The name jehovah did not appear until the 14th centuary? You'll be telling me next that God is not an Englishman!!!
Wobble (with English tongue in cheek)
Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?
by hamilcarr 39 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
funkyderek
It's a peculiar but necessary belief of JWs that the text of the Bible was protected from corruption by God, that it's important to use the Divine Name and that the Divine Name was systematically removed from all extant NT manuscripts. It's not easy to hold all those mutually contradictory beliefs at once, which is why JWs will normally respond to this argument by looking at you blankly, and then quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 and Psalm 83:18.
-
Black Sheep
I have come to the conclusion that so much of the New Testament has been plagiarized from paganism that your topic is irrelevant.
-
BurnTheShips
Furuli argues that none of the Septuagint manuscripts before the second century CE contain kurios as a substitute for the TG.
Furuli has not a shred of physical evidence. So he can argue if he pleases, but a serious translation cannot extrapolate.
BTS
-
Earnest
hamilcarr: Furuli argues that none of the Septuagint manuscripts before the second century CE contain kurios as a substitute for the TG.
BurnTheShips: Furuli has not a shred of physical evidence. So he can argue if he pleases, but a serious translation cannot extrapolate.
Furuli is correct that the oldest extant mss of the LXX contain the tetragrammaton. It may be true, as Narkissos suggests that
...the substitution of kurios to Yhwh belongs to the original LXX, even though the oldest extant mss happen to reflect a particular Palestinian-influenced recension which reintroduces the Tetragrammaton.
...but even so it seems probable to me that the copy of the LXX used in Palestine would be the Palestinian-influenced recension.
-
BurnTheShips
Furuli is correct that the oldest extant mss of the LXX contain the tetragrammaton. It may be true, as Narkissos suggests that........but even so it seems probable to me that the copy of the LXX used in Palestine would be the Palestinian-influenced recension.
The vernacular NT is a translation of the NT, not of a particular example of the LXX. There is not a single ancient manucscript of the NT extant that contains the TG. Even if there is a Palestinian example of the TG in the LXX, this is a different text.
BTS
-
oompa
Forscher: I personally think that the evidence is reasonable that the divine name may well have been in the original Greek texts.
I fear you have read WT lit so long....you now may write for them. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support this opinion....period. And belive me I really, really tried....and BEGGED the GB to share their supposed evidence with me!....nada....I just need a teeny tiny shred of it and I will always get 20 real hours in service a month!!
And to my knowedge, the only historian in the world to ever make a copy of an original writing of ANY of the NT books did not find the TG there! He is just a little famous for using his research to create the Latin Vulgate...(no Jehovah there!), and his name is Jerome aka Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus.
BTW it does me good to see that this need to believe the accuracy and the corruption by Satan of the Bible...bother more thant just................oompa!!!
-
WTWizard
If the name itself did not appear in the originals (and that is before the Catholic church made their first revisions), then it should not appear.
-
Narkissos
it seems probable to me that the copy of the LXX used in Palestine would be the Palestinian-influenced recension.
Hi Earnest,
Which of the NT books do you think was written in Palestine (and why)?
If you are talking about what a "historical Jesus" might have said (supposedly in Aramaic) or read (in Hebrew?) where does the LXX exactly come into the
guessworkpicture?I understand that the LXX only matters to the Greek writing of the NT texts...
-
hamilcarr
The question in fact is whether it's ever justified to force your own theology on a text. I would say no, but still so many do this by using Bible quotes to support their current beliefs despite the fact that there is no evidence that the Bible could transcend its own context.