Micah Ong

What gives them the right to insert YHWH so that the the scriptures are manipulated to suit the their doctrine?

The Librarian

Please consider starting a new topic and possibly referring to this post. This topic is now enormous. Thank you.

Message added by The Librarian

Recommended Posts

Yes our obedience to our almighty heavenly father is definitely an individual thing but why associate with an organisation that holds highly God's name, yet uses a hybrid name "Jehovah" which is made using the Tetragrammaton and then inserting vowel points using the vowels of Adonai?  This was popularised around the 1200's by a Catholic monk Raymundus Martini.

Imagine God's name was Tony and then every stopped using it and then 1500 years later they forgot his name but knew it had the letters TNY.  They then inserted a,o,i and get the name Tanoyi - a totally different name.

We know that no vowel points were made known to us and therefore it is a made up name.  The army and over 50 religions use that same name.  If God's name is so holy why just guess what his name is?  

The Christian Greek scriptures do not even contain the divine name.  Run a search on "Jehovah" in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation on the JW Library app and you will find it comes back with '0' occurrences. 

Yet the Watchtower takes it upon themselves to take away and add to what was already established in Koine Greek the original.

We know God's name ie his love, reputation, nature, power, plan ect is what was and is still important.  YHWH was the name he made known to his covenanted people back then.  So it seems that if he wanted that name to be known with the new covenant then he would have made it known all the way down today.

It is no secret that the New World Translation Translation uses Johannes Greber to back up doctrine in the NWT.                   

Johannes Greber was a Catholic priest turned spiritist who translated the New Testament with the help of God’s “spirits.” He used his wife, who was a spirit-medium, to channel spirits to help translate difficult verses in the bible. His experiences with spirits and their communications with him are related in his book Communication with the Spirit World, published in 1932.

Wouldn't he be considered to be apostate!?

The Word
A translation by a former Roman Catholic Priest, Johannes Greber, and (1937 edition) renders the second appearance of the word “god” in the sentence as “a god.”
– Aid to Bible Understanding 1971, p. 1669

"Keep testing whether you are in the faith"

Agape Love

John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

Share this post


Link to post

If you knew Hebrew or Arabic you will know that the consonants alone (without vowels) stand for a specific meaning. The letters KTB stand for the word Book in arabic. More than ten words can be made out of these consonants by changing the points/diacritics/vowels and all relate to books, places where one finds books, or writing.

Similarly - in Hebrew - (related Semitic language) we find that the verb from these 4 letters JHWH carries the causative form of the verb which means "I shall prove to be"  and the noun would mean - he causes - in causative form - to become.   So the Vowels are not that important but the CoNSoNaNTS always are! - unlike other languages.  This is why Hebrew and related languages are all written only with consonants - the diacritics are added for readers who are beginners only.

We say JaHWeH but in other translations Jehovah (or something close to this - depending on the language) is acceptable. The translation of Jesus is actually Jasu-3a/Jeshua but when we speak everyone knows that you are acknowledging Jesus. It is the acknowledgement of the name that counts.

Jehovah knows the heart of each individual and he is the one who can see if we acknowledge HIS name and we believe that this name (which is associated with his final purpose for the earth, Jesus' sacrifice and also associated with His wonderful qualities), as set out in the Bible, is the true god which we as individuals acknowledge.

 

Many of the old languages such as the Greek do not have the indefinite article "a" - just like Arabic.  So one ads letters when one speaks of "the" or there is a declension...... something in the word changes to show  a different form.   John 1:1  Theon and Theos.... are two different forms of the word god.....in one the word "a " must be added in the English because English has this word "a" in it but it is this what is meant by Theos - so one does not need a medium to tell you this - all one needs is a bit of knowledge of the language.

 

declension: (in the grammar of Latin, Greek, and certain other languages) the variation of the form of a noun, pronoun, or adjective, by which its grammatical case, number, and gender are identified

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

@Arauna the point is that the Watchtower Organisation as changed the bible to fit doctrine. Rev 22:18 "I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll"

Jehovah is not found in the New Testament!

Evidence it did not Appear

There is much evidence that YHWH never appeared in the New Testament. Most obvious is the absence of YHWH in any of the 5,000 discovered Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Important evidence is also contained in the writings of the early Christians. These are referred to as the Apostolic Fathers and Ante Nicene Fathers who wrote from the times of the Apostles to the third century. This includes Polycarp, who studied with the Apostle John and Justin Martyr who lived from 110 to 165 A.D. Their extensive writings are a source of information on the early Church, including the formulation of the Trinity doctrine and the development of the Bible Canon. Yet in their writings there is no discussion about the removal of God's name from the Scriptures. If a global conspiracy existed to remove YHWH from the all New Testament manuscripts debate most certainly would have occurred between these writers.

Furthermore, their works do not contain YHWH when quoting from New Testament Scriptures. For example, in Against Heresies, Irenaeus quotes Matthew 1:20; 4:10 and Romans 11:34, each time using the word Lord instead of Jehovah. Clement, mentioned at Philippians 4:3, wrote the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians between 75 and 110 A.D. and used Kyrios when quoting from the Old Testament. (See 1 Clement 13:5 which quotes Ezekiel 33:11.)

Justin Martyr converted to Christianity around 150 A.D., a mere 50 years after the Bible was completed. He had access to early copies of the New Testament yet in The Second Apology, Chapter VI he wrote;

"But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions."

Justin Martyr shows that Christians referred to the Father by appellations, but not a name such as Jehovah.

That the Holy Name was not being uttered in Jesus day is attested to by first century historian Josephus:

"Whereupon God declared to him [Moses] his holy Name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say anymore. " (Josephus; Antiquities 2:12:4)

As we do not have the actual original copies that the Bible writers penned it is always possible to say that YHWH may have appeared in the original copy. However the weight of evidence shows that YHWH was not in the original copies. If the Watchtower claims God allowed men to edit out his name "YHWH" and that no proof has been found to its existence to this day, how can a person have confidence in any of the New Testament?

The New Testament is one of the most attested ancient documents. The reason a person places trust in it is their conviction that God ensured the Bible has come down to us accurately. If use of the name Jehovah is so important one must wonder why the word never appears in any existing New Testament documents. If God inspired and protected the Bible, keeping the Bible accurate throughout all history why does his name not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts or in the very first Bible, the 5th century Latin Vulgate?

Conclusion

The Watchtower presents the following paradox; Jehovah has not been found in the New Testament because it has been tampered with, but the Bible has been inspired and accurately preserved by Jehovah.

"Thus modern scholarship gives reason for complete confidence that the Bible has come down to us today essentially unaltered." Awake! 1972 Jun 22 p.8
"Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered." Insight on the Scriptures - Volume 2 p.10

The divine name appears over nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. By Jesus time, it had been removed from most Old Testament translations yet Jesus never mentioned or criticised the removal. As this indicates that Jesus did not feel this was an important omission whether Jehovah appears in modern translations of the Old Testament is up to the discretion of the translation. On the other hand, as Jehovah does not appear in the New Testament it so should not be added to by translations such as the NWT.

As Jehovah was not used in the New Testament, use of the word Jehovah cannot be a necessary requirement for salvation. Rather, the New Testament shows that Jesus is the name through which salvation comes. Jesus words show that God is to be addressed as Lord or Father.

By the time of Jesus, YHWH was not in regular use. The divine name does not appear in any known manuscripts of the New Testament, indicating that Jesus kept to the tradition and law on not using the Divine Name. To include Jehovah in the New Testament the Watchtower Society has taken liberties with God's Word. An assumption has been made in order to give weight to Watchtower doctrine. The effect is an inaccurate understanding of what Jesus taught. It affects a Jehovah's Witness ability to reason correctly on subjects such as the Trinity and to understand what the Bible says as to Jesus' role in salvation.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes it does matter @Arauna because God meant his word to be presented as he originally intended it.

From 1385 A.D. onwards, the New Testament Greek manuscripts started to be translated into certain Hebrew versions with the inclusion of YHWH. It is essential to understand that these have no connection whatsoever with the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament manuscripts and were not translated until well over one thousand years after Jesus death.

Jesus never quoted the Father as being Jehovah.  It was illegal to use the divine name and no one would of listened to him.

Firstborn(Col 1:15) in the scriptures seems to indicate preeminent one(existing before all creation).  David is said to be the first born of Jesse even though he was the youngest.  And in Genesis Manasseh is said to be firstborn but then in Jer 31:9 Ephraim is called firstborn.  The reason of this is because he was to become Lord or Heir.  So in this sense we See that Jesus can aptly be called Lord of Creation.  This lines up with the rest of the scriptures.

Rev 1:7,8 Jehovah as Alpha and Omega.  Remember though that earliest transcripts say Lord or kurios.  But this essentially means in the NWT no beginning and no end.  Jehovah has no beginning nor end right? 

And now Jesus talking in Rev 1:17,18 "And he laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever..."  Jesus also has no beginning or end.

Gen 18 talks about Jehovah walking on the earth in human form before he walked as Jesus born from Mary.  Not impossible for him to do so.  Abraham prepared and gave food to him(3 men altogether).  Chapter 19 verse one shows that the other two men were angels and had arrived in Sodom.

John 8:58 Kingdom interlinear Before Abraham to become, I AM.  That our Lord by this expression asserted his divinity and eternal existence, as the great I AM, appears evident from the use of the present tense.

Exodus 6:2,3 Then God said to Moses: “I am Jehovah. 3 And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them

You say the Hebrew Scriptures are key to understanding the whole bible and this I do not deny. 

Isaiah 43:10-13 is key and you know it very well: “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One.  Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none.  11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”  12 “I am the One who declared and saved and made known
When there was no foreign god among you.  So you are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “and I am God."

First point regarding this passage is in Isaiah 62:2 He said they would be called by a new name talking about Zion/Jerusalem.  In Acts 11:19 here they are first called Christians.  Wouldn't you agree as Christs followers this would aptly be the new name.  Acts 1:8 "...and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem."  Witnesses of Jesus not Jehovah

Secondly Isaiah says concerning Jehovah himslelf Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none.  If Jesus was created as a god as John 1:1 states then how can God form a god, when he said: there has been none but would of created him at the time of Abraham.  He wasn't talking about foreign gods or false gods.  Yes Satan is the god of this system but he is only a false god or counterfeit god.  There is only one true God!  Angels aren't gods like Michael.  Arch angel is just a chief angel.

But If Jesus is God then John 1:1 now makes sense being only one God. Not two.  Emmanual means God is with us so God existing in a man harmonizes with that name as well.

Acts 4:10-12 - Jesus name alone is the means of salvation.

It isn't impossible for God to exist in a hyper-static state being the Father in Heaven and being in a limited form as a human.  Yes Jesus was still God but limited as a human.  He can be rightly called the Son because he was born from himself into human form so in that state he can be called Gods son, remember the Jews wanted to stone him because they thought he was saying he was equal to God. 

We also exist in three states.  Body, Soul(Mind, Emotions), Spirit (energy life force) but God is more dynamic.  Quantum physics demonstrates the rule of entanglement where one particle is entangled with another particle along way away.  So even though we aren't familiar with all his ways Quantum Physics demonstrates hyper-static states in particles.

What if, just what if Jesus is God!?  Then how much more amazing is the price he paid for us and the agony he went through for us because he love us.  It is mind blowing and so humbling and awe inspiring and feels me with more love and appreciation for him.  1 Tim 3:16

I was a Jehovah's Witness and left last month and am astounded at what I am learning from the scriptures now.  I do not regret all the education I received as a JW because it helped me to have good study habits and have a good general knowledge of the scriptures.  But believe please believe me the bible does not belong to the Governing Body.  Jesus promised a helper in the Holy Spirit to help under stand the Holy Scriptures.  The scriptures tell us to get baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (not a spirit directed organization).  Please let scripture interpret scripture.

There are 7 names for God in the bible.  The link below describes them well with scriptural reference.

https://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-God.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

Yes our obedience to our almighty heavenly father is definitely an individual thing but why associate with an organisation that holds highly God's name, yet uses a hybrid name "Jehovah" which is made using the Tetragrammaton and then inserting vowel points using the vowels of Adonai?

I'm glad you got right to the point. Asking "why associate with an organization that...?" clearly means that you think Christians should leave the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are bringing up points that could be put in a thread of their own, but I'll assume that you are tying these points to survival of the Great Tribulation, which many (most?) Witnesses conflate with any fear of a third world war or the potential of world-wide persecution.

Asking that question, "why associate?" means you have given up on the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses are a true and valid representation in this twenty-first century of the Christian congregation in the first century.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with you bringing these issues up for whatever reasons. I bring up similar issues regularly for clarity, so that fellow brothers and sisters are aware of the counter-arguments to our beliefs, and so that we don't fall into the trap of dishonesty where we simply say that something can't be true if it makes us look wrong. I would be happy to engage fully with your points especially if I thought your purpose was to help remove potential error from our teachings. That said, I don't actually believe that we survive the Great Tribulation of Revelation 7 by "washing our robes" through perfectly clean teachings, but by the cleanness of our conscience, by clean conduct. Therefore honesty about doctrine is even more important than claiming to have the right doctrine:

(Matthew 7:21-24) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock.

Therefore, it's a matter of what sort of persons ought we to be, not what sort of doctrines did we believe.

But there is also considerable overlap between doctrines themselves and how we should honestly conduct ourselves. For example, we should trust that we don't need to participate in the world's politics and wars if we think about what it must mean to remain 'no part of this world.' That is very difficult for most people, and most religions. I won't get into dozens of other points like that here, but I'll try to get to the question of using the name "Jehovah."

I have a 1-year old granddaughter who calls me g'PA and sometimes GanPA and sometimes Gam'PA and sometimes GAM'pa. She identifies me correctly when she sees a picture on their wall, or in my iPhone, or on Skype or FaceTime. She has another grandfather who she calls Papa and Poppy (she calls her father Dada and Daddy). When I come through her door a few times a week to babysit along with my wife, I smile inside and out when she calls out g'PA. That's my name to her. She doesn't use that term for anyone else. I don't mind in the least that she mispronounces "grandpa" by leaving out a couple of whole consonants, or turns two syllables to one syllable.  Someday, she will probably try to distinguish her two grandfathers by including a more specific name like Grandpa Beezlebumps vs. Grandpa Hamhocker. Having her know that I have a more personal and specific name is probably not that important to me, as long as she knows me.

I can understand why we could be just as happy to "know" the personal specific name for God and use it for circumstances like public prayer and discussion, and use a title like "Father" in private, in the same way that my granddaughter calls me "g'PA." But we have the example of the Israelites whose history as found in the Bible contains the specific name THOUSANDS of times. That's the reason we think it's important. Because of the Bible. Jesus used the term Father (also Aramaic, abba) in his speech and prayers. And when the apostle Paul speaks of distinguishing our God from other gods, he doesn't use the divine name, but also calls Him, "God, the Father."

(1 Corinthians 8:5, 6) 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.

No one thinks it's a magic name that must be pronounced exactly right, or exactly the same in each language. That's not the point. The point is that we try to use a name that is distinctive, based on the tetragrammaton, with whatever vowels are common and understandable, and so that others know who we mean.

Also, just because Greber translates John 1:1 as we do, doesn't mean that the NWT depended on Greber or has any relationship to him. It's just an acknowledgement that other translators have translated the verse as the NWT does. People don't usually have a lot of complaints about how the Greber translation turned out, usually only two or three passages. Another one is about how the bodies turned up from an earthquake. We like Greber's version here, too.

(Matthew 27:51-53) . . .. 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.  [NWT shown, Greber presents same idea]

My point is that people don't complain about the Greber Bible as a bad translation with a lot of mistakes. They only point out one or two. They also complain about a claim of "spiritism" made about his translation process. Martin Luther made similar claims. One might even say that the apostle Paul made similar claims. It's what some people expected the direction of "holy spirit" to feel like.

Share this post


Link to post

@JW Insider I apologise for being blunt but I do think it is important for everyone to know how tainted the NWT is to suit doctrine which I think was clearly shown in that they took it upon themselves to insert Jehovah in the Christian Greek Scriptures under their own assumptions.  Therefore trust in the Governing Body is clearly misdirected and dangerous.  I just want to sound the warning.

You are right in saying "it's a matter of what sort of persons ought we to be"

Bible based principals are what shape us and coming to Jesus in spirit and 'truth' is part of our worship to the God of truth.

Geofferr Jackson GB member admitted at the Royal Commission under oath, that it would be presumptuous to say they are being used by Jehovah, but that they are Guardians Of the Doctrine(G,O,D).  Not inspired by Holy Spirit presenting truths from the bible as they say they are in the publications.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I bring up similar issues regularly for clarity, so that fellow brothers and sisters are aware of the counter-arguments to our beliefs, and so that we don't fall into the trap of dishonesty where we simply say that something can't be true if it makes us look wrong.

I appreciate you doing this and I would like to add something more to that but it would off topic here, so I am working on starting another topic (hoping it hasn't already been raised at some point already, but I'm sure the Librarian will let me know)

3 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

I do think it is important for everyone to know how tainted the NWT is to suit doctrine which I think was clearly shown in that they took it upon themselves to insert Jehovah in the Christian Greek Scriptures under their own assumptions.  Therefore trust in the Governing Body is clearly misdirected and dangerous. 

I could understand your reasoning if this had to do with something that was doctrinal very serious, such as misrepresenting God, his standards and his qualities. But using God's name Jehovah? And apparently inserting it into the Christian Greek scriptures instead of the title God? I can not take that kind of argument seriously, especially if you are thereby trying to prove that God is Jesus.

Perhaps as JWInsider suggests, this should be under another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Anna said:

 ...apparently inserting it into the Christian Greek scriptures instead of the title God? I can not take that kind of argument seriously, especially if you are thereby trying to prove that God is Jesus.

Perhaps as JWInsider suggests, this should be under another topic.

It is what it is! @Anna.  What gives them the right to insert YHWH so that the the scriptures are manipulated to suit the their doctrine?  You can't get away from that.  You can't add or take away from God's word no matter what your intention is.  It's his word!

Deut 4:2 "You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you."

Deut 12:32 "Every word that I am commanding you is what you should be careful to do. You must not add to it nor take away from it."

Rev 22:18,19 "“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.

If God wanted YHWH there he would have made sure of it, like he did with the Hebrew Scriptures.  But he has reason for not using it.  Jesus is the saviour!  Acts 4:10-12

Isaiah 43:11 "I-I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior."

Titus 2:13-3:6 "manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus, However, when the kindness and the love for man on the part of our Savior, God, was manifested, This [spirit] he poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior." (Note the New World Translation inclusion of [the] to change the meaning of this passage.)

It is misrepresenting God if you add the name when it was not in the Christian Greek Scriptures because the New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is the new name under which people must get saved. 

The Watchtower is deliberately misleading sincere honest hearted people.

But we can be sure that God reads the heart and knows those who belong to him in all religions even though he does not have a religion. 

As you are aware ALL religion will be done away with.

I know how you feel as I would of defended the Watchtower in the past but the scriptures speak for themselves.  I would rather defend the scriptures than defend an organization.  And then encourage people to build up their faith and love built on truths found in the bible.  God blesses that!  Because then you can have a deeper relationship with him based on spirit and truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Micah, I ask a question in passing by? Whose name was Jesus making known while here on earth? His own or his Father? As stated by his words at John 17:26? And if it was his Father's they would have known it and used it correct? And it would have been written down even in the Greek right? Such as when quoting from the Hebrew word for word, correct? So how if a correction is made there is an adding when all is being done is placing his name where it has been removed? And using your premise, who gives them the right to remove it from where it was being used by his son Jesus who was making it known to his disciples? The knowledge they had was not trivial it was deep about Jehovah and personal. Not him being in 2 places at one time, mystical and stuff. Revelation states Jehovah is the reason all live exists, ALL, even that which is the Word, this being had a beginning. No other creature, life existed other than Almighty God without a beginning, without creation. 

Share this post


Link to post

Why was it legal to use the divine name? Jesus would have used it and like many of the man made doctrines, Jesus would have ignored them. You use the word'firstborn' and use it correctly, and you state, before Jehovah brought any other being into existence he brought his only begotten Son, his firstborn. This is so true!

You state the truth at Rev. 1:7,8 about Jehovah God. This also is true! Yet you cite verses 17,18; can this be true of Christ Jesus? NO! Because there he states he was alive then, DEAD, then alive again and now will forever and ever. Not the same as the Father!

How is this possible? You actually believe that Jehovah God, all powerful God came to earth and walked among us? If that is so, why not take on a form and grant Moses request? Why when Jehovah is written in scripture to have actually, not through any agent, this very earth has the problems it had at Mt. Sinai? But you say Jehovah could take form and calmly walk among SINFUL humans? Not happening! You then cite John 8:58, the argument with the Jews was not his divinity, but that he had lived before Abraham due to his prehuman existence in heaven. You did not study well my friend.

 

You do know what the name Jehovah means,right? So when he appeared as God Almighty,what was his name? It was still, Jehovah, yet he used his power in helping each of these persons in fulfilling his purpose. He had to show strength in each case, if you had done your study.

Yes a new name, who is this talking about! What hope did Jesus open up with his death, who did he forge a new covenant with for kingdom on the night of his death? And as that verse continues to say that new name--Jehovah will designate and have written on their foreheads, chosen by him, Jehovah! Has nothing to do with being called Christians or Jehovah's witnesses.

You bring up John's words at John 1:1. I ask what I ask all who state such things like you. The verse reads just like you say, yet it speaks about 2 persons, not ONE. FOR it speaks about the Word being WITH GOD, never BEING GOD, that is the part skipped by many in reading this scripture. You say there is the Word and the Word IS GOD, but that is not whole verse, the verse states correctly; the Word WAS WITH GOD, and does so in the past tense, because the Word for a time came to live as a human on earth, which John was about to tell us about!

I could go on, but I know this is useless. I am sorry you left, that is your choice. But you are denying the words of Peter when he had the very same choice at John 6:68. Remember what he said and did? Yes the Bible does not belong to those you speak of and I have never thought so these past 50 years, but what does Jesus own words tell us at Matt. 18:20? Even with the helper we cannot go off by ourselves. And when we get baptized, you are aware this is a PUBLIC DISPLAY of our private dedication to Jehovah,to the very things you just said. Why did Jesus get baptized? To repent of sin? We dedicate our our lives to do Jehovah's will in all things we do, worship and life!

Share this post


Link to post

What makes you think the early Christian wasn’t forced to make adjustments to the ancient scrolls to avoid roman prosecution. The early church fathers weren’t interested in reapplying the original ancient text. Their efforts were to preserve their own doctoral understanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire

With this scenario, anyone could change God’s true name to Kyrios, he, it, God, Lord, etc. No, different than that of the Vatican of today. How can you argue the name of GOD to be inconsistent with scripture while the early church father’s behavior were as common butchers and murderers, thus making it a graver fallacy by conflicting wholeheartedly with scripture?

Scripture cannot be defined by our own will, but only to that of GOD. The Watchtower usage of the name of GOD for the purpose of “clarity” is a good example to define the earlier preservation of God’s personal name, rather than just an inanimate object.

The best example for this argument you have already made is the trinity, which scripture rejects.

One needs to understand scripture correctly by applying consciences when soul searching. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 when applying wisdom clearly defines two separate entities. Therefore, why shouldn’t we use the proper name of GOD to define it in the New Testament to steer away from any confusion that can occur when separating “GOD” and “LORD” not to mean the same thing.

So, once again, how does modern society “preserve” the Name of GOD to coincide with the just of the ten commandments.

1.     1.  You shall not take the name of the LORD your God (YHWH) in vain.

 Does this mean “LORD” to be Jesus? Is using God's personal name in vain, or is it praising his divine name. Psalm 69:30

2.    2.   You shall have no other gods before Me.

Does this mean it’s OK to revere the Son of Man (GOD) above YHWH? John 14:15-21. Why would Jesus words be considered as a third person if you apply the trinity.

3.     3.  Thu shall NOT kill. Exodus 20:13

How would you define the early church fathers, and the Nicene Creed on this pivotal commandment?

4.    4.   Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor

How can you define your kind of Christianity without repudiation as moral imperative when the above number 3 is in use in modern times extrapolated by the early church fathers?

 

 

So, your question: What gives them the right to insert YHWH so that the the scriptures are manipulated to suit the their doctrine?

I would simply say, the SAME right your kind of Christianity has to manipulate the very foundation it has in scripture that your doctrine goes “against” all moral principles in GODS name. So, the question should really be, who is your GOD versus the GOD of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham Matthew 22:32 (NT) (YHWH) that is continuously being defiled by human interaction.

Share this post


Link to post

Here are some books for research regarding the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament as found at "Watchtower Historical Items and Research Publications" on ebay:

HERE ARE JUST SOME OF THE HUNDREDS OF BOOKS AND BIBLES THAT WE OFFER HERE ON EBAY. THESE ARE ALL RELATED TO THE USE OF THE DIVINE NAME at lisa.joeywit

New Testament Letters  
His Name is One  
Biblical Archaeology Review 1978  
Egypt Israel in Ancient Times  
Divine Name Controversy  
Synonyms of the Old Testament  
Dead Sea Scrolls [Burrows]  
Who Was a Jew  
The Lord and the Tetragrammaton  
Modern Matthew [Carr]  
First Edition of the New Testament  
Epistles of the Romans [Rutherford]  
Emphatic Diaglott  
The Living Words  
Hebrew English New Testament  
Interlinear Bible [Green]  
Archaeology and the New Testament  
New Testament Greek to Hebrew Dictionary  
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia  
Original Aramaic New Testament [Peshitta]  
Reina Valera Santa Biblia  
TranslationWuest Translation  
Simple English Bible  
Goodspeed Parallel [An American Translation]  
The New Old Testament Interlinear [Follett]  
Holy Bible [Moffatt]  
Tanakh [Jewish Publication Society]  
Youngs Literal Translation  
Jerusalem Bible  
Proclaim His Holy Name Bible  
American Standard Version  
Bible in Living English [Byington]  
Amplified Bible  
Unvarnished New Testament  
New Living Translation  
Darby Translation  
The Four Gospels - Revelation [Lattimore]  
Rotherham Translation [Emphasized Bible]  
Sacred Name Bible  
Original New Testament [Schonfield]  
Emphatic Diaglott  
Interlinear Bible [Green]  
21st Century New Testament  
The Patristic Gospels  
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia  
Westcott and Hort Greek Text  
Holman Christian Standard Bible  
Original Aramaic New Testament [Peshitta]  
Reina Valera Spanish Holy Bible  
Julia E. Smith Bible  
Hexapla Polyglot Interlinear Parallel 
1611 Edition of King James with Tetragrammaton on New Testament Title Page 
Hawaiian/English Parallell Bible  
Bay Psalm Book  
The Name of God Yehowah  
Indian Algoonquin New Testament [Eliot Bible]  
Polychrome Bible  
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew [Howard]  
The Stones Cry Out  
Cairo Geniza  
Jubilee Bible 2000  
Anchor Bible Dictionary  
The Restored New Testament [Willis Barnstone]  
The Companion Bible [KJV]  
Messages of the Apostles  
New Testament [Kneeland]  
Interlinear Psalster [Bagster]  
Hebrew-English Genesis [Greenfield]  
NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English [Kohlenberger]  
Holy Bible [Sharpe]  
New Testament [Heinfetter]  
Studies in Matthew [Bacon]  
Epistles of Paul [Stevens]  
Divine Name King James Version  
The Exhaustively Cross-Referenced Bible [Goodwin] 
Yehowah God [Goodwin] 
Origen's Hexapla 
Hieroglyph Bible 
Septuagint and Modern Study 


 
 
 
Part of The Bible and Divine Name Museum Displays
Part of The Bible and Divine Name Museum Displays

BIBLE AND DIVINE NAME MUSEUM

We have dozens of artifacts and manuscripts that can be used in displays such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Papyrus fragments such as P Fouad 266, Original Bible leaves going back over 400 years old and much more.
 
Also see this list all of which are for sale on ebay at lisa.joeywit:

Jehovah in New Testament and Old Testament

New Testament Letters 
His Name is One 
Biblical Archaeology Review 1978 
Egypt Israel in Ancient Times 
Divine Name Controversy 
Synonyms of the Old Testament 
Dead Sea Scrolls [Burrows] 
Who Was a Jew 
The Lord and the Tetragrammaton 
Modern Matthew [Carr] 
First Edition of the New Testament 
Epistles of the Romans [Rutherford] 
Emphatic Diaglott 
The Living Words 
Hebrew English New Testament 
Interlinear Bible [Green] 
Archaeology and the New Testament 
New Testament Greek to Hebrew Dictionary 
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 
Original Aramaic New Testament [Peshitta] 
Reina Valera Santa Biblia 
Julia E. Smith Bible 
Hexapla Polyglot 
1611 Edition of King James with Tetragrammaton on New Testament Title Page  
Hawaiian/English Parallell Bible 
Bay Psalm Book 
The Name of God Yehowah 
Indian Algoonquin New Testament [Eliot Bible] 
Polychrome Bible 
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew [Howard] 
The Stones Cry Out 
Cairo Geniza 
Jubilee Bible 2000 
Anchor Bible Dictionary 
The Restored New Testament [Willis Barnstone] 
The Companion Bible [KJV] 
Messages of the Apostles 
New Testament [Kneeland] 
Interlinear Psalster [Bagster] 
Hebrew-English Genesis [Greenfield] 
NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English [Kohlenberger] 
Holy Bible [Sharpe] 
New Testament [Heinfetter] 
Studies in Matthew [Bacon] 
Epistles of Paul [Stevens] 
Divine Name King James Version 
The Exhaustively Cross-Referenced Bible [Goodwin] 
First Epistle of St. Peter [Hort] 
Quotations in the New Testament [Toy] 
Gospel According to John Indian Language [Buckner] 
Shem Qadesh Scripture 
Liberal Translation New Testament [Harwood] 
Literal Translation New Testament [Heinfetter] 
Inclusive Language Bible 
Scofield Reference Bible 
Restoration Sacred Name Bible 
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition 
Gospel of Mark [Swete] 
KJV Names of God Version 
Pulpit Commentary 
Annotated Bible [Gaebelein] 
Adam Clarke Commentary 
Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ 
Adair History of the American indians 
Commentary on Revelation [Swete] 
Jehovah in the New Testament [In Italian] 
Hieroglyphick Bible [Thomas} 1788 
Edwards Family New Testament 1851 
New Testament Text and Transmission {Comfort} 
Translation Handbook on Luke 
Messages of the Bible Synoptist {Sanders} 
Jewish Annotated New Testament 
Newberry Reference Bible 
Commentary of the Bible {Dummelow} 
Critical Commentary of Luke {Plummer} 
Critical Handbook of Mark and Luke {Meyer} 
New Testament Commentary {Hendriksen} 
New American Commentary {Stein} 
New Darby Version 
Jesus The Jew {Geza Vermes} 
Did Only the High Priest Use the Tetragram in Jesus' Time? 

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 02/05/2017 at 3:49 AM, bruceq said:

 

Here are some books for research regarding the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament as found at "Watchtower Historical Items and Research Publications"

 

I'm only referring to the New Testament and the 'earliest extant manuscripts,' not anything dated later than the earliest extant manuscripts. 

Please show us anything that shows the divine name that dates before the earliest extant manuscripts for the New Testament?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

Please show us anything that shows the divine name that dates before the earliest extant manuscripts for the New Testament?

Assuming I understand this question because it is a little confusing.

If you mean evidence of the divine name dating prior to extant manuscripts for the New Testament, then it is so abundant and in the public domain it is not worth reproducing here.

If you mean manuscripts of the New Testament earlier than what is extant, then I do not know how this could be possible, and the only answer is: as soon as they are found.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/21/2017 at 10:22 AM, Micah Ong said:

  Not inspired by Holy Spirit presenting truths from the bible as they say they are in the publications.

“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”

From ‘Who is Leading God’s People Today?’ Pgr 12, February 2017

That's not to say they have erred in the matter under discussion. It is a translating decision that they have provided abundant justification for in the attached appendix. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If you mean evidence of the divine name dating prior to extant manuscripts for the New Testament, then it is so abundant and in the public domain it is not worth reproducing here.

Well at least show us one!

"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."" New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With References p.1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

There is no proof whatsoever to support this claim, as not a single ancient New Testament document has been found with YHWH in it. Several available manuscripts date back to this period. P47 dates prior to 300 A.D. and contains four uses of Kyrios from Revelation that the NWT translates as Jehovah. P66 dates from around 200 A.D. from John (written in 98 A.D) and contains five occurrences of Lord that appear in the NWT as Jehovah. Some manuscripts go back to within 25 years of John's writings, yet none contains YHWH.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

There is no proof whatsoever to support this claim, as not a single ancient New Testament document has been found with YHWH in it.

So, in order to understand your argument. One would have to concede that Jesus NEVER heard his Father’s name in prayer or song just because the first Christians feared a backlash from Jewish congregations that would prosecute them for blasphemy, as they did with Jesus by them thinking Jesus was saying he was GOD, or the Son of Man (GOD) the Messiah.

So, even if the YHWH can be found as early as 2-1st century B.C. before this newly formed sect called “Christianity” emerged under the guidance of Christ after the turn of the millennium; it would be hard to believe Jesus wouldn’t have heard his father’s name uttered in certain circles.

Now the reason for scribes to change “YHWH” to the generic African form Kiros is self-evident.

1.       fear of Jewish prosecution.

2.       fear from prosecution from Roman Pagan churches, since the emperor at that time demanded allegiance to his Gods and himself, “as a God”.

So, the first Christians assimilated themselves into the community by which the general term “lord” was widely accepted and used, by the Jews and Pagans.

NOW! SHOW PROOF, that JESUS “NEVER” knew his father’s name under “YHWH” either heard in the heavens or in the earth in prayer or song, before or after he interacted with humanity as the redeemer.

Now, I understand you “wish” to see Jesus as GOD, because the New Testament has been confused with the words “lord” and “God” to mean the same thing, but that wasn’t the “intent” of the writers of the New Testament, it became a “safeguard” to have their work finished under such perilous times. So, your erred argument is between you and your maker come judgment day, for now, the Watchtower simply shows those areas where lord and God can be confused. So, let’s keep it real when misrepresenting the Watchtower by deception.

Why people seem to think, people had the same freedom in ancient times, only need to live in Asia Minor to experience the privileges free nations have with freedom of speech. Learn! Scripture, and move on!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."" New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With References p.1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

There is no proof whatsoever to support this claim, as not a single ancient New Testament document has been found with YHWH in it. Several available manuscripts date back to this period. P47 dates prior to 300 A.D. and contains four uses of Kyrios from Revelation that the NWT translates as Jehovah. P66 dates from around 200 A.D. from John (written in 98 A.D) and contains five occurrences of Lord that appear in the NWT as Jehovah. Some manuscripts go back to within 25 years of John's writings, yet none contains YHWH.

I was very dismissive of your initial post for reasons I already gave. I am sorry for that, now. But I also said that I would be happy to engage if I thought your purpose was different.

On 4/21/2017 at 8:52 AM, JW Insider said:

I would be happy to engage fully with your points especially if I thought your purpose was to help remove potential error from our teachings.

I see how serious you were in studying this issue very thoroughly and coming to a thoughtful and reasonable conclusion. Initially, I thought this was just going to be a matter of taking a few quick "snipes" at the JW teaching and therefore be dismissive of all teachings over another Trinity-related matter.

I see that you have made a good point about the quote above where the reference edition of the NWT states that "Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures . . . "

I agree that there is no evidence for this claim (yet) although I would not be surprised if something was discovered in the future that might shed more light on this. I have agreed for several months now with the idea that we should not be insistent on adding a form of the Divine Name to the Greek Scriptures [New Testament] until that evidence shows up. But I have not made a thorough investigation of the evidence for myself, and I see from your posts that there is already some good evidence to work from - that leads you to the opposite conclusion. I'd like to go through this evidence myself, and see if there is anything that might sway against the evidence you referenced. If more evidence leads to the same conclusion then I'll see just what position that might lead to.

I had the impression that no one knew very much about the divine name in the LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament] until fairly recently. (About 1939 seemed to be indicated in the various NWT forewords and appendixes). This is a big deal to the stance the JWs have taken for decades. When the NWT "NT" was published in 1950, the Foreword on pages 10-25 covered this point, and showed that it was public knowledge that such LXX versions existed due to the comments from Jerome and others. I know that finding the divine name represented in the LXX is not evidence that it was ever in the New Testament manuscripts, but at the very least it could allow for the idea that direct quotes of the OT in the NT could have some reason to include it. 

I think that the points about the so-called "J documents" have always provided a very weak argument since the addition was done for didactic purposes just as it was done in some Native American (Indian) language translations and African languages, for example. Clearly one of the reasons for these so-called "J documents" was to help teach the Trinity doctrine, which is why the NWT translators have also ignored a lot of the so-called "J" support for using the divine name.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

 

"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."" New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With References p.1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

There is no proof whatsoever to support this claim, as not a single ancient New Testament document has been found with YHWH in it. Several available manuscripts date back to this period. P47 dates prior to 300 A.D. and contains four uses of Kyrios from Revelation that the NWT translates as Jehovah. P66 dates from around 200 A.D. from John (written in 98 A.D) and contains five occurrences of Lord that appear in the NWT as Jehovah. Some manuscripts go back to within 25 years of John's writings, yet none contains YHWH.

   P52 aka  Papyrus Rylands 457 is the mss you are asserting in your last sentence and you well know that "kyrious" does not even occur in the fragment at all so can not be used to prove the point as it only contains John 18:31-33. You can look it up on the one I sell on ebay and see for yourself. As for "proof" you also know that the hundreds of books I listed in the previous posts have the proof you need and NONE of then were even produced by the Watchtower Society. Remember you do not have any original mss. from the New Testament the same way that we do not so neither of us can "prove" by those means but that does not mean our way is wrong and yours must be right.

   The Bible was written by Jews including the apostles as Jewish Christians who were meticulous in translating the Bible from quotations in the Old Testament. So when they saw the Tetragrammaton in Psalm 110:1 in the Septuagint they would have NOT changed the Bible's words to read "Lord"now would they since to change the Bible is a sin that a Jew would not do. {See Matthew 22:44}.  Yes as everyone now knows the original Septuagint written by the Jews contain the Tetragrammaton. If you do not believe me then look at my site on ebay as I also offer the Manuscripts there that contain the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint copies that came directly from the "Israeli Antiquities Authority" from the Dead Sea Scrolls Museum in Israel.

   Yes the so-called Christians after the First Century DID change "YHWH" to "Kyrios" as the Bible clearly shows that after the 'apostles" a falling away would occur. So using any "proof" after the First Century would of course be suspect since they are not original.

    And this is the very reason now dozens of complete Bibles now contain "YHWH" in various forms in the New Testament whereas in 1950 when the NWT was made only a couple did. It is because of the evidence over the years from the original LXX that so many has as can be seen from the over 100 Translations I offer on ebay that contain the Divine Name in the New Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, bruceq said:

And this is the very reason now dozens of Biblse now contain "YHWH" in various forms in the New Testament whereas in 1950 when the NWT was made only a couple did.

The Foreward to the 1950 NWT indicates that there were then about 60 Bible versions with a vernacular form of YHWH in the NT.  This included NT-only Bibles, especially "missionary" Bibles. Did you mean only a couple of full Bibles as opposed to partial?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The Foreward to the 1950 NWT indicates that there were then about 60 Bible versions with a vernacular form of YHWH in the NT.  This included NT-only Bibles, especially "missionary" Bibles. Did you mean only a couple of full Bibles as opposed to partial?

Yes I did not mean the ones in other languages full copies. The ones I offer are only in English. Sorry for any confusion.

The couple were like "Emphatic Diaglott" and a few others.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

Well at least show us one!

The wording of your original question wasn't clear to me and it reads as if you are referring to any manuscripts prior to extant NT manuscripts. I deduce (hopefully) from your reply that you must mean any NT manuscripts, to which the alternative answer applies:

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If you mean manuscripts of the New Testament earlier than what is extant, then I do not know how this could be possible, and the only answer is: as soon as they are found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Yes I did not mean the ones in other languages. The ones I offer are only in English. Sorry for any confusion.

Yes, I understand. I just saw your link and now I recognize that I have already purchased from you several times. In case that link disappears, I wanted to quote from it. I hope you don't mind. I wanted to have access to comment on what you said:
 

Quote

 

. . . Psalms Dead Sea Scrolls 11Q5.  {See New World Translation Study Edition for more info }.

   Why should the name "JEHOVAH" {YHWH} appear in the New Testament ? 

   One reason is that Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt. So Jesus and his Apostles would have quoted from these scrolls that contained the Tetragrammaton - JEHOVAH !!! {See 2013 New World Translation Appendix A and B}.

  This Psalms in a Dead Sea Scroll dated to the first half of the first century C.E. the very time of Jesus and his Apostles of the First Century Christian Congregation! The text is in the style of the Hebrew letters commonly used after the Babylonian exile, but the Tetragrammaton appears repeatedly in distinctive ancient Hebrew letters

   Psalms Scroll 11Q5 Reproduction mounted in a clear two-sided frame 6 by 18 inches with hardware for table or wall mounting included. This Psalms scroll contains 11 of the 15 Songs of Ascent (Psalms 120-134). Pilgrims would sing these Psalms while they ascended up to Jerusalem. It was in 1956 that a Bedouin discovered cave 11 with these psalms. These Psalms date to the first half of the 1st century C.E.

 

I was just doing some reading last night and this morning to try to get a better sense of what the DSS actually show us about the use of the Divine Name during the time period(s) represented. So I'll want to get back to this soon.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes you may quote from my ebay site, also there is now alot more updated info from 2017 that many may not realize since it is not in print but only online in the NWT Study edition on JW.ORG:

Appendix C

 

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, there is more to be understood here, none of which has been explained by assumptions. Research! Research!

YAHWEH: THE DIVINE NAME IN THE BIBLE 1975

The emphasis on the active existence of YHWH is made strongly by Walther Eichrodt and is representative of modern scholarship.12 Smith comments as follows, "at the moment we are not entitled to say more than that the consensus among Old Testament scholars provides a strong basis for an understanding of the God of biblical faith in historical and dynamic terms, and not in conceptions of timeless and static entities, whether eternity or God's aseity." 1 3 The "theologians of hope" have incorporated similar insights in their interpretation of the divine name. For example, Jürgen Moltmann maintains, "YHWH, as the name of the God who first of all promises his presence and his kingdom and makes them prospects for the future, is a god 'with future as his essential nature,' a God of promise and of leaving the present to face the future, a God whose freedom is the source of new things that are to come." 1 4 Here the imperfect 'ehyeh is understood primarily as a future tense. So also, the Roman Catholic theologian, J. B. Metz, abandons the traditional Thomist metaphysic of being and makes this comment on the meaning of Exod.3:14, "According to this version God revealed himself to Moses more as the power of the future than as a being dwelling beyond all history and experience. . . . His transcendence reveals itself as our 'absolute future.' 1 5

The Old Testament witness to YHWH brings with it a change in the meaning of other terms for deity which are used in place of the Tetragrammaton. Charles West observes, "The other concepts for deity in the Old Testament, Elohim and Adonai, the former of which was rooted in pagan polytheism and the latter in everyday social experience of power and authority, were used and redesigned, emptied of their previous significance, and made to demonstrate the absolute subordination of human and divine powers to this one lord." 1 6 The eventual substitution of dônây for YHWH within Judaism as a mark of veneration for the divine name which could no longer be uttered with propriety, had far reaching consequences. Among Jews of the Diaspora, kyrios was the Greek equivalent for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX version of the Hebrew scriptures, reflecting the fact that ' adönäy was understood as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton. Inevitably the emphasis had shifted to the concept of sovereignty, lordship.

The use of mdonây in the Hebrew Bible and kyrios in the LXX has very wide ramifications for New Testament scholarship, especially in relation to Christological formulation. The content of the term kyrios in the declaration of I Cor.12:3, "Jesus is Lord [kyrios]," requires to be determined, in order to arrive at an adequate understanding of a most important aspect of the person of Christ. Gustaf Daim an summarized the historical situation in this way: "The significant transition from the divine name *Jahve' to the divine name 'Lord' did not take place in the region of Hebraic Judaism. It is rather a peculiarity of Jewish Hellenism, and from that source found its way into the language of the Church, even of the Semitic-speaking part of it." 1 7 This, indeed, is the thesis of William Bousset in his monumental study, Kyrios Christos.18 He claims that "the title kyrios spans an area in the history of religions which can still be fairly precisely delimited. It penetrated Hellenistic-Roman religion from the East; Syria and
Egypt are its actual home territories."19 Although
kyrios was used in the ordinary secular sense of "master" or "owner," the use of the specific religious sense can be fully documented from the Hermetic literature and the writings of the Gnostic sects.20 "It was in this atmosphere," Bousset writes, "that Antiochene Christianity and that of the other primitive Christian Hellenistic communities came into being and had their growth."

 

In Bousset's view, the Gentile Christian Church at Antioch, recognizing Jesus as a cult-hero, and coming under Hellenistic influences, began to apply the title Kyrios to him. This was the situation within the church to which Paul was introduced. The Pauline epistles give abundant evidence that the designation kyrios was the title which now became normative for Jesus, since Christos had now become virtually a proper name. The affirmation of faith, "Jesus is kyrios" (I Cor. 12:3), perhaps originally an ecstatic cry of prophetic rapture, became a baptismal confession (1 Cor. 6:11; Acts 19:5) [pp.99-101]

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Yes you may quote from my ebay site, also there is now alot more updated info from 2017 that many may not realize since it is not in print but only online in the NWT Study edition on JW.ORG:

Thanks for pointing this out and making the links easy to get to. It's also up to date on the 2016 Watchtower Library, [v.18 with regular online updates through 2017].

The resources provided by the Watch Tower Society are excellent, of course, but they are not always clear about which statements are assumptions (and therefore subject to change) and which statements are 'statements of fact.' Sometimes even the word 'proven' is used, when it's only a strongly held assumption or belief.

I'm working through it now to see which are which:

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.)

Undoubtedly, the divine name or Tetragrammaton appeared in the Hebrew mss of the OT. Perhaps not in all of them, but apparently in the vast majority. I'm trying to do a quick, last-minute study to get a sense of what the evidence shows about Hebrew mss of the OT in this time period that did NOT contain the Divine Name. [POINT A, for further research] To get a sense of the evidence for this, I'm also trying to look into the overall time period when the Divine Name began to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-speaking Jews. [POINT B, for further research]

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
The divine name also appeared in the
Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).

This first sentence is also undoubtedly true. Almost every quote of the OT in the NT follows the Septuagint [LXX] instead of the Hebrew text that the NWT (and almost everyone else) uses for the OT, wherever the LXX and Hebrew are known to differ.

The second sentence is true, too, but I don't think we are really saying definitively that, in the first century, the divine name was always represented either by YHWH or IAO in the LXX. We know of various other divine name abbreviations, and it might still be true that some LXX texts, even in the first century C.E., may have already contained replacements for the divine name. [POINT C, for further research]

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
Some portions of manuscripts of the
Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.

The first sentence is correct again, and what they "prove" is that at least some of the LXX copies (which we currently date to the first century C.E. and earlier) have YHWH (or a form of this) or IAO, which we consider to be a transliteration of IAO.

The second sentence states that the inspired writers of the NT when quoting from the OT, must have seen the Tetragrammaton in one of these two forms, at least. This may very well be true, although I'm not sure it was always necessarily true based on "POINT C," which I still need to research further.

Also, of course, it may very well be true that they saw the Tetragrammaton and purposely, even through inspiration, chose NOT to copy it. This doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't utter the divine name. It's even possible that they knew that Jesus had uttered the divine name when quoting from Isaiah or Psalms for example, and yet the inspired Bible writers produced their initial manuscripts with "kyrios" or "theos" for example. This latter point is not something I expect to research further, or draw a conclusion from, it's only that I don't wish to jump to any conclusions not actually evident from the facts.

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed.

Nothing to research further here. These are all statements of proven fact. (Until and unless further evidence or manuscript discoveries are disclosed.) Further disclosed discoveries or evidence would not necessarily help the side of the argument that we are expecting it to help, however.

*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.
 *

We might already have enough evidence to test this particular claim. [POINT D, for further research]

I believe it already shows that the NWT translators have backed off the stronger claim made earlier in 1984 (and quoted by Micah Ong, above):

*** Rbi8 p. 1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures [1984] ***
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyʹri·os, “Lord” or The·osʹ, “God.”

Also the footnote  * in the new C1 Appendix, opens up the possibilities much more widely, and removes the need to have mentioned the second or third century scribes in the first place. After all, these scribes, it is admitted, might just be copying from manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton had already been replaced with "Lord" or "God." In the worst case, this comes very close to admitting that it might have already been done up to and (technically) even including the initial manuscript, where an inspired NT writer might have already removed the Tetragrammaton reference from an LXX quotation, for example. That's obviously not the intent of the NWT Appendix writer to state this, but especially with the footnote material in view, it shows just how little is left of the original claim.

The last point for further research, therefore, might not include the claim from the 1984 NWT about second and third century scribes removing the Tetragrammaton from the LXX. The real important question is just the NT manuscripts here. It was always an odd claim anyway that both Jewish and Christian scribes would have agreed at some point as late as the third century to remove the name from both the NT mss and the LXX mss, as if all the dozens of manuscript copies were under some central control. Recensions of various types would still exist, because there is no way they could have got them all. And if we find evidence of this being done before the second and third centuries, the entire argument loses its meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Insider have you ever read the research of 

  Pavlos Vasileiadis

Not before you mentioned him. I just downloaded his 34-page pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273185850_Aspects_of_rendering_the_sacred_Tetragrammaton_in_Greek

From what I can see, he quotes from a lot of sources that I have, including a couple resources I just read through last night, so it should be an interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Welcome To Our Community

    The most intelligent people on planet Earth hang out on this forum. Be ready to have your points of view challenged and refined.

  • Similar Content

    • By Kurt

      August 18 2017
      World Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses (17.08.2017) – On August 17, 2017, the Vyborg City Court in Russia ruled to ban the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), a Bible published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Russia’s Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, signed by President Putin himself in November 2015, explicitly prohibits declaring sacred texts, such as the Bible, to be extremist. In an unconscionable move to circumvent the law, the court relied on a so-called expert study alleging that the NWT is not a Bible, opening the way for it to be banned.
      Commenting on the ruling shortly after it was issued, David A. Semonian, international spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses at their world headquarters in New York, states: “It’s impossible to comprehend how a court can justify the decision to ban the Bible. It’s absurd that a court would outlaw the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a Bible respected by scholars around the world, which has not only been distributed in hundreds of millions of copies but also has been translated into over 150 languages. Just how far will Russia’s resistance to religious freedom go? We certainly hope that respect for sacred texts will prevail when we pursue this case on appeal.”
      Scores of religious experts following the situation in Russia have not been shy in speaking out in opposition to the case, such as Daniel Mark, chairman of the United States Commission on Religious Freedom, who states: “The conclusion by the court-by any court-that the NWT translation is not a Bible is nonsense.” Likewise, Dr. Mathew N. Schmalz, associate professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, declares: “the claim that the NWT is not ‘a Bible’ is absurd.”
      Many point to the Center for Sociocultural Expert Studies in Moscow, the group responsible for the “expert study,” as the source of the absurdity. Scholars have roundly denounced the group. For instance, Roman Lunkin, the Head of the Center for Problems of Religion and Society at the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Europe in Moscow, has labeled these experts as “fake,” revealing that “not one of [them] has a degree in religious studies.” Countering the claims of the “expert study,” Professor Gerhard Besier, director of the Sigmund Neumann Institute for the Research on Freedom and Democracy (Germany), succinctly defends the NWT, stating: “The New World Translation has received high-praise worldwide from Bible scholars representing diverse religious communities.”
      With the decision to ban the NWT, the Russian Federation has assumed a hostile posture that should concern more than just the Witnesses. According to Willy Fautré, director and co-founder of Belgium-based Human Rights Without Frontiers: “Any translation of any other historical sacred book – the Koran of the Muslims, the Tanakh of the Jews, and the Kangyur of the Buddhists – can now be declared illegal in Russia, and any sacred book of any other religion is now vulnerable to state censorship in Russia.”
      source HRWF<<click
    • By bruceq
      Trial of Bible ends
      VYBORG COURT RULES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' BIBLE IS EXTREMIST LITERATURE
      Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, 17 August 2017
       
      Judge Dmitry Yurievich Grishin of the Vyborg city court, a kandidat of jurisprudence and former chairman of the department of civil law of the A.S. Pushkin Leningrad University, announced his decision: to grant the petition of the Leningrad-Finland transport prosecutor; to find "Sacred Scripture—New World Translation" extremist material; to find the brochures "The Bible and it Main Subject," "Science instead of the Bible?" and "How to Improve Health. Five Simple Rules" to be extremist materials; to confiscate the batch of the aforesaid literature. The court's decision has not taken effect and it may be appealed within thirty days. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 August 2017)
       
      Also JW.ORG:
      News Alerts
       
      BREAKING NEWS | Russian Court Bans New World Translation
       
      On August 17, 2017, the Vyborg City Court in Russia ruled to ban the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). In Russia, it is illegal to ban a Bible. However, a court-appointed “expert study” claimed that the NWT is not a Bible. The decision to ban the NWT came even after the powerful testimony of experts and the fine argumentation of our brothers, proving undeniably that the NWT is a Bible. In spite of such obvious discrimination, Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide take comfort from Isaiah 40:8, “the word of our God endures forever.” We are appealing the decision.
    • By Micah Ong
      YAHWEH is NOT a HEBREW NAME. It is ARAMAIC, which is closely related to HEBREW.
      Aramaic replaced ancient Paleo Hebrew and nearly all the existing manuscripts, including the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in the Babylonian Aramaic alphabet.
      These four letters YHWH are Babylonian Aramaic. They are NOT SACRED and they are NOT HOLY. They come from the very root of Babel, confusion, and babble and are profane! According to the Jews who teach about these four letter, the god of this name is a bisexual. He is said to be androgynous (being both male and female). He is said to be androgynous (being both male and female). This god is a devil god. He is NOT the TRUE God of the ISRAELITES.
      Two Catholic monks invented the guess names of JEHOVAH (1270AD) and YAHWEH (about 1725AD). They should not be in any Bible since they did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
      The antichrist Concision (Law keepers, Noahides) who worships the Tetragrammatons’ YHWH, hail the Aramaic alphabet letters of Mystery Babylon to be sacred and holy and the guess names Jehovah and Yahweh derived from them to be the sacred name(s) of God.
    • By Micah Ong
      Thanks for helping me research more.
      YHWH/YHVH/IHVH/JHVH – ORIGIN
      (V = U), (UV = W), (I = J), (J SUBSTITUTE for Y), the name YHWH/JHVH was injected into the text of the Old Testament by the Pharisees and others who practiced Babylonian Satanism (the precursor to Cabalism and Talmudism). For those who don’t believe the Talmud is Satanic it proclaims that Christ is in Hell boiling in excrement and semen.
      An agreement was forged between the Jewish Masoretes and the Catholic Church c. 1000 A.D. to change the name of AHAYAH in the Hebrew Old Testament to the pagan name Yahweh/Jehovah via the Tetragrammatons’.
      This explains Rosenthal’s saying, “We are amazed by the Christians’ stupidity in receiving our teachings and propagating them as their own”.
      In Henry Ford’s words. “The Christian cannot read his Bible except through Jewish spectacles, and, therefore, reads it wrong”.
      The demonic disdain for humanity exhibited by the Luciferian Jew, Harold Rosenthal, typifies the end result of a lethal amalgamation: Jewish religious ritual combined with the worship of knowledge and self. The Jews as a people, by rejecting God and/or accepting Jehovah, have been given over “to a reprobate mind…Being filled with all unrighteousness…” (Romans 1:28-31).
      Of course, Mr. Rosenthal was a member of an elite, openly satanic minority among the Jewish people. Everyday Jews do not know that the god of their faith is in fact Satan hiding behind a mystical name. It is of no consequence to Satan whether he is worshipped deliberately or through subtle lies and deceptions. (Genesis 3).
      The wise Solomon ask, “what is [God’s] name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4). God’s name is AHAYAH (sometimes transliterated Ehyeh) meaning I AM. This is the name given to Moses along with the law. “And God sad unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you…this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:14-15). “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 32:4-5).
      Originally these four Consonants in(YHWH)represented the four members of the Heavenly Family:
      Y – represented EL the Father
      H – represented Asherah the Mother
      W – represented He the Son
      H – represented the Daughter Anath
      The Jewish name for god is represented by the Tetragrammatons’ (YHWH/YHVH) can be pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah. The significance of God’s name is repeated emphasized throughout the scriptures.
      “Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”
      When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. “Yah” (#H3050) means “god”. “Hovah” (#H1942) translates to “eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness.”
      Jehovah is synonymous with Baal:
      “Baal (#H1180) from ba’al with pron. Suff.; my master; Baali, a symbolical name for Jehovah — Baali.”
      The Jewish encyclopedia (“Adonai and Ba’al”) reveals: “The name Ba’al, apparently an equivalent for Yhwh.”
      Since the days of Jeremiah, the Jews have forgotten their god’s name and replaced it with the title “Baal” or “YHWH/YHVH”: The lying prophets “Which think to cause my people to forget my [God’s] name…as their father have forgotten my name for Baal.” (Jeremiah 23:27).
      YHWH/YHVH and Ba’al both represent the god of sexual perversion and wickedness, Satan.
      However, Jews claim that this name (YHWH/YHVH) is not to be spoken aloud, despite God’s command to declare His name throughout the earth (Exodus 9:16). Why ignore this commandment?
      By reverencing their name of God (YHWH/YHVH) by not speaking it, Jews create an air of mystery and holiness around the name while enhancing the curiosity surrounding its pronunciations and power.
      When curious Jews and non-Jews alike see the “sacred” Tetragrammatons’ being used in occult practice, they are intrigued by the prospective that these sorcerers have harnessed the mystical powers of the name. Wicca, Satanism, Tarot, occult Catholicism, Masonry and Cabalism use their knowledge of the “scared” name of god” as bait to recruit cult members. If the name were not hidden, these cults would lack a critical tool in their recruitment processes.
    • By JW Insider
      How good is the evidence that the Christian Scriptures contained YHWH or some variation of that Divine Name?
      There are probably some non-JWs who believe that there is absolutely no reason at all to even entertain the possibility, and there are probably some JWs who believe manuscripts have already been found with YHWH in the NT.  For most of us, the real answer lies somewhere in between. There is a lot of good research on the issue, and this research might be interesting to some of us, whether or not it is compelling enough for anyone to change their mind.
      A previous discussion on the topic became very long and veered off into other topics, too. Hopefully, this attempt will not result in multiple topics or judgmental attitudes about people, and we can focus on the validity of the research itself.
      If anyone wishes to participate, they should feel free to copy anything they wrote in a previous thread. A topic about YHWH in the NT will likely also include topics about the pronunciation of YHWH, YHWH in the OT (LXX, Masoretic, DSS, and other manuscripts), the earliest NT and OT meanings of "name," historical linguistic trends, Greek abbreviations, NT translations, usage by early "Ante-Nicene Fathers," and the various alternatives to YHWH, and comments made by anyone else that might seem partly relevant or interesting (Philo, Josephus, Ebionites, Talmud, Gnostics, etc.). It's still a big topic.
      The arguments that many find relevant are found in Gerard Gertoux, which can be seen here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf
      He references G. Howard, of course, which might even be a better place to start. (HOWARD, Biblical Archaeology Review Vol IV, No. 1). His ideas can be found online here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
       
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Chief Operating Officer and SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell recently gave a revealing and fascinating interview with Marie Claire. A historically fashion-focused media outlet, Marie Claire has recently taken to exploring a much broader subset of topics, with a particular affinity towards content that might help empower women both young and old. Gwynne Shotwell may well be one of the best stories of success for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields over the last decade. Engineering, particularly aerospace engineering, has a rather shadowy history of diversity and inclusion, even to this day. Regardless, Elon Musk has demonstrated no discriminatory tendencies whatsoever throughout his storied history. According to Shotwell, Space and Tesla CEO Elon Musk called Shotwell and asked her to apply for a position as Vice President of Business Development after a conversation that lasted a few minutes, following a tour of SpaceX’s facilities. She was immediately hired and the rest is history. Musk and Shotwell have truly become a force to be reckoned with in the launch industry, and Shotwell has developed a reputation as an unbelievably effective salesperson, whom Musk regularly praises.

      Shotwell and Musk played critical roles in early talks with NASA that ultimately translated into a ~$2 billion commercial resupply services (CRS) contract awarded for delivery of cargo and supplies to the International Space Station, and helped bring SpaceX back from the brink of bankruptcy in 2008. Promoted to Chief Operating Officer and President soon after, Shotwell has since helped secure SpaceX’s backlog of more than $7 billion worth of launches. In light of SpaceX’s rapidly accelerating launch cadence, the most interesting information to come out of Marie Claire’s interview with the COO might be related to the workload its employees face. SpaceX has long been almost mythologized as a place where employees might be expected to regularly work 60-80 hour weeks if they expect to keep their jobs. While the company has fought to combat those rumors, it is undeniable that at least a minority in the company have been required to work extremely trying hours in certain periods of frenetic activity. However, Shotwell directly addressed those concerns, personally admitting that requiring 70-80 hour work weeks was unsustainable in the long run for SpaceX employees. Further, stepping well out of line with the traditional engineer work ethic, she stated that the company’s employees were encouraged to “focus on simplifying their jobs and making the task easier instead of putting their heads down and being a hero”. Encouraging a responsive, intelligent work ethic for all employees is truly exceptional throughout almost all engineering-focused companies. While she has always acted as a sort of temper to Musk’s extraordinary willingness to accept risks in the pursuit of non-traditional solutions or goals, she noted that, “I have learned over my 15 years of working with him to not bet against him and not question whether something can be done”. Sober voices will be necessary along SpaceX’s path to Mars, and the Musk-Shotwell duo encourage significant optimism that SpaceX will eventually succeed. Musk could not have found a more perfect person to help lead SpaceX, and Shotwell will almost certainly continue to work miracles as she works to ensure that SpaceX achieves its lofty ambitions. The post SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell talks space, life and Elon Musk appeared first on TESLARATI.com. Via
    • OK, Arauna, walk me through this. How do you verify that it was indeed 539 BCE when Babylon fell to Persian armies? Do you agree with the Babylonian source that the battle of Opis occurred in Nabonidus' 17th year (although the year is actually broken off)? Assuming that the missing year is indeed '17' (and there is good reason to believe so from the tablet's format), how do we go about tying Nabonidus' 17th year to a modern calendar year? Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that? If you do not believe the Babylonian source about the Opis battle and the fall of Babylon, what alternatives do you propose for establishing 539 BCE as the correct year?
    • Thank you so much you are so helpful may Jehovah bless you
    • French government, employers and unions begin final discussions on labour reforms https://www.youtube.com
    • Iraq: Civilians flee battle as Coalition forces close in on Tal Afar https://www.youtube.com
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      39,438
    • Total Posts
      60,992
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      12,082
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Brenda Gameson
    Joined