The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name

by slimboyfat 326 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts
    And I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out that a number of scholars support JWs on the divine name in the NT

    Except that the general consensus of scholars, such as Watchtower'a beloved BeDuhn, do not support the Divine name in the NT. You have cherry picked the couple you agree with. It is always possible to find a scientist or scholar that goes against the majority, regardless of topic, be it Global warming, creationism and most conspiracy theories.

    In addition, you are misrepresenting Howard at least, who is not dogmatic that the Divine name was in the NT, but suggests it as a possibility.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    jwfacts how do you think the divine name was represented in the original NT and what is your evidence? Please give a precise and short answer because I want to develop this point.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous
    Less than half of the 237 instances where the WT substitutes "Jehovah" for Kyrios into the NWT are based on quotations from the Hebrew scriptures.

    Given that the name was inserted by the WT yet does not appear in any manuscripts, isn't it evident that even early Christians (and whatever they attribute to the character of Jesus) did not use the name in verbal delivery of the stories in that time period?

    A lot of the manuscripts our apologist Slimboyfat mentions aren't originals nor were they mainstream. Faoud 266 is considered part of the Masoretic texts, basically a 'rewrite' of the "back to original" Jewish sects. The interesting thing is that the tetragrammaton was still indicated to the reader not to be said out loud. The oldest extant Septuagint (Rylands 458) did NOT have the tetragrammaton AT ALL, but rather a blank space. So if you want proof of earlier-than LXX Faoud Slimboyfat keeps mentioning, there are no indications that the tetragrammaton was used until Masoretic texts 'restored' the name.

    Given that early texts were not actually pure Jewish, it makes sense that people wanting to 'fix the story' inserted the name where other names of gods were used. The Mesha stele and other textual references do refer to Yahweh as being the god of the Israelites but the actual use of the word is highly improbable.

  • steve2
    steve2

    SBF, I'm a little unsure of your response to jwfacts.

    You seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with your explanation has to now come up with an alternative explanation but more specifically one that is "precise and short ".

    It's a little like responding to someone's criticism of your beliefs by saying, "Well, tell me what you think I should believe instead - oh, and make it precise and short.

    I think criticism of another's position, beliefs or explanation shouldn't depend on the "ability" to generate alternatives . A position, belief or explanation should be assessed on its own terms.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Re: The name no one knows

    None of the ancient NT manuscripts or the multitude of fragments thereof contain the Tetragrammaton.

    Why is that? Great conspiracy to deprive the world of an important name which to know does nothing for anyone? The WTS claims that the Pharisees knew and used the name. What good did it do them, if that's the case?

    One of my New Testament professors once wisely said:

    "God doesn't leave footprints in the sand to say no one walked there".

    The corollary is:

    God doesn't leave an absence of footprints to suggest someone walked there.

    What difference does knowing God's name mean for anyone? There is only one name we need to know and it is not the Father's.

    So we can guess who was behind its removal...

    P.S. For those who think knowing/pronouncing God's name is important, could you please explain why?

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    SBF - I'm still waiting on a number of answers from you.

  • johnamos
    johnamos

    Follow the bouncing ball:

    I am assuming that no one objects that in the verse below that YHVH [3068] and Joshua [3091] appears there.

    Joshua 1:1 And it came about after the death of Moses the servant of Jehovah [3068] that Jehovah [3068] proceeded to say to Joshua [3091] the son of Nun, the minister of Moses:

    For [3091] we have:

    Yehoshua - Original Word: יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ - Jehoshua (short form: Joshua)

    No one questions the original Hebrew word being translated in English as Yehoshua and even uses the J instead of Y as in Jehoshua.

    Likewise in the follow verse [3092] for Original Word: יְהוֹשָׁפָט – Yehoshaphat - Jehoshaphat

    2 Chronicles 17:1 And Je·hosh´a·phat [3092] his son began to reign in place of him and to make his position strong over Israel.

    So far we have an example of two names in Hebrew יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ and יְהוֹשָׁפָט that no one has a problem with these names in English be tranlatated as Jehoshua and Jehoshaphat.

    Now a step further, that was Hebrew to English now Greek to English:

    Original Word: Ἰησοῦς – [2424] Iésous - Joshua

    Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua [2424] had led them into a place of rest, God would not afterward have spoken of another day.

    Original Word: Ἰωσαφάτ, ὁ - [2498] Iósaphat - Jehoshaphat

    Matthew 1:8 A´sa became father to Je·hosh´a·phat [2498]; Je·hosh´a·phat became father to Je·ho´ram; Je·ho´ram became father to Uz·zi´ah;

    Again no one seems to question the correctness of the English names Jehoshaphat and Jehoshua (short form: Joshua) from Hebrew יְהוֹשָׁפָט and יְהוֹשׁ֫וּעַ.

    So with that said take note of the vowels e & o.

    Now bouncing along:

    Original Word: יִרְמְיָה – [3414] Yirmeyah – Jeremiah

    No one questions the correctness of this English spelling of this Hebrew name.

    Notice the vowel, a.

    Bouncing along:

    Exodus 15:2 My strength and my might is Jah [3050], since he serves for my salvation. This is my God, and I shall laud him; my father’s God, and I shall raise him on high.

    Original Word: יָהּ – [3050] Yah – Jah

    No one questions the correctness of the use of Jah and again notice the vowel, a.

    So we have the vowels e,o & a. (BTW, the whole using the vowels of ‘Adoni’ is nosense. There isn’t even an e in it.)

    Now with those vowels taken from names that are not questioned and names that are said to mean:

    Jehoshaphat “YHVH Is Judge” and Jehoshua “YHVH Is Salvation”

    And a name (Jah) that is said to be a shortened form of YHVH, how could anyone not think that it would be appropriate that those vowels not be used in the YHVH and that the end result of this name we would see the short form Jah and see part of the name that is in Jehoshaphat and Jehoshua.

    JHVH + E,O,A

    JEHOvah

    JEHOshaphat

    JEHOshua

    JAH

    JehovAH

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Follow the bouncing ball:

    Yes, but why bother.

    Do we honor God's name by knowing how it's spelled or pronounced in any language.....or by knowing Him as Father and living for Him in service of others?

    If God cared that we knew or used His personal name correctly, He could have easily foiled the useless cover-up conspiracy by leaving just one fragment of evidence. But obviously it wasn't important enough for Him to lift a finger..

  • dropoffyourkeylee
    dropoffyourkeylee

    There is a video out there of Howard railing against the WT for misrepresenting him.

    I like SBF, but I think that until a Greek NT manuscript shows up ( if ever) containing the Name, it is poor scholarship to include it in any NT translation.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    steve2 I wrote the latest comment above days ago. It made more sense when I wrote it than the context where it now appears abrupt and irrelevant.

    jwfacts you write:

    In addition, you are misrepresenting Howard at least, who is not dogmatic that the Divine name was in the NT, but suggests it as a possibility.

    Which is a bit odd since on page 4 I wrote:

    much has been made of the fact George Howard presented his idea as a "theory". It's true he wasn't dogmatic, he didn't need to be. He wasn't a JW and his faith didn't depend on it. But did he believe he was correct about the divine name in the NT? Well obviously he did or else why make the argument and assemble all the evidence to make his case?

    Other than agreeing with you explicitly that Howard was not dogmatic, how could I state in any clearer terms that Howard was not dogmatic?

    You also say:

    such as Watchtower'a beloved BeDuhn, do not support the Divine name in the NT. You have cherry picked the couple you agree with.

    Again an odd statement since my opening post explicitly mentioned BeDuhn's opposition since I thought it was fair to do so:

    2003 - Manichaean scholar Jason BeDuhn praises the NWT as the most accurate modern translation in his book Truth in Translation but argues that the inclusion of the divine name in the NT is a mistake

    Did you actually read my post before accusing me of cherry picking?

    steve2 what I am trying to point out is that most scholars are of the view that Kyrios stood in the original NT autographs. But it's certainly worth pointing out thaf this too involves a significant conjecture, since the earliest NT manuscripts do not use Kyrios but rather the nomina sacra abbreviated form KS.

    Which is important because some evangelical polemicists state that they straightforwardly accept the earliest manuscript evidence whereas JWs do not. But in fact the earliest manuscripts don't use YHWH, IAW, or Kyrios. Rather they use KS, which no one seems to argue was original.

    So the question becomes, not whether the treatment of divine names changed between the NT autographs and the earliest manuscripts witnesses, but how it changed. Evangelicals and JWs are actually in the same boat in the sense that, what appears in the earliest manuscripts is assumed, by both sides, not to match what stood in the original.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit