Nark wrote: "I'm afraid you missed my point. I used "demons," "exorcisms" and "Gehenna" as mere examples of notions/beliefs which seem to pop up from nowhere in the NT to a (especially Protestant) Bible-only reader. Actually they are perfectly at home in 1st-century AD Judaism, as can be seen from the wealth of Jewish literature from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. In these respects the NT is not the least "original". It doesn't create those notions, it simply shares them with contemporary Judaism.
It is sheer anachronism to assume that the religion of Jesus or early Jewish-Christians can be simply inferred from OT religion. Within a few centuries Judaism had changed a lot. The Gospels depict Jesus as a 1st-century Jew (e.g. attending Hanukkah in John 10, reclining instead of standing for the Passover, etc.), not an OT Israelite, and unless they clearly show him at odds with contemporary tradition on a specific issue you have no basis whatsoever to conjecture he was. You do find controversies with "Pharisees/Jews" on the Sabbath and ceremonial cleanness but none on the divine name. This, combined with the stubborn absence of any mention of any form of Yhwh in early NT mss, is devastating to the WT reasoning.
Again, it takes complete ignorance of 1st-century and later Judaism to miscontrue mere mentions of the noun "name" (onoma, shem) as evidence of an actual use of the name "Yhwh". As I said, Hallowed be thy name is found in the Rabbinical Qaddish, and it is clearly compatible with the equally rabbinical prohibition to actually pronounce the name "Yhwh".
If you only tried to learn a little about 1st-century Judaism you would easily see that you are wrong not only on the above but on many other issues on which you take the JW summary of "Bible teaching" for granted (e.g. "astrology," re: the Magi, or the "immortal soul," or the actual meaning of "Gehenna"). The NT would immediately make better sense to you where you have to strive desperately to get around the obvious meaning (e.g. the rich man and Lazarus, what a f*cked-up illustration if the WT has it right!). But that would require researching instead of arguing for a little while."
Mad writes: If YOU want to trust 1st Century Judiasm- (or from any century)- to quote Asto (Jetsons/60s cartoon): Rots of Ruck!
(To answer your last question, I'm no fan of the NIV, and I do agree that the best translation policy is to use some transliteration of Yhwh where it belongs, i.e., in the OT passages where "Yhwh" actually occurs.)