Thank you Doug ,
Thank you Doug ,
I have managed to decipher the writing ! Very interesting .
I find this interesting in the light of the article found in the Appendix to the 2013 NWT , saying:
Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt.
In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the Tetragrammaton also appeared in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. For centuries, scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the mid-20th century, some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day were brought to the attention of scholars. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters. So in Jesus’ day, copies of the Scriptures in Greek did contain the divine name.
I would to hear some informed comment on these claims if anyone can do so?
Note that the article correctly differentiates between the "Hebrew Scriptures" and the "Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures". The latter is known generically as the Septuagint (LXX).
We do not know what the "Hebrew Scriptures" contained in Jesus' time because the earliest Hebrew text comes from the early Middle Ages, about 1000 years after Jesus' time. This happened because the Masoretic Jews decided there would be only one version. The Jews has long rejected the "Greek translations", mostly because the arguments that the Christians had drawn from those versions.
There were various versions of the Greek (Septuagint) translations and the NT writers drew from all of them, including some we no longer have access to.
The evidence from the Dead Sea Community shows that only their Isaiah scroll agrees with our current versions. Other scrolls (Habbakuk, etc., etc.) disagree with our texts. And the fragments that contain the Divine Name employ ancient Hebrew characters that were no longer in use; so these Hebrew characters appeared within Greek writing - hardly evidence that they had any contemporary meaning.
To make sweeping statements based on a few fragments is to indulge in the false reasoning of "from the individual to the whole". The typical example of this is: "I saw a dog with three legs, therefore all dogs have three legs".
Besides, the WTS does not use the Divine Name, whether in ancient Hebrew characters or modern. To say that such characters would be meaningless to a modern reader highlights how meaningless the apperance of the characters were to Greek readers. Perhaps the WTS could overcome this with HWHY. Yes, the Hebrew characters read from right to left whereas the Greek writing runs from left to right.
The WTS would be considered to be genuine if it only used the HWHY whenever a NT writer was directly quoting a Hebrew text that contained the Name. However, the WTS does nothing of the sort, sprinking "Jehovah" at places where it suits their predetermined outcomes.
Well I would say that even putting the Tetragrammaton into the NT where the OT is quoted isn't right . The NT writers did not include it but substituted Lord instead , so was that done deliberately ?
As the WT denies the divinity of Jesus it suits them to put Jehovah back in .It COULD just be that the NT writers meant to apply prophecies about, and attributes of Yahweh to Christ .This omission of the Divine Name from the NT may actually be a theological statement that the WT does not recognise .
The four consonants regarding GOD`s name in the old testament and or/ any other writings found with those consonants regarding GOD`s name , in any other text , in so called spurious texts or scrolls or books relating to Christianity .
No matter what you believe regarding the above , Jehovah Witnesses adopted the Mis-translation of those 4 Hebrew letters as JHVH when all evidence including the WTB&TS agreeing that YHWH is the more correct translation of those 4 letters. The WT accepted JHVH because that was the most popular accepted version of the name back then .So I ask you , accepted by who ? Well , it`s only Christendom who is interested in God or his name ,nobody else.
And the name JEHOVAH did not exist before the 13th Century , it was invented by a spanish monk in the 13th Century by name of Raymundis Martinus .
And lets not forget that the Bible Cannon that exists today that is used by Jehovah Witnesses , only came into existence by the clergy of Christendom in the 3rd Century , who Jehovah Witnesses today claim were Apostate.?
So my questions are :1 Why do they still insist GOD`s name is Jehovah ? Which is Obviously incorrect .
And: 2.Why do the WTB&TS , accept /Adopt the Bible Cannon given to the world by , in their own words an Apostate false religion that manifested itself in the 3rd Century .
An Apostasy that started to manifest itself after the first Century C.E. when the Apostles died off.
I agree with Smiddy in so much as
If there was a great apostasy in the early church, then how could you trust the bible to be God's word when the final collection of biblical books were confirmed around 393ad?
Makes no sense at all
Doug Mason has a good Paper he wrote on the choosing of the Canon, worth a read, and worth saving !
The Canon was far from fixed even by the end of the 4th Century.
Nothing about the JW arguments on this, as on so much, make any sense when you look at the facts.
The" Kingdom Interlinear Of The Christian Greek Scriptures" , a word for word translation of the Greek Text published by the WTB&TS does not contain the Tetragrammaton anywhere in the Greek text.
So if the Greek text they are using as a basis for their bible translation does not have the Tetragrammaton why is it there.as Jehovah ? in their bible ?
While I`m on about the" Kingdom Interlinear Of The Christian Greek Scriptures" published by the WTB&TS have a look at John 1 :1 In the beginning the word was,and the word was with God and God was the word.
Forgive me if that is not the exact wording going from memory , however the word for word text does omit the indefinite article " a " where their is no basis for it`s inclusion , it does not say "the word was a god" It plainly states God was the word. In the marginal text they say "and the word was a God."
And it has become well documented that the source W.T. quotes for using the indefinite article in this scripture challenges W.T. for misquoting him in this regard and demanded an apology. He intended no such use of the indefinite article "a" in this instance of John 1:1 .