"Jehovah" In The New Testament. (page 6)

LostintheFog1999

asqwsed12345

Can I ask please if you are writing a book and using this forum as a testing platform?

It's simply the length of all of your answers and where you have opened posts with questions that resemble university essays.

I have to be honest, I lose interest in reading most of them halfway through as they just go on and on and on.

When I was in the JW organisation I found that was the way the elders tried to force through a contentious belief by swamping students with a tidal wave of references and so-called proof points. I guess it might have worked for some of the newbies, but I just switched off, and turned my attention elsewhere.

LV101

I've a question for you knowledgeable ones -- SBF, Vanden, Earnest, Fisherman, Scholar, asqwsed -- too many to list - I blathered off a scripture from one of the recent biblical topics past couple of wks to friend who recently returned to meetings and my eyes (and loss of sleep) can't search any longer for it. It may have been 1 John 4:7? but more descriptive, modern, translation compared to my quick google search. It was worded 'you know God (or the Christ) and the world doesn't know nor wants to know ? that was the subject matter. I've skimmed thru the 'Trinity' and this topic -- several others but I was not reading thoroughly and laptop history no help. Trying to locate that exact scripture on this site.

She knows I'm no Bible scholar and I told her from now on we only discuss makeup!

Thanks - appreciate.

slimboyfat

John 17.25?

25Righteous Father! The world does not know you, but I know you, and these know that you sent me. (Good News Bible)

25 Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you, but I know you, and these have come to know that you sent me. (NWT)

LV101

Thanks -- That's closer to it than what I found googling and scanning through.

LV101

I think I may have found it -- John 14:17 by googling John 17:25/thanks. Now if I could only find which topic it was referenced.

punkofnice

Jehovah(tm) in the NT. Did they consider this might uphold the trinity they claim they understand and refute?

slimboyfat

The removal of the divine name from the New Testament confused the identities of the Lord God and the Lord Jesus and paved the way for the later Trinity doctrine.

Blotty

Can we just get one thing straight?
Jehovah is a translation of the divine name in the OT scriptures YHWH - so no the form "Jehovah" specifically doesn't appear in the OT, however it cannot be argued the name does..
People who have an aversion to "Jehovah" should also then have an aversion to every other name in the bible especially Jesus (or the Word) and the holy spirit (since they are God as well) Why is it only the "son" has a name "Jesus" or "The word" yet apparently "Father" is the Fathers name and "holy spirit" is the holy spirits name..

"Since there is no God named "Jehovah", this is a medieval misreading" - there is no person named "Jesus" in early times either, they are both transliterations of the original language manuscripts, you can twist these words anyway you like, however you know exactly what he meant, else you would be citing him all over the place to prove your trinity.. like you have others.

"There is no /dʒ/ sound in Hebrew." - shall I list the names that start with a "Y" and translated as "J" in English? I have gathered an entire table of them... better yet do the "research" yourself its not hard, Ill start and you go and look up the names in NIV, ESV or whichever bible you like:
Jacob
Jehoram
Jerusha
Jehu
Jehoaddan
(try the cited sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_names_starting_with_J)

you have some points on George Howard, however you'll have trouble with other scholars who agree with him - like it or not his theory cannot be dismissed..
funny how the only name [that is absent] is the one that allows the trinity to thrive.. Shall we also mention that every pre-christian copy of the LXX contains the name not the surrogate..

The rest of the babbel on "I am" and other stuff I will simply say: go and do better research, check the LXX and learn what the past progressive idoim is. (+ what James white and Daniel Wallace have both said on this subject)

""The "Lord's Prayer" is a prayer addressed to our Father. If Jesus really wanted to encourage the use of the Name with the Lord's Prayer, why should we call God Father, why doesn't the prayer start like this: "Our Lord...", or like this: "Our Jehovah"?
- very bad scholarship - what I would consider psuedo-scholarship... How many articles do I need to cite? if "name" meant something other than "name" then it is interesting in the OT such emphasis is placed on the Divine name, also curious that Isaiah refers to the divine name as "Father" a (known) Hebrew idoim in the creation clause (look it up).
sanctifying Gods "being" is pointless, because his "being" is already holy and not smothered - got a lot of questions to actually answer here.

also lets just remember:

(John 8:26, 27)

“. . ., the One who sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world.” 27 They did not grasp that he was talking to them about the Father.”

(John 8:54)“. . .It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God.”

aqwsed12345

You can look for interesting Watchtower quotes:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200270810

On the one hand, they emphasize here that the text of the Holy Scriptures has survived authentically, without falsification, we can trust the surviving manuscripts, but at the same time they spread the conspiracy theory that ALL the manuscripts regarding the alleged "Jehovah" in the New Testament have been falsified. For example:

Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote: “It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”—Das Neue Testament—zuverlässig überliefert (The New Testament—Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002893

Authority of Copies and Translations. Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. This is true of the original writings, none of which are known to exist today. The copies of those original writings and the translations made in many languages cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy. There is solid evidence and sound reason for believing, however, that the available manuscripts of the Sacred Scriptures do provide copies of the written Word of God in nearly exact form, the points in question having little bearing on the sense of the message conveyed. God’s own purpose in preparing the Sacred Scriptures and the inspired declaration that “the saying of Jehovah endures forever” give assurance that Jehovah God has preserved the internal integrity of the Scriptures through the centuries.—1Pe 1:25.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002178

Reliability of the Bible Text. Appreciation of the reliability of the Bible is greatly enhanced when it is realized that, by comparison, there are only very few extant manuscripts of the works of classical secular writers and none of these are original, autograph manuscripts. Though they are only copies made centuries after the death of the authors, present-day scholars accept such late copies as sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the text.
Extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Scriptures were prepared with great care. Respecting
the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar W. H. Green observed: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” (Archaeology and Bible History, by J. P. Free, 1964, p. 5) The late Bible text scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon made this reassuring statement in the introduction to his seven volumes entitled The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the Papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used. . . . But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts. In this respect they are an acquisition of epoch-making value.”—London, 1933, Fasciculus I, p. 15.
Concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures, Sir Frederic Kenyon stated: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”—The Bible and Archæology, 1940, pp. 288, 289.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002893

slimboyfat

All the copies of the Septuagint from the third century CE and later use Lord instead of the divine name, despite the fact that the early Septuagint did use the divine name. To say that the same thing probably happened in the New Testament, and Lord replaced the divine name, over the same period of time, as it was copied by the same people who copied the Septuagint isn’t a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a reasonable inference from the know facts, and one that a number of scholarly experts agree with.

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

Share this