Do you still use Jehovah's name in prayer assuming you still pray? (page 9)

inquirer

Do you really seek truth, or something to support the beliefs you already have?

Inq -- Come on! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Everybody beliefs something because of something they have heard and read! And if it sounds right we believe it! We anylyze a situation, and if we think someone is lying or is untruthful -- it's rubbish!

-- what do you base things on?

The Bible - absolutely. On the Tetragrammaton question I can list the scriptural sources that I rely on. I did ask you to do the same, and to date you have referred to anti Christian (Shem Tob) and modern Catholic versions. Do you really believe we don't have accurate scriptures from nearly 2000 years ago?

Yet there are many ancient manuscripts with and without. Not so with the Christian scriptures, not one containing the Tetragram. My discussion is about the Christian Greek scriptures, not the Septuagint (OT)

"However this part of the gospel of John quoted a verse from the book of Isaiah and in all the Septuagints of this period (before 150 CE) there are none with the name kurios (Lord) instead of the tetragram. For example..."

He even underlined it like I did!

I apologise if you were insulted - not my intention. I was referring to modern versions of Bibles by people who were either publishing solely to criticise Christianity, or to convert Jews to Christianity, or published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. I consider such relatively modern versions that WTS relies on for J-references to be spurious (ie innaccurate compared to the more reliable ancient versions - that the JWs agree are inspired & form the basis of their Westcott & Hort text - an excellent version.

I am most certainly not calling you a liar. This must be a misunderstanding about something I wrote!?

Please don't be so angry - We are both sincere and I offer friendship. I wish to discuss rather than argue.

trevor

Do you think that the reason God has failed to help the thousands of Christians begging him for help in New Orleans, is that they are pronouncing his name slightly wrong or just calling him God?

.

jaffacake

Inq. Great to get your replies. Like you I would love to find proof either way, which I would accept - it would strengthen my faith. I thought I had found absolute proof, but your posts have made be check again. It will take me a couple of months to check each and every J-reference - I just lost out on an ebay auction for the interlinear, but I'm bidding on another copy.

I have an open mind on all this, but I really did very intensive studies a few months ago, and checked out several sources for myself. I had forgotton that Ray Franz also did a very thorough study into this, which I'm checking out again.

My research to date has concentrated on undestanding the Watchtower case, and testing it. What is at stake for me is much more than the question of the Divine Name, but whether we have accurate inspired scriptures or not.

WTS repeatedly acknowledges that the early Christian manuscripts were preserved with remarkable accuracy. Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, page 314, quotes Professor Kurt Aland stating: The text of the NT 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.

April 1 1977 Watchtower states: "Whatever version of the Christian scriptures you possess, there is no reason to doubt that the Greek text on which it is based represents with considerable fidelity what the inspired authors of these Bible books actually wrote. Though now nearly 2000 years removed from the time of their original composition, the Greek text of the Christian scriptures is a marvel of accurate transmission."

Numerous WT articles stress the purity & accuracy of the Bible text & credit this to the deep respect for the Divine record and intense concern for fidelity of transmission on the part of the copyists. Awake magazine May 8 1985, page 14 states that since God inspired the original writings "it is logical that he would oversee a faithful transmittal of his word down to our present day.

Just one example - Watchtower April 15 1919. I chose this year because of the claim that this year was the appointment of the FDS. The whole magazine only contained the name Jehovah once. That would be unthinkable today. It was not until 1931 due to a typical Rutherford move, was the name Jehovah's Witnesses adopted and prominenvce given to that name. That is when the Bible students ceased to be predominantly Christian, and became almost a type of Judaism.

Paul & other Christian authors only accepted the description 'Christians'. Seven books of the NT do not mention the Name in any form. Not even Paul's letter to the Philipians. It was with the coming of the Messiah, God's Son that the majestic revelation of His name (in the scriptural sense of the word name) arrives.

WT 1973 Feb 15 dealt with this question & quoted scripture. Jesus prayed to his Father the night before his death - John 17:6,11,26 I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world......watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me.........And I have made your name known to them and will make it known". WT then quotes the 19th century commentary of Barnes "the word 'name' includes the attributes, or character of God. Jesus had made known his character, his law, his will, his plan of mercy. Or in other words, he had revealed God to them. The word 'name' is often used to designate the person".

The WT article continues to explain: "So as Jesus explained the father by his own perfect life course on earth, he was really making God's name known. Jesus could therefore say 'he that has seen me has seen the Father also. God's 'name' thus took on greater meaning to his early followers.

I think Rutherford's greatest error was the diminished use of Christ's name, contrary to ANY translation of the NT, and the increased emphasis on the OT and the name Jehovah. Yet God himself stated that it was his will that "all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He that does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him." John 5:23

Among the last recorded words that God's Son spoke on earth to his disciples is the COMMAND:

You will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant parts of the earth. Acts 1:8

As early as the 1944 Watchtower Dec 15 pages 371 372 stated "Baptism into the Son's name means more than just into the literal name of the Son, Jesus Christ; just as name stands for more than its literal meaning. Tha name carries with it all the honour, authority, power & office that the Father has laid upon the Son."

Most of this is borrowed from the Watchtower itself and from the Ray Franz studies into the subject, it is not all my own work.

jaffacake

-- Yeah... I double-checked the divine name book. I don't know why he says it but he says "However this part of the gospel of John quoted a verse from the book of Isaiah and in all the Septuagints of this period (before 150 CE) there are none with the name kurios (Lord) instead of the tetragram. For example..."

Hi Inquirer,

I've been looking for this. Could you confirm which book, and which chapter I can find it in please.

BTW the Tetragrammaton book - (360 pages so I dont suggest you print it) is really thorough & was checked by JWs

inquirer

jaffacake --

Hi Inquirer,

I've been looking for this. Could you confirm which book, and which chapter I can find it in please.

BTW the Tetragrammaton book - (360 pages so I dont suggest you print it) is really thorough & was checked by JWs

http://gertoux.online.fr/divinename/faq/A20.htm

Appendix C, p 249. I've read that tetragrammaton book. He's definetly done his homework, but I hate it how he doesn't draw to any conclusions. And why doesn't he talk about the fact it says "hallelujah" 4 times ni Revelation?

inquirer

Re your previous post.... When... but when does a name ever mean a personal name! It must mean it sometimes! Does it ever mean "Jehovah" personally? Or do we just keep calling him God?

inquirer

@trevor.

Do you think that the reason God has failed to help the thousands of Christians begging him for help in New Orleans, is that they are pronouncing his name slightly wrong or just calling him God?

inq -- This could happen to anyone. It could be you stuck in there just as well as me! ...Goodness me, some people think that I want the divine name to be spoken like some magic mantra or something! It's not the case.

inquirer

If I ask you to look at one more site, jaffacake. Look at this one. And scroll down to the bottom where it talks about the divine name in the first few centuries. Look under the last heading " UPDATED INFORMATION " which continues on the next page, and then tell me that the divine name doesn't in the Greek Scriptures. There's proof with extra-Biblical sources!

http://jehovah.freewebpage.org/

inquirer

Quite admittingly... I wish there was more information on the subject and not just Gerard Gertoux's book. I found his book difficult to read sometimes, and I am just saying I wish there was someone native to English on the subject that was pro-divine name in the GS. I understand it now, but in any case I wish there were more authors on the subject. I guess we do have the privledge these days on the .Net (which http://jehovah.freewebpage.org) talks about of modern Bibles that use the divine name in the GS (Greek Scriptures.)

jaffacake

Inq -- He has a FAQ on his site regarding the divine name! Here is what I was talking about last post. http://gertoux.online.fr/divinename/faq/A20.htm

Oh, you were quoting from the gertoux book, I was looking for the quote in the booklet on the site I had mentioned. I have definately read many several sources that confirm the Tetragrammaton was replaced by the Jews in the centuries before Christ. Even the Franz book says so. Only the Priests, especially the High Priest was allowed to say the Name. Looks like there is some disagreement on this specific point. I'll do more research.

Do you still use Jehovah's name in prayer assuming you still pray?

Share this