Where does the NT tell us to name the name of Jehovah?

[Giannis Diamantis]

Hey Eoin Joyce ...  still this work? ... I had to go for a wile to make some money ... how much the WT pay you?

[Manuel Boyet Enicola]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 0:11 PM, Shiwiii said:

What proof is there of this statement of yours? All of the early manuscripts do not contain the name jehovah. None. 

A quotation of the Greek septuigent still does not contain "jehovah". When it is quoted of Jesus, the nwt omits this and adds "lord" when applied to Him. 

Put you proof out here so we can discuss it.

Did you opened the link?  That was the proof!

Anyway, to make it convenient for you, here it is again, just click on it:  http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html 

 

[Shiwiii]

6 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Did you opened the link?  That was the proof!

Anyway, to make it convenient for you, here it is again, just click on it:  http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html 

 

It seems as though you assume that the Septuagint and the NT are the same. They are not. The Septuagint is the OT written in Greek. Now one has to ask themselves when and why the Septuagint was written.  It was written so that the new Greek Christians could read the OT. 

Your link only proves that the Septuagint contained the tetragramatton.  I'm not saying it doesnt, but what I'm saying is the oldest NT manuscripts do not contain "jehovah".

Good try, but you'll have to do better than that. 

[JW Insider]

On 5/28/2016 at 11:33 AM, Shiwiii said:

It seems as though you assume that the Septuagint and the NT are the same.

I don't see at all where Manuel Boyet Enicola said or implied that at all. In fact he very accurately stated the reason for his position and it matches the point made in the link. (ref'd at end of this post)

 

The link he provided is actually some very good research in my opinion. I would admit that I think that we sometimes overstate the importance of the idea that a few copies of the LXX (Septuagint) contain at least a near equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. Unfortunately, it's also true that this same fact can be made into a good argument that the NT did not contain the Tetragrammaton. And of course, there is also the point that is often made that Jehovah might have been able to protect his name in the Hebrew and some translations of the Hebrew, but for some reason Jehovah could not protect his name in the Greek Scriptures themselves. Since this is an impossible proposition that Jehovah could not protect it, it leads to the idea that Jehovah would not protect his name in the Greek Scriptures.

That problem might still be overcome by discovered texts, but it seems more and more unlikely. However, even here, if we assume that Jehovah, referring to the Father, WOULD not protect his name in the text, even this can be explained from Scripture, in that Jehovah wanted Jesus to obtain a name above every other name. The most common LXX copies also do not have that name. Isn't it possible that Jehovah took advantage of the superstitions about using the Tetragrammaton (YHWH/JHVH/etc)? These superstitions may have worked to the benefit of the spread of Christianity during a time when Jewish elements in the early congregations might have otherwise been able to make an argument that Jehovah's name should be used INSTEAD of the name of Jesus. Personally, I believe it was an important part of the early spread of Christianity, but this does not mean that Jehovah was not also taking out "a people for his name."

I do not argue that the pronunciation of the name Jehovah (or even the name of Jesus for that matter) has anything to do with understanding the importance of the name. I believe that the "name" refers primarily to the reputation, and that it doesn't matter how close we get to pronouncing the names correctly. But we should still understand the difference between God and Christ, and giving them a different name or at least a different reference is very important if we believe that they refer to two different entities. We should definitely not denigrate the name of the Father by the way we use or confuse the name of the Son. There are many similar examples from Scripture, but I like the point that our old friend JTRook often made from Revelation 1:1:

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. (Revelation 1:1)

Remember that Revelation was written after Jesus was no longer in the form of a man on earth.

On 5/27/2016 at 0:04 AM, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Did Jehovah really appeared in the NT text? The probable answer is yes, because the apostles quoted freely from the Hebrew bible or its Greek equivalent, the Septuagint.  And old extant copies of the Septuagint contain the tetragramatton in Hebrew letters amid the Greek text.  http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html 

 

[Shiwiii]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see at all where Manuel Boyet Enicola said or implied that at all. In fact he very accurately stated the reason for his position and it matches the point made in the link. (ref'd at end of this post)

My point was that the LXX is not the NT and just because the LXX has it in it doesn't mean that the NT did. The link supposes that because the LXX does then the NT must have. This is the position that Manuel Boyet Enicola has also taken, but it is unsubstantiated. The argument is based on the LXX to support the NT containing YHWH. There is no evidence to show that the NT contained YHWH. 

 

I do understand your point, and I apologize to you and Manuel Boyet Enicola on that. Nowhere does Manuel Boyet Enicola state that he believed that the LXX is the NT. Rather, Manuel Boyet Enicola believes that because the LXX contained YHWH, the NT must have also. 

[JW Insider]

There probably are Witnesses who believe that the LXX is partially the same as the NT at least in the sense that as a written document, the NT quoted the LXX instead of the the Hebrew original. The theory goes that if the NT writer needed an exact quote of the OT and was writing in Greek, he would therefore have quoted the LXX accurately. If that portion of the LXX contained a form of the Tetragrammaton at the point it was quoted, the idea is that the NT writer would never have deleted the name himself if it were found in the original LXX.

The link is a portion of a larger website with a Jewish-Christian philosophy that defends using the Divine Name within Christianity. The page that Manuel linked to does NOT claim that the divine name should be used in the NT, only that it is used in the LXX, and probably used in all the older pre-2nd-century BCE manuscripts.

That last part might not be true. I find that a much more complete discussion that is not based on a bias towards finding the name is found here:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/KyriosorTetragram(1984).pdf

It really is not known which versions of the LXX are more original or more accurate -- not compared with the Hebrew OT, but only within the context of comparing various LXX mss. One of the very best ancient scholars of the original languages was Origen, who produced the Hexapla. But he was also biased towards believing that any manuscript that had the "Tetragram" in it (or symbols representing it) were more original. As JWs we may also have our general biases about which version is older and therefore more original among all the LXX mss.

I find the argument in the 17 page research document linked above to be very convincing, especially after reaching page 11. The link that Manuel provided is likely incorrect in the portion claiming that the original LXX contained the Tetragrammaton. But it is correct in pointing out these two major examples with the images shown. (Other examples of LXX mss include the letters "pi-iota-pi-iota" which indicate a closer copy of the Hebrew square-letter style, not the much older paleo style from 700 to 1,000 years earlier.) 

The problem with the paleo-style instead of the square style Hebrew found within the LXX mss, is actually an evidence that the word was NOT to be pronounced, which is a bit different from our (JW) idea about the actual reason it was put there. Putting it in unreadable characters was actually the same idea that the Hebrew OT mss would accomplish by replacing the vowel points with either the points for Adonai (Lord) or Elohim (God) in the MT mss.

The fact that commentators discussed the LXX text with the assumption that the word "kyriou" (Lord) had already replaced the divine name makes our JW argumentation more difficult. They are almost the same as if a commentator quoted Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said unto my Lord..." and then wondered about the confusion identifying the two "Lords." If such a discussion was discovered, it would surely mean that the original could never have said, "YHWH said until my Lord..."  These are the kinds of discussions that first century Jewish commentators like Philo brought up in his writings. Also the consistent grammar that would have surrounded the word Lord is even more evidence that the word had already been replaced in the original LXX, not at a later time.

 

[Shiwiii]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The theory goes

This is the point, it is only a theory, there is no support historically for this and until some is found, then it remains a theory. A guess, an assumption and we cannot base the word of God on an assumption. either it is or it isn't there can be no maybe. What we do know is that the pronunciation was lost, how or why is also a guess. Did God allow that? obviously. If it were so important and a matter of true worship according to God, then I would have to believe that God would have preserved it. He preserved the rest of the Bible, why not this one thing?

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This is the point, it is only a theory

Shiwiii,

The Nicene Creed was also a theory. Yet, because that particular theory was found to have not enough scriptural evidence, someone must have added the following words to the text of 1 John 5:7-8: "There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" and the exposition by the "Church Fathers" on similar expressions have influenced the Trinity Doctrine for over a thousand years now. Notice that https://www.bible.com/bible/70/1jn.5 for example, says that this only appears in "late manuscripts." But that's different from adding the name "Jehovah" or some other representation of the "Divine Name" to the NT.

The reason is that it isn't just a theory, but it's a fact that the word Lord sometimes referred to the Father, and sometimes to the Son, and sometimes to the many "lords" on earth, or even a title that Sarah might call Abraham, etc., etc. 

(1 Peter 3:6) 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. . . .

So, with or without the direct evidence that "YHWH" was found in the original NT mss, a translator still has the obligation to try to translate the proper sense of the original. For hundreds of years, some translations of the NT by Jewish Christians (in Hebrew), therefore, used the name (Jehovah or YHWH or The Name) in translating some texts where the translator was sure the original referred to Jehovah even though they were translating from the word "Lord" in the Greek. Many readers of Hebrew were comfortable with that rendering because they knew that the original OT quotations (that were referenced in portions of the NT) contained the divine name in the original Hebrew.

In fact, there is an article in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament with a section called "Sacred Name Bibles" that lists several translations that have put the divine name into their translations.

Just as with Hebrew-reading Jewish Christians, JWs are also quite comfortable understanding "Jehovah" to mean "The Father." If "Jehovah" or any other good representation of the original Tetragrammaton can represent what was found in a NT quotation of the OT, then it is not an improper translation of "Lord" in those cases, because "Lord" was already a word that translated the "Tetragrammaton." 

I don't see any evidence that the NT ever contained the Tetragrammaton or a version of "Jehovah" in the original. The Watchtower doesn't claim that any such direct evidence exists either. But that doesn't mean that using the name in a translation is totally improper. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that the original Greek NT mss may have contained the name, because there are actually a couple of obscure pieces of evidence that show it was possible. (Not just the LXX.) Without any direct evidence, however, we must consider the stronger possibility the name was never there. But even here, there are a couple things to consider:

1. Was it by God's purpose and direction that 200 years AFTER the last portions of the Hebrew Bible were written, that superstitious beliefs should begin creeping in that began causing the divine name to stop being pronounced and not be written?
2. If it was by God's purpose, does that really mean that Christians are never to read or use the name "Jehovah" again? Even when reading or quoting the OT? Does this mean that the KJV was wrong to include it spelled out several times in their translation? Was it wrong for the Jerusalem translation to use Jahve 6,000+ times, then update it to Yahweh. 
3. Is it possible that it was a local Greek language preference because of:
   1. The current need to highlight Jesus as the founder of the Christian religion to people who were not aware of the name Jehovah.
   2. To overcome the difficulty of offending Jewish Christian believers during a time when the name was still steeped in superstition.
   3. The similarity between Jahve and Jove. (And the similarity of pronunciation.)

On the last point about Jove, you may recall that Jove was the archaic Latin name for their "God, the Father" as he was the chief god, sometimes called Father Jove. In Greek, Jove was called Zeus, from which the Latin and Greek words Deus, and Theos derive. Also, wikipedia says this under Jove and under Zeus:

Jupiter, also Jove (Latin: Iuppiter [ˈjʊppɪtɛr], gen. Iovis [ˈjɔwɪs]), is the god of sky and thunder and king of the gods in Ancient Roman religion andmythology. Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras, until Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire.

and under the heading Zeus:

Zeus . . . He was respected as an allfather who was chief of the gods^[9] and assigned the others to their roles:^[10] "Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father, and all the gods rise in his presence."^[11][12] He was equated with many foreign weather gods, permitting Pausanias to observe "That Zeus is king in heaven is a saying common to all men".^[13] 

When the problems of superstition and the problems of language usage went away, the name "Jehovah" became common especially in the centuries of Christian denominations after the 1500's. So it is now even clearer to use a name like Jehovah with reference to the specific "Lord" found in quotes from the OT (even via the LXX). If the meaning is now clear, then its use in translation is proper.

It's true that it was also used a few times in the NWT where there is NO quote, and I think this would be better handled through a footnote, but, again, it is only where the translators deemed that a reference was being made to Jehovah usually when the language was likely being derived from OT usage, even if not a direct quote. There are also (admittedly) a couple places where it appears that the name was used in the OT quotation but the NWT has chosen NOT to translate it for fear that it would lead to confusion caused by the Trinity doctrine. (Again I believe the NWT should have been consistent, and any possible confusion could be explained in a footnote, such as the Jerusalem Bible and other study Bibles do.)

In summary, I don't think any JWs are claiming that the NWT is perfect, only that it is a translation that incorporates informed choices, even if those choices might seem incorrect. Those who make the most use of the NWT (Witnesses) are given a lot of research, training and background information to be able to explain those translation choices.

[Shiwiii]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Nicene Creed was also a theory. Yet, because that particular theory was found to have not enough scriptural evidence, someone must have added the following words to the text of 1 John 5:7-8: "There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" and the exposition by the "Church Fathers" on similar expressions have influenced the Trinity Doctrine for over a thousand years now.

you are arguing for something with another topic all together. That doesn't work. You cannot introduce something else that has no relevance to the topic we are discussing, especially if you think it is also a theory, to support this. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see any evidence that the NT ever contained the Tetragrammaton or a version of "Jehovah" in the original.

and this is the point, no one else has found it either! It is inserted by men who WANT it to be there.  That is what this discussion is all about there is no evidence to support YHWH in the NT. There really is no arguing about it. It is inserted by man to fit their theology. 

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower doesn't claim that any such direct evidence exists either.

then why do they insert it? to fit their theology, not God's.

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• Was it by God's purpose and direction that 200 years AFTER the last portions of the Hebrew Bible were written, that superstitious beliefs should begin creeping in that began causing the divine name to stop being pronounced and not be written?
• If it was by God's purpose, does that really mean that Christians are never to read or use the name "Jehovah" again? Even when reading or quoting the OT? Does this mean that the KJV was wrong to include it spelled out several times in their translation? Was it wrong for the Jerusalem translation to use Jahve 6,000+ times, then update it to Yahweh. 
• Is it possible that it was a local Greek language preference because of:
  1. The current need to highlight Jesus as the founder of the Christian religion to people who were not aware of the name Jehovah.
  2. To overcome the difficulty of offending Jewish Christian believers during a time when the name was still steeped in superstition.
  3. The similarity between Jahve and Jove. (And the similarity of pronunciation.)

while I can see your points here, it is still all speculation. On the same note,

Could it be that God proclaimed to the wt to put it there?

Could it be that Satan had the wt put it there? 

Did Genghis Khan ride in and destroy all Bibles and write it himself? 

see these types of questions mean nothing as they are unsubstantiated. Without any historical support these are merely guesses. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it is now even clearer to use a name like Jehovah with reference to the specific "Lord" found in quotes from the OT (even via the LXX). If the meaning is now clear, then its use in translation is proper.

If this is the case and you feel that it is proper, then one MUST adhere to it totally. If bringing the divine name over from the OT it has to be consistent and not when it suits the need of men. See that is where the men who insert it do not want to go. For instance at Romans 10:13 is a direct quote from Joel 2:32, but it is applied to Jesus. If we were to insert the divine name it would say clearly that Jesus IS Jehovah. Men who want to insert the name are reluctant to do it here because it will disrupt up their theology. 

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In summary, I don't think any JWs are claiming that the NWT is perfect, only that it is a translation that incorporates informed choices, even if those choices might seem incorrect. Those who make the most use of the NWT (Witnesses) are given a lot of research, training and background information to be able to explain those translation choices.

unfortunately they do grasp tightly to this  interpretation (NWT), when they should have stuck with the KJV if anything. The failure of the interpreters to have any sort of Biblical language skills is a disservice to those who hold tightly to this NWT. I do not feel that they even cared, it was only to push their theology upon the rank and file and fool them by pointing to their interpretation of the Bible to prove their case, even though they knew it was erroneous from the start. 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You cannot introduce something else that has no relevance to the topic we are discussing

True. I shouldn't have done that. When I wrote it I was thinking it was relevant to the idea of comparing how and why people have added to the Bible text based on their understanding at the time. The theory had also come up about how Moses had added the name YHWH to the text in an explanatory way when referring to times before the name YHWH had been made known to Abraham.

The subtext of most of the concerns about putting the name Jehovah (or any representation of the Tetragram) is usually based on the idea about whether the focus on the divinity of Christ was supposed to have overshadowed any previously known divine names for God. I wanted to make clear that this is NOT the same as adding totally new ideas to the underlying Greek while translating. If anything it's the same as adding a totally old idea to the underlying Greek text, because we think it helps current readers understand the meaning, where simply using Lord would be confusing. (Confusing to some, at least.) Adding the divine name for God in place of Lord, where the quote was ultimately from a Hebrew Bible that contained it, wouldn't seem to be a problem if it were any other name.

I understand the problem of not writing or pronouncing God's name to have been based on a kind of historical "glitch." For example, what if all the "new" French documents about Napoleon from 1814 to about 1830 had replaced the name "Napoleon" [Bonaparte] with merely "L'empereur" ["The Emperor"] for either positive or negative reasons. A strict translation (French to English) would keep the words "The Emperor" but one could surely make a case for translating with word "Napoleon" in a later time when more clarity might require such identification. 

But what if those "new" documents sometimes quoted from prior "older" documents written between 1804 and 1814 when the original "older" documents had actually used the term" Napoleon," but the new documents were replacing even those quotations with "The Emperor"? What would you think of a translator who translated "L'Empereur" as "The Emperor" in every case EXCEPT where the writer was quoting an older document where it was possible to look up the original of that older document and see that it said "Napoleon" in those cases? If those original documents were extremely well-known, then it might even be BETTER to translate "Napoleon," n'est pas?

I believe that this is a fair analogy to describe what the NWT has done. In general, they have only added the name where the well-known older original documents used the name instead of a title. (I understand that there are a couple exceptions this practice in the NWT, but only a few of the 200+. You brought one of them up in your post.)

Therefore when Eion mentioned the following Scriptures, I think it was the correct answer to your question, especially since the original Hebrew of Joel 2:32 uses the name "YHWH".

On 5/25/2016 at 11:56 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

When it quotes from Joel 2:32:"Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." 

at Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"

and Rom 10:13: "For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”"

I know you covered a lot of other points, but the original idea of the question, I assumed, was so that this answer from Joel 2:32 could be turned to a question about why the NT of the NWT uses the divine name where Joel was quoted or referenced.

[Shiwiii]

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know you covered a lot of other points, but the original idea of the question, I assumed, was so that this answer from Joel 2:32 could be turned to a question about why the NT of the NWT uses the divine name where Joel was quoted or referenced.

 

It is, however the quote is applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13. The chapter testifies to Jesus and describes Him as Lord in verse 9. Then goes on to quote the OT and apply it to Jesus in verses 11 and 13. The dishonesty done by the writers of the NWT have changed the text to insert, not just the name, but the Father when He is not who is spoken of here. This is just one of the reasons against the insertion of YHWH.  

[JW Insider]

Admittedly this is based on the Watchtower's understanding of the relationship between God and Christ. Elsewhere you you claim that Christ is 100% God and 100% man, and obviously this is not something we agree upon. The Father does not have a God, because he is God. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ has a God, namely the Father. The Father is greater than the Lord Jesus Christ. The Christ pleased God by what he did. Christ belongs to God. 

 

You know that non-Trinitarians and Trinitarians can go back and forth on Scripture quoting all day, and I don't intend to. But I will just limit myself to one book of the Bible to make this point about the relationship between God and Christ.

(1 Corinthians 1:3) 3 May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible often says God has a Son, it never says God has a Father.

(1 Corinthians 1:9) 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

(1 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Notice the comparison:

(1 Corinthians 3:23) 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God.

(1 Corinthians 2:16) 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah [Lord, Isaiah 40:13, YHWH] , so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

If Jesus were Jehovah then why would Paul draw a distinguishing comparison about not knowing YHWH from Isaiah 40:13, yet adding "But we do have the mind of Christ"?

Why does Paul need to emphasize that only the Father is God?

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) 4 Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

(1 Corinthians 11:3) . . .But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.

(1 Corinthians 15:23-28) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

 

If Jesus is 100% God, then why is the Bible always so careful to show that Jesus fully represents God to us, but that he is never called "God" anywhere, with only some possible exceptions in the book of John. I'm sure you think we misinterpret these two or three verses in John, the same way we believe you probably misinterpret the hundreds of verses such as those taken from 1 Corinthians, above. We understand it to be saying that "The Word" represents God so closely that he becomes God to us, probably in the same relationship that Moses had with Aaron. Aaron, in effect, spoke for the God, Moses.

(Exodus 4:16) 16 He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him.

(Exodus 7:1, 2) 7 Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God to Pharʹaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. 2 You are to repeat everything that I will command you, and Aaron your brother will speak. . .

Therefore, I am not trying to say that John 1:1 is only using the poetic license to call the Word, God. And I'm not one to be concerned about whether it is capitalized or not. (There was no capitalization required in Greek, anyway.)

(John 1:14-18) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. . . . 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.

Still, even in John there is a kind of hesitation to speak of Jesus as "fully" God: "no man has seen God" but "the only-begotten god... has explained him." To me, it's as if it's saying that -- for all intents and purposes as far as humans can perceive -- the Word is so close to a full representation of God that we can now know God fully through the manifestation of the Son of God, who is not God, but for our purposes, might as well be because he has done such a perfect job representing him.

In other words, I don't believe that Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians need to be so far off from understanding each other. Both of us try to manage our interpretation of all the Scriptures, and I don't think we should blame Trinitarians as much as we often do for their interpretation, but I, naturally, don't think that we should be blamed for our interpretation either.

 

The reason I went through all of that [off-topic discussion of beliefs about the Trinity or Christ's divinity] is because we see such a close relationship between the Father and the Son. Therefore, we don't see the conflict in NT writers choosing verses that were originally about YHWH (Jehovah) and using them to tell us something about the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, Jesus said that he made God's "name" known. Jesus' name contains the name "Jehovah" in it's very meaning: "YHWH is salvation." It was the will of YHWH (Jehovah) that Jesus' name be known far and wide, above all other names on earth. But "name" also means reputation, and Jesus made known the reputation of YHWH by becoming the "power of God" and the "wisdom of God." Since there is only, to us, one God, the Father, (1 Cor 8:6)  this means that acknowledging the name of Jesus is also the same as bending to the power and wisdom of the Father. I understand that the verse in Joel has been used with reference to a context about Jesus Christ, but it also doesn't bother me that the NWT more accurately reflects of the original Hebrew of Joel's words. It would mean the same to me either way.