Cite one scripture in the N.T. that chargers Christians to be witnesses of / for Jehovah.....Not one.using K.I ./ WTB&TS

by smiddy3 99 Replies latest jw friends

  • Vanderhoven7

    Hi Slim

    You quote Acts 2:32–36 presumably from the NWT

    God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”

    JWs feel free to substitute the doubtful name "Jehovah" in the NT where the unpronounceable Tetragrammaton is found in OT passages. In fact they add the name "Jehovah" 327 times to the NT...when the majority of these self serving additions are not even based on OT quotations.

    Unfortunately however, as William Cetnar demonstrated, the WT has failed to be consistent in its application of the divine name to NT passages that include quotations from the OT.

    For example consistency would yield the following

    1 Peter 3:15 quoted from Isaiah. 8:12 - But sanctify the Christ as Jehovah in your hearts.

    Phil 2:10-11 quoted from Isaiah 45:23 - " that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend... and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah to the glory of God the Father."

    1 Peter 2:3 quoted from Psalm 34:8 - "...provided you have tasted that Jehovah is kind. Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God,"

    Hebrews 1:10 quoted from Psalms 102:25 - "And: "You at the beginning, O Jehovah, laid the foundation of the earth itself."

    Let's review: The doubtful name "Jehovah" is not found once in the OT, nor once in the NT, nor is the Tetragrammaton found once in the NT. And over half the 327 times the NWT imposes the name "Jehovah" on NT passages, no precedent is provided from the OT. It is never found on the lips of Jesus, or the disciples or the apostle Paul. The name is hidden throughout the Bible. Christians are told to address God as "Father" for that is the intimate relationship He desires for all His children. Jesus, like His Father, did not make the name "Jehovah" known to anyone. Rather He made God's person, nature and attributes known to His followers by both word and action.

  • Earnest

    smiddy3 : The early LXX used the divine name...Can you show it to me ?

    There are a number of examples.

    The earliest extant copy of the Greek LXX Psalms is P.Oxy 77.5101 which was probably written between 50 and 150 C.E. It contains the tetragrammaton in palaeo-Hebrew script as here in Psalm 64:2 (LXX)

    Another papyrus which contains parts of the Greek LXX book of Job is P.Oxy. 50.3522. This is dated to the first century CE and also contains the tetragrammaton in palaeo-Hebrew. Here the tetragrammaton can be seen in Job 42:12 :

    Then there is the well-known papyrus, P.Fouad 266b, which is dated to the middle of the first century BCE and contains parts of the Greek LXX of Deuteronomy including the tetragrammaton:

    There is also a Greek rendition of the divine name in 4Q120, which contains parts of Leviticus and probably dates from the first century BCE. In Leviticus 4:27 it translates the tetragrammaton as IAW (or Jao) :

    The earliest evidence for the use of kurios ("Lord") replacing the tetragrammaton is P.Oxy. 4.656 of the early 3rd century CE.

  • smiddy3

    Earnest ,I have never doubted the existence of the Tetragrammaton in relation to the O.T. scriptures my point being it was never used in the New testament.

  • slimboyfat

    The NWT attempts to restore the divine name as best they can. It’s perfectly possible that the NWT is correct that the divine name occurred in the original NT, but they get it wrong in individual verses. In fact it would be incredible to think they would get every single decision right, given the complexity of the issues involved in attempting to restore rhe divine name.

    Those are very interesting verses you mention, and some of them may admit different solutions to the ones offered by the NWT.

    1 Pet 3:15 — many manuscripts have “God” instead of “Christ” in this verse. If the verse originally used the divine name then it may have referred to God. In fact the textual variety surrounding “God” and “Lord” in NT verses such as this is one of the pieces of evidence that points to the original use of the divine name,

    Phil 2:10–11 — you describe this as a quote, but it is not a direct quote from Isaiah because there is a significant difference in the wording, making it a paraphrase. Isaiah points focus to Jehovah and Phil 2:11 says that worship to Jesus is “to the glory of a God the Father”. Both passages agree that Jehovah God is the focus. Phil 2 agrees with other passages that “Lord” is a title that God gives to Jesus. By contrast, the name Jehovah is a name that was given to God by no one else, because it belong inalienably to God. This verse does not make Jesus equal to Jehovah, instead it demonstrates the clear difference between Jehovah and his representative Jesus.

    1 Pe 2:3 — I don’t know why the divine name shouldn’t stand in this verse, or why it would be a problem, unless I am missing something, it doesn’t seem to equate Jesus with Jehovah.

    Heb 1:10 — curiously the original Psalm didn’t use the divine name here, so it’s not a clear case where OT quotation uses the divine name and results in “Lord” in the extant NT. Maybe the LXX used the divine name or “Lord” here reflecting a different Hebrew text than the one that survived. In any case the point the author is making here is that, unlike the angels, Jesus does not change. It is possible that the author used a verse relating to Jehovah’s unchangeable nature and applied it to Jesus, without necessarily meaning to say that Jesus is identified with Jehovah.

    The NT distinguishes Jesus from Jehovah and presents Jesus as God’s anointed one and his representative.

  • Wonderment

    The name of God appears nearly 7.000 times in the Hebrew canon. The name of Jesus appears much less than that in the NT. So, numerically, the name of God is of no less importance than the name of Jesus.

    Tradition has it that because the exact pronunciation of the name of God (YHWH) is unknown, the name has lost its original importance within the Jewish world. The name of Jesus has taken over the Hebrew tetragramaton in relevance, so it seems.

    Now, have you ever wondered if we can be certain how Jesus' name was pronounced 2.000 years ago? I don't think we can say with certainty how Jesus' name was pronounced in Ancient Greek, even though the Greek text SHOWS the vowels used in his name originally. There is even uncertainty how those vowels were originally accented.

    Modern Greek is pronounced somewhat differently than Ancient Greek, which means that Greek Christians today may pronounce Jesus' name not EXACTLY as ancients did. Greeks talk about the "reconstruction" of Attic Greek (The Reuchlinian and Erasmian efforts come to mind).

    Further, Christians of Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and a host of other countries don't even bother to do a search in order to ascertain the original pronunciation of Jesus' name. If they did, they will find, that everybody pronounces Jesus' name differently. In fact it is also a futile effort to make everyone pronounce the Hebrew name for Jesus for the majority of Christians today, even if we were certain of the 1st Century Hebrew pronunciation.

    What this simply means is that all this NOISE about whether YHWH stands for Jehovah, Yahweh, IAOE, etc. is nonsensical. You will grow gray hairs before you find the true pronunciation of YHWH, or even Jesus name. Oh, you may say, "Wait, we have an idea of how Jesus' name was pronounced because vowels were used in the name."

    It does not matter. In the real world, EVERYONE pronounces the name of Jehovah, Jesus and a host of other biblical names differently. If salvation depended on this, none of us had a chance.

    What is important is to use the most common pronunciation for these names in our language, exactly as Bible translator Steven T. Byington stated in the Foreword of his version. We may lose favor before Jehovah or Jesus if we fail to acknowledge that Jesus is the way to the Father. (John 14.6) Accepting Jesus is not enough. We have to accept his Father equally as well. (John 5.23) Interestingly, almost every religion gets the simple message of John 3.16 wrong. Some worship only Jehovah and ignore Jesus in their lives. Others focus entirely on Jesus, and dismiss the fact that Jesus said that his Father was GREATER than him. And that his Father was his God. (John 20.17) As stated by a few others, by accepting the NT invitation for Christians to become Jesus' Witnesses, we become Witnesses of Jesus' Father as well. One cannot separate one thing from the other. It was the Father who sent Jesus, his Son, to do the Father's wil as his representative. This concept is repeated time and again throughout the Gospel of John, yet some surfers here seem to ignore this altogether.

    Anything less or more is downright lack of basic factual knowledge of language differences, or hypocrisy.

    Take your pick!

  • LV101

    This is interesting and I appreciate the link re/LXX but not read other than viewing tetragrammaton - trying to view. Why is it a big deal the name be spelled out 'Jehovah' (or other vowels added which Jewish translators rejected) in new testament per WT and the other Bible scholars indicated in posts referenced above vs. LORD -- for direct quotes which is understandable. The jews accepted the name Adonai (I read somewhere) thus approving term LORD and concerned re/pronunciation w/added vowels/whatever of God's name in the translation process from Hebrew to Greek. Regardless, WT ran out of bounds interpreting their own NWT other than extant verses from OT? I'm new to getting the 'Greek' of all this so patience, please.

  • LV101

    Wonderment -- makes sense to me if one is a Xtian and trying to pray/worship in acceptable way.

  • LV101

    Wonderment - Byington's Forward and your thoughts make sense to me for those endeavoring to be a Xtian. I don't think pronunciation matters to the masses -- too many other issues.

    Oops - unable to delete this last post - too early/need coffee.

  • slimboyfat

    Excellent pictures from Earnest. The only major one missing is the Minor Prophets scroll (or possibly two separate scrolls, some have suggested) from the first century C.E. which I like because it has quite decorative examples of the divine name and text generally.

    Interesting article on the divine name.

  • Earnest

    smiddy3 : I have never doubted the existence of the Tetragrammaton in relation to the O.T. scriptures my point being it was never used in the New testament.

    The significance of the tetragrammaton in Greek LXX copies of the OT in the first century CE is two-fold.

    Firstly, these are the scriptures that the writers of the New Testament used and quoted from. None of them (in the first century) replace the tetragrammaton with kurios ('Lord'), so why think that the Jewish writers of the NT would change that when quoting from them.

    Secondly, and perhaps of greater significance, is that after the second century CE all extant copies of the LXX have replaced God's name with kurios ('Lord'). Some have questioned whether it would have been possible to remove all traces of the teragrammaton from copies of the NT if it had been there. The history of the LXX shows that is exactly what happened. There are various ideas why it happened but there is no doubt at all that it did happen. Why be surprised at the suggestion the same change occurred to copies of NT texts.

Share this