“The Divine Name King James Bible” (DNKJB)

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Yet another “new” translation is here! In light of the growing biblical illiteracy among professing Christians, “new” biblical translations that attempt to “dumb down” and/or smooth out so-called rough edges to an already doctrinally suffocated church only perpetuates the problem. Although not technically a translation, but merely a “new” version of the KJV, which, as the publishers state, “restored the name Jehovah 6,972 times into the text [OT & NT] of the King James Bible.” Also, comparable to the claims of the Watchtower (JWs), the publishers falsely and groundlessly claim, “Almost every translator in the past 400 years has or have removed the Divine Name from ‘their’ Bibles.” Of course, what they mean here is that the so-called divine name “Jehovah” was removed.

Another similarity to the Watchtower is that the names of the DNKJB publishers are purposefully unidentified. However, they claim no affiliation with any religious origination. Although, in the FAQS section on their official website (http://www.dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm) under the title, “Does the name Jehovah have acceptance among the world of Bible Scholars?” the publishers actually provide the Watchtower in their list of “Bible Scholars.”

The main problem with the DNKJB assertion (as with the NWT) is two-fold

1. Aside from the fact that the English term “Jehovah” is a recent invention (the letter “J” was completely unknown until the fourteenth century) and is a badly mistransliterated form of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), there are NO extant Greek NT manuscripts that contain the Tetragrammaton—not one. So, the baseline supposition of the DNKJB publishers is that the Tetragrammaton (in any form, esp. “Jehovah”) was removed from the NT is entirely unjustified. However, unlike the NWT, in the NT, the DNKJB places “Jehovah” in parentheses next to a capitalized “LORD.” Further, where the NWT replaces “Lord” with “Jehovah” 237 times in the NT, the DNKJB publishers only sees merit for doing so in 128 places (and in parentheses).

But the fact is, when translating the OT Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the NT authors (and the LXX) would typically use Kurios (“Lord”; e.g., Matt. 4:7, 10; 21:9; Mark 1:3; Rom. 10:13; Heb. 10:16 et al). Even more, passages such as Romans 9:29 and James 5:4 put to rest the entire starting premise of the DNKJB publishers (and NWT). For in these passages, both Paul and James cite the book of Isaiah (Paul cites Isa. 1:9 and James, Isa. 5:9) where Isaiah uses the phrase, “LORD of hosts.” But note, both NT authors transliterate in Greek (not translate) the Hebrew term for “hosts/armies” (Gk. Sabaōth), but not so for YHWH. Instead, both authors use the Greek Kurios in their translation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton: Kurios Sabaōth. (“Lord of Sabaoth”). And,

2. The DNKJB (as with the NWT) is constantly inconsistent. While the publishers pride themselves on restoring the so-called “Divine Name” (“Jehovah”) into the NT, they neglect many significant places where a NT author cites an OT passage containing the Tetragrammaton. Note the following examples of a few DNKJB renderings:

Romans 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Verse 13 is a citation of Joel 2:32, which contains the Tetragrammaton. Thus, the rendering of verse 13 in the DNKJB is “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD (Jehovah Jol 2:31,32 2 Ti 2:19) shall be saved” (embolden theirs).

Note that the “Lord” (Kurios) that saves in verse 13 is contextually the same “Lord” that Paul just mentioned in the previous verse (“for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him,” v. 12), who is the same “Lord” in verse 9—namely, Jesus. The same is true with the pronoun “Him” in verses 9, 11, and 12—where Jesus is the clear antecedent. Hence, both “Him and “Lord” from verses 9 to 13 refer to Jesus. So, Jesus is the Lord [YHWH] of Joel 2:32 (as Paul declares in 10:13), who saves all who call upon Him. Yet the DNKJB is inconsistent to its translation principle of “restoring” “Jehovah” at verse 9. If it were, then, the DNKJB would read: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD (Jehovah) Jesus. . . .”

1 Peter 3:14-15: “But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. . . .” (emphasis added). This is a citation from Isaiah 8:12-13. Note how the DNKJB renders part of Isaiah 8:13: “Sanctify Jehovah of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread” (embolden theirs). In the Critical Greek edition of the NT (viz. NA28/UBS5), Peter applies Isaiah 8:12-13 to Christ—namely, He is the YHWH whom should be sanctified. In fact, Peter even uses the same term (in the same form,—aorist imperative) as does the LXX of Isaiah 8:13, hagiaste (“to treat as holy, set apart, sanctify”). But, as with Romans 10:9, the DNKJB is not consistent in its translation principle at 1 Peter 3:15, even though 1 Peter 3:14-15 is a citation from Isaiah 8:12-13, which contains the Tetragrammaton.

Philippians 2:10-11: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. . . . 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” This is a citation from Isaiah 45:23, which, in part, the DNKJB renders: “That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Rom 14:11).” Clearly, in Philippians 2:10-11, Paul’s sees Kurios Iēsous Christos (lit., “Lord Jesus Christ”) as the YHWH and thus, the fulfillment of the future prophecy of Isaiah 45:23.

To substantiate this, Paul not only alters the original tenses (future indicatives) in both Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) and Romans 14:11 to aorist subjunctives in Philippians 2:10-11, but also places Kurios (“Lord”) in the “emphatic” position (i.e., first word in the clause). But yet the DNKJB does “restore” “Jehovah” in Philippians 2:11 where Paul applies the Isaiah prophecy of YHWH to Christ. For if the DNKJB were consistent, verse 11 would read: “every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD (Jehovah Is. 45:23)” as they did with Romans 14:11: “For it is written, As I live, saith the LORD, (Jehovah Isa 49:18; Isa 45:21-23 ) every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

Hebrews 1:10: “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. . . .” Hebrews 1:10-12 is a citation from the LXX of Psalm 102:25-27 (LXX, 101:26-28). Note the DNKJB rendering of Psalm 102:25: “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.” Here, the antecedent of the pronouns (“thou,” “thy”; LXX, su and sou) is YHWH (cf. Ps. 102:1, 12, 19, 22). In Hebrews 1:10, the Father directly addresses the Son as the YHWH of Psalm 102, the unchangeable Creator of the heavens and the earth (note the vocative kurie [“Lord”] appearing in both Heb. 1:10 and the LXX of Psalm 102:25 [101:26]). Although Hebrews 1:10-12 is a citation of Psalm 102:25-27—referring to YHWH (“Jehovah” throughout Ps. 102 in the DNKJB)—the DNKJB neglected to keep faithful to its translation principle of restoring the so-called name “Jehovah.” Again, as with the above examples, if the DNKJB were consistent, the beginning of Hebrew 1:10 would read: “And, Thou, LORD (Jehovah Ps. 102:25), in the beginning. . . .”

 

These and other examples show, as like the NWT, the DNKJB publishers (as with the NWT) are inconsistent to its policy of restoring the so-called Divine Name “Jehovah” into the NT. However, we are not suggesting that the DNKJB publishers share the same view as the JWs—for they do not. Passages rendered in the DNKJB such as John 1:1; 8:58; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:8; etc. are unchanged from that of the KJV in terms of accurately affirming the full deity of Christ.

But again, the fundamental problem here is the false premise held by the DNKJB publishers: “Almost every translator in the past 400 years has or have removed the Divine Name from ‘their’ Bibles.” In light of the vast number of biblical translations out there, the last thing that the church needs today is more translations. The church is starving for doctrine, not more translations. The DNKJB is an unreliable translation that prolongs a faulty view regarding the transmission of the NT text in the areas discussed above. While diligent pastors and teachers strive and labor devoting time and energy to the task of trying to elevate Christians doctrinally, encouraging them to be informative and “thinking” Christians, the erroneous views of the DNKJB, as with KJV Onlyism, obstruct that endeavor.

— Dr. Edward Dalcour

I

27 thoughts on ““The Divine Name King James Bible” (DNKJB)”

  2. Edward Dalcour says:

    I am not sure of the relevance between the article on DNKJB and your question. Frankly, I have no problem with the archaic English poorly transliterated term “Jehovah,” nor do I have a problem with an English biblical translation. Rather, I have an enormous problem with the patently false information and textually untrue assertions that the editors/translators of the DNKJB made.

  4. Edward Dalcour says:

    Hello Jan,
    Are you asking for more examples (“such as”) beyond the ones I provided?

  8. Jo says:

    Just to add to my previous comment. You say that the church needs more doctrines. Everything you need is written in the Bible. Why would you need to add or take away anything from the Bible and rely on your own understanding? The Bible tells us precisely not to do that.

  9. Wisdom says:

    Well said. I notice no one can give a valid reply to your comment. For the life of my I can’t understand why many use that futile argument. They destroy every name in the bible that has the letter “J”

  10. Edward Dalcour says:

    The modern English term “Jesus” is from the Latin Iesus, which is the transliteration of the Greek Iesous. Whereas Jehovah is not really a transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH. I do not have a problem with people using Jehovah, (esp. Christians using it in their dialogue with JWs for the purpose of evangelizing them), I have a problem with erroneous historical and textual assertions, as with the DNKJB and the Watchtower– both using the same bad-researched arguments.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Wow , It’s Obvious Jehovah’s Adversaries has a problem with Jehovah . So much so that when another organization ” Divine Name King James Bible , puts Jehovah’s Name back into the bible where it belongs they attack . Jehovah said in the Bible : ” They will have to know I am Jehovah.” The Bible Being Fullfilled !

  12. Edward Dalcour says:

    Incorrect. First, the NT authors did not use the late English term, “Jehovah” nor YHWH in any of their letters; God did not inspire them to do so.
    Second, the OT authors never used the late English term, “Jehovah” either. In fact, there was no “J” in English until the 16th cent. The letter “J” was the last letter added into the English alphabet; Hence, the 1611 KJV contained no “J.” Your assertion is self-refuting.

  14. Anonymous says:

    If the name JEHOVAH is wrong because of the letter “J”, what about the names Jesus, John, Jonah, Judah, Joshua, Jerusalem etc. that have the letter “J”?

    There is no letter “J” in the Hebrew alphabet because Hebrew and English are different languages ​​and alphabets. English is the international language, not Hebrew therefore, we do not use the letter Yod sound in pronouncing Hebrew words that are transliterated into English. All the letters in the English alphabet are not in the Hebrew alphabet, not just the letter J.

    If you want to reject the letter “J” because it is not in the Hebrew alphabet, to be reasonable you must reject all words and names in the English Bible that have the letter “J” and all the letters in the English alphabet because they are not in the Biblical Hebrew alphabet.

  15. Edward Dalcour says:

    I had already addressed this. Please go back and re-read the article. The chief problem: the DNKJB publishers assert (with no actual proof) that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH / Jehovah) was removed from the NT. That assertion is false.

    Not one early Greek NT manuscript (MS) contains it. In fact, as pointed out, at every OT citation where the Tetragrammaton appears, the NT authors would translated it as Kurios (or Theos)–not YHWH, Yahweh, or Jehovah. The fact that you provide NO textual evidence for a so-called removal of the Tetragram. as being in the NT, shows that you have not really have not studied this out in a meaningful way, you only asserted it to be true. So instead of complaining and making false claims- PROVE IT.

    In terms of the English term “Jesus,”- which deflects from the relevant issue, the “Jesus” was a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), which appears over 900 times in the NT– while YHWH or “Jehovah” appears in no early Greek MS.

  16. Edward Dalcour says:

    Incorrect.
    The hallmark of truth is consistency. Yet the “Truth” of the Watchtower (WT) historically has been a constant stream of changing official WT doctrines (such as the worship of Christ); false prophecies; flip-flops; presenting “New Light” only to go back again to the old light et al.

    You cannot trust the WT.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Actually the Tetragrammaton DOES appear in the Septuagint and it IS correct when Hebrew Scriptures are being quoted to use it such as at Matthew 4 where Jesus quoting from Moses replies to Satan : ” It is JEHOVAH your God you must worship and it is to Him alone you must render sacred service.”
    Jesus said he made his Father’s name known, and it is God’s expressed will that the entire earth will be filled “with the knowledge of Jehovah”. (Isaiah 11) The bickering over how God’s name was pronounced thousands of years ago is a smoke screen for the fact that trinitarians hate God’s unique Name and replacing it to its rightful place makes the trinity doctrine far less defensible. God bless.

  18. Edward Dalcour says:

    Only in a few places and only in some eds. of the LXX, the Tetragrammaton does appear; no one is arguing against that. Rather, the chief objection against the JWs’ NWT and the “Diving Name KJV” is that: there are absolutely NO early Greek MSS that contain it, including Matt. 4:10.

    All NT Greek MSS containing Matt. 4:10 (citing Deut. 6:13) read: … γέγραπται γάρ Κύριον τὸν θεόν [Kurios ton Theon, “Lord the God”] σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. The 4th cent. Codex 01 being the earliest MS that contains the passage.

    You claimed Matt. 4:10 does. So then produce the Greek NT MS that contains the Tetragrammaton at Matt. 4:10 (citing Deut. 6:13).

    Further, the NT authors primarily cited from the Greek LXX OT, not the Hebrew. But in spite of the OT source from which they cited (LXX, Heb., Sam. Torah, Targum), as the evidence shows, they did not use the Tetragrammaton—they would translate the Tetragram as Kurios (Lord) or Theos (God).

    Again, as already pointed out, not one early NT Greek MS contain the Tetragrammaton.

  19. AnalyticallyRational says:

    Edward, Your argument is based on an argument from silence. The fact that no surviving Greek NT manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton does not prove it was never there, only that it is not preserved in later copies. You’re leaning heavily on manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus, but these are centuries removed from the autographs, therefore, represent a standardised transmission stage.
    Textual criticism does not allow you to say “This is what the 4th century text says, therefore this is what the original authors wrote.” Yet Edward, that is effectively how your argument goes.

    Edward, you’re selectively presenting evidence, as you claim that the LXX uniformly used κύριος is demonstrably false. Manuscripts like Papyrus Fouad 266 show that the Tetragrammaton existed בתוך Greek texts. So the textual environment of the NT period was not uniform in the way you’re suggesting.

    You’re treating later standardised MSS as if they represent the original form of the text, which is a methodological error. You’re committing the textbook example of arguing beyond the evidence. Just as importantly, you demand proof from others, while not meeting his own burden. You assert, “The NT authors would translate YHWH as Kurios (or Theos)” so demonstrate this from autographs. Yet you cannot demonstrate from the autographs–as they don’t exist–the divine name was excluded, only that in later copies it does. Therefore, evidence shows what survives, not necessarily what was originally written.

    Even this stronger argument, is not as decisive as you believe. You’re arguement that If “Jehovah” is restored in some NT citations, it should be restored consistently in all similar citations, may expose inconsistency in application, however, you’re assuming that every OT quotation functions identically in the NT.
    That’s not necessarily true, because NT authors sometimes quote loosely or sometimes apply texts typologically or even sometimes shift referents.

    Edward, you display selective skepticism. Your confirmation bias acts out skepticism of any claim that the Tetragrammaton existed in the NT, yet refuses to be skeptical enough of your own assumption that it never did.

    Your ad hominem is just rhetorical posturing than analytical and you discredit others as “uneducated” while all along, flaws in your reasoning rely on assumptions, and incomplete evidence. You’ve spent time and energy refuting positions that no one holds while presenting your conclusions as absolute truths, thus your posts are essentially a waste of time from a rational, textual perspective, as you’re debating positions that don’t exist from DNKJV or NWT translators.

  20. Edward Dalcour says:

    You deflect:

    Since the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim (as the DNKJB and NWT does) that the Tetragrammaton appears in the Greek NT MSS, you claim of “argument from silence” only shows your claim, again, as empty upside-down assertion not an argument.
    You rant about me using Codex 01 as some kind of basis for an objective analysis on the DNKJB (or NWT) – that is false. I never once made that argument —you need to read carefully to what was actually written.

    The bottom line: You nor any JW or anyone else has yet to produce the evidence of what is being claimed – viz., that any early Greek NT MS contained the Tetragrammaton (at any place).

    The last person that posted who claimed that the Tetragram was originally recorded in the Greek NT at Matt. 4:10 (Jesus citing Deut. 6:13). Like you, he provided not one fragment of evidence- only made assertions. He (and others) exemplify how confused and willing to accept inaccurate information, which not only opposes recognized textual scholarship and actual MSS verifiable evidence, but blindly oppose basic factual evidence – for the sake of tradition.

    Please do not bother responding with the same tired unrelated complaints and assertions – with zero proof to support your erroneous claims. Nothing more to say here. Reread the original article and/or get some standard works on MSS / textual criticism. I can suggest some good works in this area if you are interested.

  22. Edward Dalcour says:

    Another response? Why?

    So you are not satisfied with your former attempts to “refute” the challenges presented – to either the original article and / or my last response.

    So, predictively, another one would be strike three.

    Thus, I am not interested to interact with your complaints and rants on other issues other than the main challenge of the false assertion of the DNKJB (and NWT), which you and others still have still failed to specifically address.

    You referenced an isolated fragment of the LXX of Deut. (Fouad, P. 266) containing the Tetragram. From there, you commit a genetic fallacy – making an erroneous conclusion regarding the Greek NT. To be sure, a straw man diversion; as well, I had already indicated the few places the LXX contained the Tetragram – again, read carefully to what was actually stated.

    Clearly, your argument does not follow: Even if every ed. of the LXX retained the Hebrew Tetragram (which no standard ed. does – they contain Kurios and/ or Theos – most, as nomina sacra), it does not PROVE that the original NT retained it.

    This observable and irrefutable fact clearly indicates: God directed the NT authors to use the Greek Kurios (and / or Theos) when translating the Hebrew Tetragram, and not YHWH (or any of its variants).

    So Instead of providing a meaningful response to the main objection and challenge, you merely provide long-winded complaints, irrelevance, and claiming ad hom attacks (which I did not) and other obvious deflections.

    Again: What early Greek NT MS contains the Hebrew Tetragram? You can’t answer because it is NOT there. So, you’ll need to take your complaint up with God, and not me – since I did not write the NT.

    So again, we are not interested in more fo the same, unattended irrelevant assertions on other issues, but the main one.

    Nothing more to say.

  23. Edward Dalcour says:

    You said: “Actually the Tetragrammaton DOES appear in the Septuagint.”

    ?? Uhh, who is arguing against that? I have never stated that. I have always pointed out in many articles regarding the LXX, where the Tetragrammaton indeed appears. Although it only appears in a few isolated places in nonstandard LXX fragments (e.g., Fouad, p. 266). However, to argue from that, to assert that the early Greek NT MSS contains the Tetragram, would be a genetic fallacy. To be sure, a straw man. There is are absolutely NO examples found.

    The fact is, in spite of the OT source from which the NT authors cited, (whether, the LXX, Hebrew, Sam. Torah, Targum), as the evidence shows, they did not use the Tetragram.—they would translate the Tetragram as Kurios (Lord) or Theos (God).

    Not sure if you read the original article carefully.

  25. Edward Dalcour says:

    Yes, but technically no.

    The 1611 KJV, contained IEHOVA, while “Jehovah” was written in later editions of the KJV. The letter “J” (the last letter created in the English language) was introduced in 1524 by Gian Giorgio Trissino to distinguish the consonant “J” sound from the vocalic “I.”

    Hence, the letter “J” was not normally used the English language until arond the 1600’s. Thus, the 1611, for example, had Iew, Iesus, Ioshua, Ioanna, Iohn et al., (no “J’s”), for the later spelling of Jew, Jesus, Joshua, Joanna, John et al. and yes, IEHOVA for “Jehovah.”

  26. Sun says:

    Just my thoughts after reading the comments, the person who commented on Matthew 4:10 didn’t say that a greek manuscript was preserved with the tetragrammaton . Rather he said that the septuagint included the tetragrammaton and since jesus quoted Deuteronmy 5:9/ 6:13 then we know logically that it sound and would be there. No matter whether a greek manuscript has been preserved or not. Jesus clearly taught his father’s name thus hin saying he made his father’s ‘NAME ‘ Known. And his Father’s Name manifest. . Not a title. Lord , God etc. . We kno ps 83 18 clearly teaches us what God name is . . Jehovah.
    Case closed

  27. Edward Dalcour says:

    Please read the thread again.

    The poster claimed: “the Tetragrammaton DOES appear in the Septuagint [Deut. 6:13] and it IS correct when Hebrew Scriptures are being quoted to use it such as at Matthew 4.”

    If you had read my response, I had pointed out that NO standard edition of the LXX contains the Tetragrammaton at Deut. 6:13.

    As pointed out over and over, aside from a few fragments (P266), as the evidence shows, the inspired biblical authors in both the OT and NT, translated the Tetragrammaton as Κύριος (“Lord”) or Θεὸς (“God”)—not YHWH and certainly not the late and badly transliterated, “Jehovah.”

    Further, you are simply wrong. It is a word fallacy to assume that “NAME” (Heb. Shem, or Gk. onoma) esp. when referring to God is by necessity a proper name. Rather, authority, power, characteristics. For example, in Isa. 9:6, do you really think, like a Oneness advocates, that “Father” was the Son’s NAME?

    God was known as many “names” and titles. For another example, note Zech. 14:9 (lit.): “The YHWH will then be king over all the earth. In that day, it shall be YHWH Echad and His NAME, Echad” [‘name, שֵׁם, shem].”

    Many examples can be shown in the OT (Heb. and LXX) and NT, as to the proper meaning of “name.” Please consult standard Hebrew lexical – linguistic sources for a better understanding of the predominate semantic of shem, onoma (“name”).

Join the Discussion!