Would you like to know the truth about Hell?

[Shiwiii]

9 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

The Dead Sea scroll is a fragment of the Greek Septuagint.  It contain the Hebrew tetragram because the Hebrews did not want to transliterate God's Name, so the Hebrew tetragram was placed in the Greek.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/tetragrammaton-divine-name/

Again, you are referring to the Old Testament which does nothing to support the insertion of YHWH into the New Testament! 

 

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/

[BroRando]

At one time LORD referred to Jehovah and Lord referred to Jesus.  Since many Greek Scriptures were quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures it does leave a paper trail. 

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the LORD (God Jehovah Isa 44:6; Gen 17:1; Exo 6:3 ), which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8)  http://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/NT66REV01.htm

Many scriptures today not only removed the Name but also removed the title 'God' and now simply insert Lord to lead the reader astray. One should note that Jesus is not in this scripture at all that singles a corruption of scripture 

(Rev 1:8) is a quote from the Old testament but changed in the New Testament?  Now now...

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

When Jesus read from the book of Isaiah he was reading the Greek Septuagint that had the Hebrew tetragram in it.  That's why they were looking intentty at him.  Because he pronounced his Father Name in front of the synagogue.  Remember the same synagogue a few minutes later was going to toss Jesus off a cliff in order to kill him

This is quite possible. But it is also speculation. Therefore it's also possible that it's false, or only partly true. These other topics should really be discussed under another title, and let this one go to [the truth about] hell.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Brother Rando said:

Meanwhile, do your own research how the Apostles baptized followers.

If you are arguing that the formula found in Matthew 28:18-20 was a later addition to the first century Bible, then I understand why you are bringing it up in the discussion of "hell." This could be appropriate especially if you are also arguing that ideas about "torment" were also added later. (Even though it is possible to understand these references without thinking of literal, conscious torment.)

I don't think it's necessary to posit that these scriptures were added later, but perhaps you are only saying that they were infused with a doctrinal "charge" at a later time. I hope you can clear that up.

Personally, I think it was already quite common for people in Jesus' day to think of the dead as calling out from hades or sheol in some figurative way -  much like the way in which the blood of Abel called out for justice, or John could speak of the "souls" of those who had been slaughtered, speaking.

(Genesis 4:10) . . .Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.

(Hebrews 12:24) . . .and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood.

(Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

I think this is probably a more likely key to understanding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but I would assume that this type of parable could only have accompanied a common knowledge of what Jesus and his immediate followers believed about the condition of the dead. I think even that is answered when he spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living." It's as if living in God's eyes, and therefore "asleep" as with Jesus' friend named Lazarus. All this is, of course, what we already believe as Witnesses. But there might still be more to learn on this topic. Which is why I asked.

 

[Shiwiii]

57 minutes ago, Birdie said:

In his book, Truth in Translation, a scholar whom we are happy to quote, Jason Beduhn, specifically states that the "insertion" of Jehovah into the Christian Greek Scriptures is simply not translation.

In the appendix of that same book under "Jehovah", Mr. Beduhn states that there is no justification of inserting "Jehovah" in the New Testament. He even goes as far to state that the wt uses the J papers/letters inappropriately as support for their insertion, when the J papers are just another translation. 

 

"Having concluded that the NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am referring to the use of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169)"

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

In the appendix of that same book under "Jehovah", Mr. Beduhn states that there is no justification of inserting "Jehovah" in the New Testament. He even goes as far to state that the wt uses the J papers/letters inappropriately as support for their insertion, when the J papers are just another translation. 

 

"Having concluded that the NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am referring to the use of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169)"

Thank you for that quote. I read the book many years ago. The 2013 NWT seems to have thrown some of his recommendations out too. So I'm not sure if they can keep quoting him, if they also reject him at times. I think that's called "selective quoting".

Thanks again for that quote. For me, it makes little difference to the bigger issues we face. Most of us are certain that Jehovah will direct matters how he sees fit. In recent years, it seems that having a selection of Bibles is a good idea, and feel good that they also made the King James, American Standard, Byingtons, and Interlinear available for our perusal too

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Brother Rando said:

(Rev 1:8) is a quote from the Old testament but changed in the New Testament?  Now now...

Remember that most quotes from the "OT" are from the LXX though, not the Hebrew text. Where the LXX and the Hebrew differ a little bit in the sense of the translation, the NT makes use of the sense found in the LXX. Some of the points made in the NT when quoting the OT, make very little sense if you stick with the Hebrew, but make perfect sense if you go by the Greek LXX.

Also, we have no proof yet that it was all, or even most of the copies of the LXX in the first century that had a form of the divine name. Perhaps it was rare, and the reason the NT never contains a form of the divine name is because these were EXACT quotes from the OT LXX. There is some evidence that the removal of the divine name had already gone into effect BEFORE the first century. We even see that one of the latest books of the Bible, Esther, never uses the divine name. This is also true of several of the Dead Sea Scroll documents. (And it's also true of almost ALL the oldest known versions of every additional Jewish book written between Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls, including Maccabees, etc.)

And by the way, if Revelation 1:8 contains an OT quote, it would be quoting Isaiah 48:12.

• (Isaiah 48:12) . . .Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called. I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last.

The divine name is not found in Isaiah 48:3-15, so any quote of Isaiah 48:12 should NOT have the divine name in it.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

The Tetragrammaton is NEVER found in the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts. 

This is a misleading statement and would be better worded as "The Tetragrammaton has not been found in any extant ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts."

Also, any balanced discussion on the subject will make reference to the statement in the 3rd Century Tosefta, Shabbat 13:5: "The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim they do not save from a fire [on the Sabbath]. They are allowed to burn up where they are, they and [even] the references to the Divine Name that are in them." And this regardless of certain inconclusive views suggesting the references are to non-Greek scriptural writings.

We have to remember also that it took until the mid 20th Century to establish that the Tetragrammaton did appear in at least some of the Greek Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures available in Jesus day. It's later more complete absence from copies of the same confirms (to me) the blatant attempt to obliterate the name of the true God from His own Scriptures.

We must never underestimate the incomprehensible level of malicious intent of apostates to distort, twist and obscure the message of God's word. Their intent is clearly exposed by the apostle Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians:

"He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god." 2Thess.2:4.

Much more could be said, but, once again, the discussion has veered from the original question. I couldn't let that statement go unaddressed, but I am bowing out now to await a more relevant thread.    

 

 

[BroRando]

Here's a list in the Greek scriptures that contained the Divine Name of God.  The ones  in red are from Jesus Christ quoting the Hebrew.  Therefore, to claim that Jesus misquoted the Hebrew Scripture and withheld his Father's Name is to claim Jesus Christ was deceptive. Is that being honest?   Just like "hell' is a lie so is claiming that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has No Name. 

Jehovah in the New Testament

297 References

With Jesus' Testimony in Red Letters http://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/scripturalbasis.htm

[Evacuated]

On 7/19/2017 at 11:28 PM, Brother Rando said:

to claim that Jesus misquoted the Hebrew Scripture and withheld his Father's Name is to claim Jesus Christ was deceptive  is being honest.

is being DIS honest I think you meant? You can edit the post. (Added later) You did!

[BroRando]

Jesus quoted scripture did he not?  In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." (Luke 4:8) 

Here we see Jesus introduce a scripture to satan by stating 'It is written".  So what Scripture did Jesus Christ quote from the Old Testament?  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the LORD, (Jehovah Deu 6:13;  Deu 10:20 ) thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Luke 4:8)

Notice the LORD in all capitals?  When Christendom removed God's name, they purposefully capitalized LORD.  Today even that was changed to Lord to lead the reader away from the truth into their dogma doctrines.

"Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as Jehovah, the God of thy fathers, hath promised unto thee, in a land flowing with milk and honey." (Deu 6:13 ASV)

"Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him shalt thou serve; and to him shalt thou cleave, and by his name shalt thou swear." (deu 10:2) ASV)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, back to the subject:  Hell is not in the Hebrew OR Greek Scriptures. Period.  It's a God dishonoring man made doctrine. 

 

 

[BroRando]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If you are arguing that the formula found in Matthew 28:18-20 was a later addition to the first century Bible, then I understand why you are bringing it up in the discussion of "hell." This could be appropriate especially if you are also arguing that ideas about "torment" were also added later. (Even though it is possible to understand these references without thinking of literal, conscious torment.)

Yes. Matthew 28:19 was altered by the Catholic Church as pagan doctrines were also introduced into God's Word.

 "The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer triune formula was a later development.”