What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 263 Replies latest watchtower bible
If the New Testament is reliable, the name of Jesus is emphasized more than the name Jehovah in the New Testament.
If the New Testament is not reliable, and the name Jehovah was completely removed from all ancient manuscripts, God did not preserve His word.
This was one of the first conundrums I faced when I first allowed myself to challenge my own beliefs.
If as WT suggests, shadow groups have been able to alter Bible manuscripts by, for example, removing God's name from the NT, then what else might have they altered?
Riley: Thanks for sharing, " Is Jesus the name of God?
The WT says the Bible manuscripts are thoroughly reliable, except for excising the name "Jehovah" from the Greek scriptures 237 times.
That never made sense to me.
The WTS's argument is that any changes to the Bible did not change the meaning of the texts, and so the message remains as it always was. That certainly would not apply if the name of god had been removed from all of the NT texts. If your mission is to establish the worship of the true god, and that god's name has been wiped from the sacred texts you use to make your case... you cannot make your case.
I mean, if the devil can make it so the name of god is removed from his own letters to mankind, then what changes and alterations are beyond his ability?
You are right there is a contradiction between claims that the text has been transmitted accurately and the claim that the divine name stood in the original. So what? We’re not here to defend the JW position on every point. Let the evidence fall where it may. For my money the evidence is strong that the divine name was in the original text and was replaced in the second century. If that means the text has not been faithfully preserved, then so be it. A number of scholars have come to the conclusion that the divine name was in the original New Testament and give compelling and, in fact, very interesting reasons supporting that view. The lack of curiosity to explore this discovery, as Lloyd Gaston says, is striking in its neglect.
Can we quit talking about shadowy conspiracies? That is empty rhetoric. The fact is that the divine name was in the Septuagint in the first century but Christians replaced it with “Lord” when they transmitted the text from the second century onwards. Those who argue for the divine name in the original New Testament simply point out that the exact same thing happened in the New Testament that we know happened with Septuagint. There is nothing extraordinary or mysterious about it. If we know that something happened on Monday then it rings hollow to say it’s a wild conspiracy theory that anyone should suggest the same thing happened on Tuesday.
Vanderhoven7@ SlimRegarding the issue of whether the Septuagint contained the divine name you wrote:Can we quit talking about shadowy conspiracies? That is empty rhetoric. The fact is that the divine name was in the Septuagint in the first century but Christians replaced it with “Lord"...If Christians planned and removed the divine name from the New Testament and did the same to the Septuagint; this was obviously done by conspiracy.But you know I don't believe in either of these conspiracies."...we know happened with Septuagint."Do We? Some feel that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in Papyrus Fouad 266 is an indication of what was in the original text, "others see this manuscript as "an archaizing and hebraizing revision of the earlier translation κύριος".You might want to check out
Hurtado’s view on the matter evolved and he came to accept that the early LXX used the divine name. In his most recent post on the subject (in agreement with the leading specialists on the topic Emanuel Tov and Anthony Meyer) Hurtado correctly stated that the practice of replacing the divine name with kyrios took place in the second century CE.
It’s also worth noting the first century fragment of Leviticus with the divine name transliterated as Yaho (4Q120) was described at publication as an excellent representative of the early LXX tradition. This form of the divine name is the same as that which survived in early Christian name lists called onomastica showing that it was in use by the early Christians.
You are right there is a contradiction between claims that the text has been transmitted accurately and the claim that the divine name stood in the original. So what? ,,,,,
If that means the text has not been faithfully preserved, then so be it.
How much it matters depends on your viewpoint.
From a secular standpoint, I agree. Let the chips fall where they may.
From a religious standpoint of someone that would consider the writings to be sacred and "inspired", the implications are greater.
All things within the contexts that were written.
Understand that and it all makes sense.