"but we put Jehovah's name BACK in the bible!"

by crankytoe 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Nobody knows what the correct pronounciation was but it certainly wasn't jehovah, yahweh comes closer to the correct form.

  • Frogleg
    Frogleg

    Hooray for Odrade, a breath of fresh air indeed!

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    "but we put Jehovah's name BACK in the bible!"I'd have to ask the Witness, "Does mean the Bible texts were corrupted?" If the texts were corrupted were they corrected with inspiration or without inspiration? If the corrupted Bible was corrected with inspiration, wouldn't that put the correctors on the same level as the original Bible writers?
    If the corrupt Bible was corrected without inspiration, wouldn't that mean the corrected corrupt texts will still be corrupt? Wouldn't correction of inspired Bible texts without the benefit of inspiration be just speculation? A guess? Would you trust a surgeon who was about to operate on you and was only guessing at where and what to cut?
    If the Watch Tower Publishing Corporation writers are inspired, why do they deny that inspiration? Is the Bible written by the uninspired writers really just an uninspired Bible?


  • Odrade
    Odrade

    I *heart* GaryBuss. what a great argument! I'd love to try it just to see the blank look on their faces. Logic is our best weapon.

  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Gary....great point!

    What did Jesus say about those that added anything to God's word?

  • Frogleg
    Frogleg

    Garybuss,

    You have proven, again, that reason and faith can not mix. BTW, most surgeons do NOT have an absolute idea before they begin the cutting, at best, it could be considered an "educated" guess.

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    No form of the Tetragrammeton occurs in the NT, in any extant Greek text, or fragment of text (several thousand of such).

    The WTS "putting" the YHWH back into the OT is legitimate, but not without precedent (oh, yes, they were beat to the punch on this one, though they would like to claim otherwise! Thus the American Standard version).

    However, their claims for using the "Divine Name" in the NT are unwarranted.

    Sources available from freeminds.com

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Garybus:

    That`s great. I`ve tried that line of arguments too. Ask a JW "if the name was removed from the NT, how do we know that not all sorts of things were removed? IF the Bible was corrupted, how do we not know that what Jesus actually taught all sorts of things that are not in the Bible now? - and that the things that are in the Bible, are all wrong?

    Usually their eyes just go blank, and they go "well...mumble mumble...all we can do is trust Jehovah...and his organisation here on earth...trust Jehovah..."

    Logical thinking and reasoning doesn`t work with JWs, because there is no logic in their religion. whatsoever.

  • Nate Merit
    Nate Merit

    Hi Crankytoe

    The divine name, YHWH (or YHVH) occurs in the Hebrew OT nearly seven thousand times. So, it's perfectly acceptable to restore it to the OT.

    There is no manuscript evidence whatsoever for YHWH to have ever been in the NT. So, placing 'Jehovah' (which is not the divine name) in the NT is unsupportable.

    The New World Translation is a travesty. Go to Amazon.com and type in New World Translation. Scroll down a bit and you'll see my review of the NWT.

    Sincerely,
    Nate

  • crankytoe
    crankytoe

    Thanks all! Very good information, please keep it coming,

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit