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 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

 
  1. C1

      Hello guest!
  2. C2

      Hello guest!
  3. C3

      Hello guest!
  4. C4

      Hello guest!

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

    Hello guest!
and
    Hello guest!
.)

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.
 

    Hello guest!

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  

    Hello guest!
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

Insider have you ever read the research of 

 
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
, 
    Hello guest!
, Department ...
 
He has very interesting research that is not in print but is on the Tetragrammaton including in the New Testament?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Insider have you ever read the research of 

 
    Hello guest!

Not before you mentioned him. I just downloaded his 34-page pdf:

    Hello guest!

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

Yes that one is good and also his research into "IAO" as the Greek version of "Jehovah"  and what he says about how it may have appeared in original NT authographs.

    Hello guest!

It is similar to George Howards ideas of the Tetragram in the NT  except this guy goes into much more research into the subject

Share this post


Link to post

Teetering with OLD NEWS. Why ignorance is just catching up to what the Watchtower and secular scholars have already fully researched. Yet there is an ex-bethelite here, still dismissing the Watchtower Research as unreliable. Hypocrisy at its best!

 

YAHWEH: THE DIVINE NAME IN THE BIBLE 1975

THE TETRAGRAMMATON WITHIN JUDAISM

The precise pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is by no means easily recovered, although the view most widely accepted today is that the divine name was pronounced Yahweh. The literature on the subject is very extensive.1 In the sixteenth century. Genebrardus suggested the pronunciation, Jahvey2 largely on the strength of Theodoret's assertion that the Samaritans used the pronunciation 'labe, subsequent to the time when pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was forbidden to the Jews.3 The question as to the date when pronunciation of the divine name was no longer permitted finds no certain answer. In only comparatively recent times has the pronunciation Yahweh been widely acknowledged. Even though Gesenius gave the pronunciation as Yahweh in his lexicon of 1815, scholars continued to employ the customary Jehovah, out of deference to tradition, until Ewald began to use Jahveh (= Yahweh) regularly in his writings. Of the various alternative forms that have been proposed, the most probable is Yahoox Yâhiï. A. Lukyn Williams4 has argued for such a pronunciation on the basis of theophorous names in the Old Testament ending in YHW, the Elephantine evidence, the attestation of Diodorus Siculus to a form ,lao,5 various passages drawn from patristic sources, and charms and amulets which use the form 7ao. Sachau, Grimme, and Leander had earlier made similar claims. W. F. Albright acknowledges the arguments for such a pronunciation, when he refers to "Yahû, which appears beside Yahwéh, especially in the Elephantine Papyri, the jar-stamps from the same period found in Jcricho, and as the final clement in proper names/' 6 However, Albright offers the explanation that. Yahu is a jussive form derived from the verbal form Yahweh, and that the forms could be interchanged.


Although Yahweh seems to be a probable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, since Yahi1 does not really account for the final he, there cannot be complete certainty about it. Once pronunciation of the name was proscribed, the correct way of pronouncing it eventually was lost. We can only surmise that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. Murtonen states, "The pronunciation of the tetragram was forgotten because of 1) the threat that Yhwh 'will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain,' and 2) the unnaturalness of the circumstance that a god who was regarded as the only god in the whole universe had a proper name.

B. D. Eerdmans claims that "the full Tetragrammaton is an onomatopoeia,"9 imitating the sound of thunder. From Isa.30:27, "Behold, the name of the Lord comes from far, burning with his anger, and in rising smoke," he deduces that the divine name is an onomatopoeia of the thunder. He finds confirmation in such passages as Ps.29:3 and Exod.33:19. However, this view seems to be based on a very literal understanding of the texts cited. That the sound of thunder should evoke awe on the part of those who recognized in it the majesty of YHWH seems reasonable, but that the name YHWH itself should be an onomatopoeia of the thunder is questionable. In the case of Psalm 29^ the word qôl, "voice," if drawn out, sounds much more like thunder reverberating. Before we examine the traditions regarding the Tetragrammaton which are found in the Mishnah, some attention should be given to the forms of the divine name in the papyri from Elephantine and in the Dead Sea Scrolls A Jewish settlement at Elephantine existed prior to the Persian conquest, but took on the special task of acting as a military colony safeguarding the
interests of the Persians at the southern border of Egypt.10 The original reason for the settlement is not known, although it may well be that in the seventh century Manassch sent mercenary troops to Egypt in exchange for horses (cf. Deut.17:16).11 The Aramaic archives from the colony on the island of Elephantine date from 495 B.C., down to the end of the fifth century.12 From these archives, especially from the letters to Bagoas, governor of Judaea in the late fifth century, we learn that a Jewish Temple was erected earlier than the Persian conquest of 525 B.C., and that it was destroyed in 410 B.C. The Temple was dedicated to the god
YHW. Oriented towards Jerusalem, its dimensions resembled those of the Jerusalem Temple. BezaleL Porten states, "Details about the Temple derive from the papyrus recording its destruction and asking assistance for its reconstruction (C30/31). It was built prior to the Persian conquest of 525 B.C.E. and contained stone pillars, five gateways of carved stone with bronze hinges, a 4cedarwood' roof and woodwork (? 'srnc) (C30:9ff./31 :Sff.).

 

A problem of interpretation is raised by the mention in the papyri of other deities. A. E. Cowley remarks, "It would seem that besides Ya'u they recognized cAnath, Bethel, Ishum and Herem. There may have been others, but it is at least a coincidence that we have the names of five gods and that there were five gates to the temple (30:9)." 2 9 If these are separate deities, what is their relationship to one another? Were syncretizing tendencies at work? Cowley concludes, "It was not a case of falling away from a monotheistic ideal, but a continuation of the pre-exilic popular beliefs."30 According to W. F. Albright, "the three divine names Eshem-bêth'elt Herem-bêth'el, cAnath-bêth ,el (= c Anath-Yahu), meaning respectively 'Name of the House of God' (= God), 4Sacredness of the House of God,' and 4Sign(?) of the House of God' would reflect pure hypostatizations of deity, probably influenced by contemporary Canaanite-Aramaean the־ ological speculation, in which Beth'el frequently appears as the name of a god (from the seventh to the fourth century B.C.)."31 Porten, on the other hand, finds the evidence for hypostatization "not sufficiently decisive"32 and looks rather to pagan influences resulting from intermarriage as the occasion for the introduction of these names of foreign deities.33 The process of syncretism can be seen in the compound name of the deity, Anathyahu. Porten makes the observation, "YHW was still God, but Anath was added assurance, Anathyahu was that aspect of YHW which assured man's well-being. Although the Arameans had a shrine to the Queen of Heaven, the name Anath appears only twice among the many personal names from Elephantine and Syrenc (C22:108; BK 4:3). If the goddess' cultic importance may be judged from her onomastic absence, it would seem that she did not play a major role in the communal religious life of the Jews.

The Qumran scrolls contain some items of interest in relation to the use of the divine name. In describing the biblical manuscripts found in Cave 4, Patrick Skehan draws attention to a number of unusual features.35 For example,4QIsc "contains such names as Yhwh, Yhwh sb'wt, ,iwhynw, and the like in paleoheb rew script. This is almost unique among square-letter manuscripts in Qumran 4." 3 6 Nevertheless, the Fouad papyrus No. 266 of Deuteronomy in Greek, consisting of Deut. 31:28-32:7, appears to be the oldest witness to a differentiation in script for the Tetragrammaton, which is written in Aramaic characters.37 A Greek papyrus MS of Leviticus (4QLXX Lev.b), in a hand similar to that of the Fouad papyrus of Deuteronomy (first century B.C.), employs 7AO instead of Kyrios, which nowhere occurs in the document. 3 8 David Diringer mentions the fact that both the Tetragrammaton and the name ‘el (= God) are written in early Hebrew characters in certain of the Qumran MSS which are otherwise written in square-letter Hebrew script.39 Some Greek codices of the Christian era contained the Tetragrammaton in early Hebrew script; e.g., P. Oxy. vii 1007, a third century papyrus fragment of Genesis, abbreviates as probably to represent a doubled yodh \ in Origen's Ilexapla (third century), Ihe Greek versi on s of Aquila and Symmachus represented the divine name by pi, iota, pi, iota, capitalized,40 obviously intended to approximate to the Hebrew charactcrsfor the Tetragrammaton in the LXX, almost always abbreviated to ks as in the case of the Chester Beatty papyrus of Numbers and Deuteronomy. This evidence suggests that *doriäy may have been read as a substitute for the divine name as early as the time that the Hebrew Bible was being translated into Greek, i.e., from the third century B.C. onward.

Among the Qumran manuscripts, The Manual of Discipline is unique in attesting a five-letter name for God, hw'h* (1QS VIII.13). In an allusion to Isa.40:3, the phrase V drk hw'h יcorresponds to drk YHWH of the MT, which is represented by drk followed by four dots where the Tetragrammaton occurs. The passage in context reads, "And when these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him (ihw'h *)׳f as it is written 'Prepare in the wilderness the way of . . . ,' יmake straight in the desert a path for our God' (Isa. xl.3)." 4 2 In S. Mowinckel's opinion, "As the scribe does not write drkw his hw'h ' certainly means something more than an ordinary suff. 3rd. pers. masc.; it is meant to be a real compensation for the divine name." 4 3 This he takes as evidence that the pronoun "He" (hü) was used as a name or surrogate for God, a view shared by such scholars as del Medico, S. Zeitlin and G. Lambert. The final aleph is an obstacle to this interpretation, however, although the fact that the pronoun hwft appears in 1QS III: 17, 25; 4:25, strengthens the supposition. W. H. Brownlee surmises that hw'h ' is a periphrasis for God which originated as an abbreviation of the combined form hû7h ׳Ihyrn .[pp.79-83]

Share this post


Link to post

So still no one has shown any evidence of YHWH in the earliest copies of the "New Testament."

11 hours ago, bruceq said:

Appendix C

 
  1. C1

      Hello guest!

I only see manuscripts from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Job, Isaiah and other Hebrew Scriptures.

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, bruceq said:

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
12 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.

So until then you are only assuming YHWH is in the NT.

Share this post


Link to post

All in all I don't think it matters because Jesus is not concerned with theology only love.  After all it was the theologians who killed Jesus(let's not be pedantic, we know he gave up his life but it was an act of execution on their part), who new God's name(YHWH). 

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 

"'Teacher," he asked, 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' 

"'What is written in the law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?' 

"He answered: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and, love your neighbor as yourself." 

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied, "Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:25-28)

I'm not saying Theology or Theologians are bad as long as it's helping you are grow in love the way Jesus taught.  Being dogmatic seems to go against love from what I have experienced.  But there is nothing wrong with learning and being open minded as long as you don't miss the point of what Jesus said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not quite. I am assuming religionists took it out.

That is still assuming though isn't it?  Anyway I have finished ping ponging around because no evidence is shown and this is pointless debating rather than focusing on what Jesus said was important.  As I said, the Pharisees knew God's name but he wasn't concerned with that, he was concerned with the condition of the heart and providing hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

All in all I don't think it matters because Jesus is not concerned with theology only love.  After all it was the theologians who killed Jesus(let's not be pedantic, we know he gave up his life but it was an act of execution on their part), who new God's name(YHWH). 

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 

"'Teacher," he asked, 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' 

"'What is written in the law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?' 

"He answered: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and, love your neighbor as yourself." 

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied, "Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:25-28)

I'm not saying Theology or Theologians are bad as long as it's helping you are grow in love the way Jesus taught.  Being dogmatic seems to go against love from what I have experienced.  But there is nothing wrong with learning and being open minded as long as you don't miss the point of what Jesus said.

 

   You seem to understand the truth that YHWH was in the Hebrew Scriptures. But you have not provided any original autographs of the NT to prove your point that YHWH was not in the NT. Of course we also cannot prove our point "by those means" since no one has the original mss. So this discussion is pointless as you say.

   However it occurs to me that we should believe what Jesus taught as you say. And what did he use to teach God's Word? Did he use the NEW TESTAMENT? No. It was not even written yet. Jesus read from and taught from the HEBREW SCRIPTURES which I am under the impression that you agree and as everyone knows that YHWH was in the Hebrew Scriptures which is the ONLY Bible Jesus had. JESUS used such as the Isaiah scroll he first picked up which contained the Divine Name. 

  As for the Bibles message being changed I agree that the message has not but "WORDS" have been such as at 1 John 5:7 which was in the Latin Vulgates Catholic Douay version of 1610 but later versions of Catholic Bibles removed the spurious addition found there. So even the Bible says that this would happen as John said even when he wrote in 98 C.E. {long before 150 C.E.}  that already there were some who were once true Christians who left and started teaching false religious things and of course John also said at Revelation 22:18 some of the very last words in the Bible :"" If anyone makes an addition to these things,  God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;  

    Hello guest!
 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".

   Notice it did not say no one would ever attempt to remove or add to the Bible but that they would have accountability if they did. And notice it said "WORDS of the scroll" not message of the Bible which God has kept intact.

   As for your other point on Love I agree that Love would identify God's People not debates about words in the Bible which by the way YOU started B|. John 13:35.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bruceq said:

As for your other point on Love I agree that Love would identify God's People not debates about words in the Bible which by the way YOU started B|. John 13:35

For that I apologize

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2017 at 2:30 PM, bruceq said:

Yes that one is good and also his research into "IAO" as the Greek version of "Jehovah"  and what he says about how it may have appeared in original NT authographs.

    Hello guest!

It is similar to George Howards ideas of the Tetragram in the NT  except this guy goes into much more research into the subject

I finished the two papers by Vasieiadis. I have previously read what George Howard said and found him convincing at the time. What I'm trying to do now though is start from scratch, with no bias for or against any position, and just see where the evidence takes us.

His research into "IAO" would be rather devastating to the position that the NWT translators have held, and that the Watch Tower publications promote. It has similarities to a lot of the research that AllenSmith has just presented, which would also be devastating to the Watch Tower's currently accepted research if even half of it were true. Recall that the NWT Appendix said:

*** 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 [in the first century C.E.], the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).

What is striking about Vasileiadis's research, is that he claims that the original Septuagint [LXX] which came from Egypt, might have never contained YHWH, but initially contained the name of an Egyptian "Almighty God" who went by the name Iao. He says this could have been based on Hellenistic syncretism, especially prevalent among Jews who lived outside of Palestine. This is nearly the opposite of what the NWT Appendix claims above:

On the other side, the god named Iao is found in Greek and Latin works of the Hellenistic period already since the 1st century BCE. It mainly appears in writings displaying marks of religious syncretism, used as one of the names designating either the highest God or one of his emanations. In the following the possibility is examined that the use of the name Iao, instead of another form of the Tetragrammaton, in the manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb (4Q120; Rahlfs 802) may be the result of a Hellenizing rather than a re-Hebraizing tendency, a view that tends to prevail in the Septuagint studies. Evidence coming from Christian writers shows that for few centuries CE Bible manuscripts that contained the theonym Iao were circulating among them and even possibly produced by them.

He traces the possibility through the large Jewish community at Elephantine since the 6th & 5th century B.C.E.  (famous for the second ancient Jewish Temple). These Jews had long used a 3-letter "Tetragrammaton:" YHW (likely pronounced "Yaho"/"Ya'u"). Scholars have said that this Jewish community was syncretic almost to the point of being polytheistic, similar to the common problem that all the prophets continued to warn the Jews in Jerusalem about. But it wasn't about polytheism so much as the idea that various cultures in Hellenistic society had a pantheon of gods, but identified one of those gods as "the Supreme Being" or the "Highest One." He says this would include usually, Zeus, Helios, Sarapis, and Iao. 

He doesn't mention it, but this may not be so different from how Zeus becomes Dzeus or Deus, which many languages use to refer to the Almighty God of Christianity and Judaism. (Dios, Deity, Divine)

Also, his research doesn't mention it, but it seems that it would have been the same as if the LXX had happened 400 years later in a Latin translation and the choice had been to translate YHWH as either "Jupiter" or "Jove," the equivalent of the Supreme, Highest God (Jove=Zeus). Following the logic of his research, they would have likely chosen "Jove" because it was a close compromise to YHW. But, who knows, even Jupiter could have been possible, because its derivation is likely related to changing DZeu-pater or God-the-Father. Easy to rationalize as a good name for any Almighty God.

He says that many of the Gnostic influences (also widespread in Egypt) popularized IAO as the name of angels or subordinate deities from the 1st century BCE to the first century CE. (Then again, the Gnostics also subordinated Jehovah as a lesser deity.)

On the point of subordinate deities, I found this particular footnote interesting:

Sean McDonough, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in Its Hellenistic and
Early Jewish Setting, Tübingen 1999, 95–97. For instance, in late
Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Ιαω [IAO] was a prominent name of the lion-
headed Sabaoth, the Biblical Creator,
who could assume many
names and be identified with some gods or heroes. He was Mihos
for the Egyptians, Ialdabaoth for the Ophite Gnostics,
Judas, Michael
or Moses for other Judaizing sects
, and also the Greek hero
Perseus. He was the god of amulets and was invoked in several
magical spells. Also, he was depicted to use the powerful divine
snake Chnoubis as his weapon. . . . This is widely observable all over the
Mediterranean world in inscriptions of that period.

Of course, YHWH is also called Jehovah-Sabaoth in the Bible [Lord of Hosts/Jehovah of Armies], and the name Sabaoth remained intact through Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The mention of the magic amulets and papyri is interesting, because in the magic of the time, the idea was to pronounce the name of a god properly to gain the power or influence of the god. The papyri might even offer several possible pronunciations, and at least two of the magic sources even give us some hints as to how YHWH was to be pronounced.

I found another academic source that claims that although "Yahweh" was the more likely Jewish pronunciation of YHWH, it claims that "Yehova/Jehovah" was a pronunciation given in the magical papyri for casting spells, gaining power, etc.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I put this up merely for research purposes. I do not endorse the entire research anymore than the Watchtower Society endorses everything mentioned in the hundreds of books they also quote from. I do not consider the points I gleaned from it "devastating" to any position as I try to keep an open mind as long as it is in accord with Jehovah's Organization.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bruceq said:

I put this up merely for research purposes. I do not endorse the entire research anymore than the Watchtower Society endorses everything mentioned in the hundreds of books they also quote from. I do not consider the points I gleaned from it "devastating" to any position as I try to keep an open mind as long as it is in accord with Jehovah's Organization.

I understand this and I agree. I gleaned many points from it that were valuable and were not at all devastating to the positions promoted in our publications.

I was speaking about a specific position he posits that would be devastating if it's true.  It would be devastating because it would take away the entire point we make about YHWH in the LXX. We would probably stop making use of any argument about the LXX and YHWH.

1. That's because the basic point is that the original LXX may have used IAO instead of YHWH. IAO would have come first because of the pagan and Hellenistic influences that remained in copies of the LXX well into the Christian era, even copied by Christians who made copies of the LXX. Then, he says, it could have been later Hebraist influences that were intended to correct the "pagan" influence, by putting YHWH into the places where IAO had originally been.

2. But another point is that the use of YHWH in the LXX was to keep it from being pronounced, while the use of IAO made a word like Iao (Ya'o, or Yaho), easy to pronounce. In some cases the term YHWH was put not just in Hebrew/Aramaic characters but in 1,000-year-old style archaic Hebrew letters, which would further assure that it was not pronounced. 

Both these points are devastating to our argument about IAO because we have said it was so that a form of YHWH would be pronounced.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2017 at 4:07 PM, AllenSmith said:

Among the Qumran manuscripts, The Manual of Discipline is unique in attesting a five-letter name for God, hw'h* (1QS VIII.13). In an allusion to Isa.40:3, the phrase V drk hw'h יcorresponds to drk YHWH of the MT, which is represented by drk followed by four dots where the Tetragrammaton occurs.

I ran across a document here, that either you or bruceq might find interesting:

    Hello guest!

It appears to be very thorough for what it does. It's title is:

YHWH, THE INEFFABLE NAME: AVOIDANCE, ALTERNATIONS AND CIRCUMVENTIONS IN THE NON-BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN

by JOËLLE ALHADEF-LAKE

The introduction provides a kind of summary:

This thesis studies alternations in the usage of the Tetragrammaton in non-biblical manuscripts at Qumran through an analysis of scriptural quotations from the Torah to the Nevi’im in the Dead Sea Scrolls citing the Tetragrammaton. Thirty-three distinctive divine name alternations were identified. Additionally, a list of alternation types and of scrolls featuring alternations in Qumran were compiled. Distinctive groups of scrolls were identified at Qumran: some featured the Tetragrammaton, with or without alternations, and some circumvented it completely. Our study focuses on the avoidance of the Tetragrammaton, on alternations in square script, and on writing traditions: El, Tetrapuncta and paleo-Hebrew. Two applications were then investigated: the use of alternations in divine names in order to determine the scrolls’ origins and the distribution of names in paleo-Hebrew in these scrolls.

For context, the author says that:

The scrolls date from about 250 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. Scholars divide the Dead Sea Scrolls into two convenient categories: the “biblical” and the “non-biblical” manuscripts. The term “biblical” is based on the traditional Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). The non-biblical scrolls were previously estimated to approximately 670 scrolls. [out of 1,000+ total manuscripts]

The document is 187 pages, but much of it is in tables that describe every example found by type. The author also decided to look at how these documents avoided the divine name or otherwise changed or circumvented the wording of direct quotes from the Bible in these manuscripts. Can't tell yet if that could have any bearing on the way various scribes might have copied NT documents, but it would still be an interesting comparison, if different. Quoting from the document again:

THE THESIS QUESTION This thesis will discuss what alternations for the name YHWH appear in Qumran nonbiblical manuscripts when scriptural units are quoted. The term “alternations” refers to lexical and syntactical changes, as well as to alternations in writing traditions, such as the use of paleo-Hebrew script and Tetrapuncta for divine names. The first step of research involved a discovery of scriptural quotations from the Hebrew Bible referring to the Tetragrammaton in Qumran non-biblical manuscript; as a result, a corpus of alternations was established—some scrolls displayed the Tetragrammaton, others exhibited a mix of alternations and a group of scrolls circumvented the use of the Tetragrammaton altogether.

These findings led to this thesis question: In the Qumran non-biblical manuscripts circumventing the Tetragrammaton, what alternation patterns predominated and what was the nature of these documents? Two applications of the research were then investigated. Could the information on alternations to the Tetragrammaton be useful in locating the origins of scrolls? Additionally, in scrolls displaying instances of paleo-El (or Elohim), was there a consistent organization in all the scrolls with respect to the combination of El (God) in square script and El in paleo-Hebrew?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

Pascale Petit,

This has to take the biscuit for off topic posting! :o Oh just noticed you are the original poster???

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

his has to take the biscuit for off topic posting! :o Oh just noticed you are the original poster???

 

3 hours ago, bruceq said:

I do not endorse the entire research anymore than the Watchtower Society endorses everything mentioned in the hundreds of books they also quote from.

I was showing bruceq one of the magazines they quoted or used a picture from.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Micah Ong said:

 

I was showing bruceq one of the magazines they quoted or used a picture from.

As for your other point on Love I agree that Love would identify God's People not arguments or debates about words  in the Bible which by the way YOU started . John 13:35 :D

Share this post


Link to post

@bruceq Yes I know but I feel this is a loving warning to present factual information regarding the information this Governing Body is presenting to you.  This is not a debate about words but merely showing you the deception that is taking place.  I only hope that you put your complete trust in God and not a group of men.  Especially when they say they things like this:

At that time, the lifesaving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (w13 11/15 p.20)

Have any of theirdates been correct!

Share this post


Link to post

It is true that we are to be LOYAL to Jehovah and his people whether they are right or wrong. 

"They replied to Jeremiah: “May Jehovah be a true and faithful witness against us if we do not do exactly as Jehovah your God instructs us through you.  Whether good or bad, we will obey the voice of Jehovah our God" Jer. 42:5,6.

Jeremiah was imperfect and made mistakes. Yet they were to obey "whether good OR BAD".

   In the First Century the Christians were also to be LOYAL :"And they continued devoting themselves to the TEACHING of the APOSTLES" Acts 2:42. Yet they also made many MISTAKES and were imperfect people yet God used them as well.

   The real question of LOYALTY that I am perceiving is WHY after my last posting on YHWH {which just happens to be the TOPIC} you suddenly start attacking Jehovah's Witnesses and go OFF topic? What was in in the previous post I made that made you SO upset to start attacking and NOT even be LOYAL to your own topic about YHWH but to go off topic?

Here is the post in full - what was it that made you go off?:

 

    "You seem to understand the truth that YHWH was in the Hebrew Scriptures. But you have not provided any original autographs of the NT to prove your point that YHWH was not in the NT. Of course we also cannot prove our point "by those means" since no one has the original mss. So this discussion is pointless as you say.

   However it occurs to me that we should believe what Jesus taught as you say. And what did he use to teach God's Word? Did he use the NEW TESTAMENT? No. It was not even written yet. Jesus read from and taught from the HEBREW SCRIPTURES which I am under the impression that you agree and as everyone knows that YHWH was in the Hebrew Scriptures which is the ONLY Bible Jesus had. JESUS used such as the Isaiah scroll he first picked up which contained the Divine Name. 

  As for the Bibles message being changed I agree that the message has not but "WORDS" have been such as at 1 John 5:7 which was in the Latin Vulgates Catholic Douay version of 1610 but later versions of Catholic Bibles removed the spurious addition found there. So even the Bible says that this would happen as John said even when he wrote in 98 C.E. {long before 150 C.E.}  that already there were some who were once true Christians who left and started teaching false religious things and of course John also said at Revelation 22:18 some of the very last words in the Bible :"" If anyone makes an addition to these things,  God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;  

    Hello guest!
 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".

   Notice it did not say no one would ever attempt to remove or add to the Bible but that they would have accountability if they did. And notice it said "WORDS of the scroll" not message of the Bible which God has kept intact.

   As for your other point on Love I agree that Love would identify God's People not debates about words in the Bible which by the way YOU started" . John 13:35.

:D

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.

    You need to be registered and logged in to get full access and to add content yourself. 

     

  • 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.”

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. <<click
    • By bruceq
      Trial of Bible ends
      VYBORG COURT RULES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' BIBLE IS EXTREMIST LITERATURE

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
      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 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. , “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:
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. 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:
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
  • Popular Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have the crows bring her an extra sandwich and more ink for her pen.
    • As predicted in the Scriptures, I imagine that confidence in a certain guide will gradually decrease, more and more.
      So writing phrases like "Strange instructions could come" means saying "you always obey".
      Moreover, "closing in the congregations" is a play of words because it does not mean "closing in the Halls of the Kingdom". If the people of God will be scattered all over the world until the last moment, no specific instruction will be given (in fact, needs and situations vary from country to country). So cite Isaiah by applying "inner rooms" to congregations can mean everything and nothing.
      If you lock yourself in a Kingdom Hall and this Kingdom Hall is destroyed, it means "you did not understand the instructions."
      Closure to the congregation, on the other hand, is a way to say "You have to trust in Jehovah."
      If something bad happens, it means you did not trust Jehovah. Instead, the Bible explains that the people of God will be gathered (from all over the world) to a specific spot on Earth just before Armageddon. In this case the instructions (which may concern first aid, hygiene, food sharing and other things) will be clear and simple. They will not be strange. But this information is "apostasy" is not it?
      So very few will pay attention.
      Alternatively, wait for these "strange" instructions.
      It will be very reasonable to think that people who are resident all over the world, with different geographies, different climates, different needs, and isolated siblings far from everyone and everyone, will receive "specific instructions".
      Let's say "close in the congregations" and so we are sure we will not go wrong (if something goes wrong, the fault is what you did not trust in Jehovah). Think about Israel's history and how it was saved from Egypt, or about Lot and how it was saved from Sodom and Gomorrah.
      Think of the words "for our education" - Romans 15: 4
      Reflect on the words "fully prepared" - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
      Perhaps the instructions to survive Armageddon (perhaps) are already written in the Bible.
    • Two links are added, sourcing everything. The only "projection" of mine that remains is the Special Victims Unit, which I admit is subjective. is anyone in a tizzy over that? Let him or her come here and defend the show if they are.
    • I  TRY  IT  TMW.  AND  TELL  YOU !!    NOW  BED - TIME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank  you  my  dear  Brother   haha,  I  love  that  new  smiley !  SO  sweet...
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      44,164
    • Total Posts
      72,221
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      13,255
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    BUKDOS
    Joined