and confusion from modern sectarians are no reasons to shrink back from the use” of Jehovah.
|
I quoted above in summary four points that Nigel makes at the end of his paper regarding LSM's argument for the use of 'Jehovah'. I'm glad that he took the opportunity to deconstruct their line of reason. Here are some of my own thoughts regarding these points.
Special Pleading
The obvious irony here is that the LC claims to be opposed to "tradition". It is indeed another double standard and a clear example of them bending the rules in their favor. Since when did any particular practice get brought into the LC because it had any amount of "heritage"? You don't see LC meeting halls with an organ even though there is a "heritage" of having an organ in church buildings.
Specious Argument
It's a bit confusing how LSM would think there might be any amount of "heritage" with the name 'Jehovah' to begin with. I can definitely say that I have never felt any particular connection to the name 'Jehovah'. The first thing that I think of when I hear 'Jehovah' are those pesky people who come knocking at your door. Having read the RcV for so long, I'm now used to the name 'Jehovah', but that never made me feel more gravitated towards using 'Jehovah'.
Nigel offers an explanation as to how 'Jehovah' originated: "
So they combined Adonai and Yahweh to get ‘Jehovah.’" With this in mind, it could be just as easily said that since Adonai (LORD) was used to construct Jehovah, then 'LORD' has more heritage than the name 'Jehovah' (if there were any to begin with). It's just another example of the LSM's ignorance.
Tendentious Defense of "Jehovah'
Obviously, LSM is in the dark about this one. It's almost as if they want the decision appear as being between a good and bad name for God. I personally have no preference between 'Yahweh' or 'LORD', but to imply that the decision must instead be between 'Jehovah' and 'LORD' is ignorant at best. As Nigel pointed out, the Holman Bible is an example of one version that has begun using 'Yahweh'. In this day and age the options are not what LSM would have people believe.
Using ‘the LORD’—“Deference to Ancient Religion”?
There is indeed a "religious" aspect to the usage of 'LORD'. But is this inherently wrong? I don't see any indication that it would be wrong because people began using it because of the fear of saying 'YHWH'. I don't think any Christian is really afraid of saying "Yahweh", so that argument falls flat on its face.