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

[JW Insider]

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.

[bruceq]

Insider have you ever read the research of 

Pavlos Vasileiadis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Theology - Biblical Studies, Department ...   He has very interesting research that is not in print but is on the Tetragrammaton including in the New Testament?

[JW Insider]

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.

[bruceq]

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.

https://www.academia.edu/30967321/_The_god_Iao_and_his_connection_with_the_Biblical_God_with_special_emphasis_on_the_manuscript_4QpapLXXLevb_Ο_θεός_Ιαώ_και_η_σχέση_του_με_τον_Βιβλικό_Θεό_με_ιδιαίτερη_εστίαση_στο_χειρόγραφο_4QpapLXXLevb_Vetus_Testamentum_et_Hellas_Vol._4_2017_pp._xx

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

[Micah Ong]

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. C1The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”

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?

 

[Micah Ong]

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?

[Micah Ong]

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.

[Micah Ong]

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.

 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

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

Not quite. I am assuming religionists took it out.

[Micah Ong]

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. 

[Evacuated]

4 minutes ago, Micah Ong said:

I have finished ping ponging around

[bruceq]

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;  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".

   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.