ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.
let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.
they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
Hopefully you can make out that photo. It is from FF Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews, where he explains that it is God who is addressing the Son as “Lord” in Heb 1.10 in accordance with a messianic interpretation of Psalm 101 in the Greek. You can read the commentary at the following link, although I think you need to make an account with the archive site, which is well worth doing anyway.
https://archive.org/details/epistletohebrews0000ffbr/page/22/mode/2up?view=theater
ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.
let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.
they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
Personally I think Fred Franz invested far too much faith in the so-called J, or Hebrew versions as a guide for where to restore the divine name. Apart from the couple of Hebrew versions that possibly reflect ancient originals, I don’t see why Hebrew versions should have any more weight than the judgment of other modern translators, or more importantly, internal and external considerations in the individual texts themselves.
Psalm 102 isn’t messianic in the Hebrew original, but the author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 101 in the Greek version. The Hebrew version doesn’t have the word Lord or the name YHWH in verse 25. It says:
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
But the Greek version of the Psalm uses the word Lord.
26 In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.
Some commentators have noted that God appears to be speaking to this “Lord” because in the previous verse in the Greek it says:
24 He answered him in the way of his strength: tell me the fewness of my days. 25 Take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are through all generations. 26 In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.
It seems like a radically different take, but parts of the LXX were read as Christological statements like this, that are quite different from their original contexts. Note the Christian reading of the “young woman” in Isaiah 7, the “angel of great counsel” in Isaiah 9, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, the messianic king in Psalm 2,45, 110, and so on.
In the context of Hebrews chapter 1 we have already been told that it is God who created through his Son in Heb 1.2. So presumably Heb 1.10 was meant to complement that statement, not contradict it. The quotation of Psalm 101 in the LXX was intended to underline the part that the Son of God played in the creation of the physical heavens and earth, and the contrast between him as the instrument of creation who will never fade, and the nature of material things that wear out over time.
I need to think about where I got the idea that the NWT erred on the side of caution in where to restore the divine name. It’s probably in the front matter of the versious editions of the NWT and KIT but I haven’t checked.
humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.
" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.
try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.
Independence supporters would always want another referendum of course, but they don’t get it unless they win an election on that basis. They lost the first two Holyrood elections and look set to lose the next one. But when there is more than 50% support for it then there should be another referendum. That’s democracy.
Rejoining the UK would require the agreement of the rest of the UK and would not be a decision of Scotland alone. But if there was support for it on both sides of the border then it would be reasonable to pursue that. It would probably be a very marginal position if it gained again traction at all.
Because it’s worth pointing out that dozens of countries have declared independence in recent decades, including many who declared independence from the British state. None of them have the slightest interest in giving up their independence as far as I know. Again it’s a strange kind of exceptionalism that imagines Scotland will be the first country in history to regret and want to give up its independence once taken.
The future is always uncertain but at the moment it looks like a second independent will be held and some point and that Scotland will opt for independence. It would be good to make the best of it for all the people of the UK.
humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.
" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.
try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.
If Scotland were to have a second IndyRef, and the result was the same as the first one, would you accept that result, or would you press for a third referendum?
Scotland should be able to have another referendum if it chooses, in principle, now or any time in the future. In reality a second referendum might be the last. That’s a recognition of the political reality, not some sort of promise. It’s a basic democratic principle that current voters can’t tie the hands of future voters, or prevent them from changing their mind on any issue.
But I don’t think many people appreciate what a high bar has been reached to get a referendum the first time and to get another one, if it happens. Basically it requires the majority in a parliament that was specifically designed not to produce a majority. The SNP defied the odds and got an overall majority in 2011 because their support was so high at the time. It had never happened before and it wasn’t expected to happen. That’s why we got the first referendum in the first place, it wasn’t some sort of gift from David Cameron, it was a recognition of the overwhelming democratic case for one.
Getting a majority in the Scottish parliament is very difficult to achieve because it is a proportional system. So if a majority in the parliament supports a second referendum then that is because the electorate has voted for parties on that basis in huge numbers (far higher percentages than elects the typical UK government for example) and that democratic vote should be respected. The idea that Scotland can keep voting for another referendum and Westminster keep saying you can’t have another one is likely to create significant ill feeling the longer it goes on. It’s a huge sign of weakness too that Westminster feels it would lose a referendum at this point and needs to resort to holding Scotland against its will. Surely nobody thinks that’s a good idea.
But then you get people saying “you can’t have referendums all the time”. Well I would agree that would be impractical. But a second referendum after 10 years is hardly “all the time”, even by LE’s definition of “regular basis”. Secondly, there have been huge breaches in the promises of the No campaign made during the first referendum, such as staying in the EU as part of the UK, and not meddling in devolved governance.
Quebec had two referendums and are done for the time being. The political reality is that a second referendum in Scotland would likely be conclusive for an even longer period of time, not because of some preset rule, but just because of the political reality of the situation.
humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.
" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.
try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.
The then-SNP leader, Alex Salmond, called it a once-in-a-generation event, probably in the hopes that it would help his cause.
No he didn’t. Have you got a source for that? I’ll give you a clue, it was someone else who said it, not Alex Salmond. Besides no one politician can bind the hands of Scottish democracy for decades, democracy doesn’t work like that. If Scotland wants to vote again that’s the choice of the people to make.
Anyone from the UK care to explain what the scottish independent people are upset about and how they feel separating will improve their life?
We might feel a bit aggrieved that Westminster plundered trillions of pounds from North Sea oil and gas that could have benefitted the people of Scotland and wasted it instead on Thatcherite privatisation and essentially giving money away to the rich. By contrast Norway saved their revenue from North Sea oil and gas and now have trillions of pounds in savings. In order to accomplish this Westminster governments deliberately lied about North Sea oil for years and have disguised the amount of wealth that was wasted. Thatcherism was basically paid for by North Sea revenue, otherwise it simply could not have been afforded. Labour paved the way by purpose lying to Scotland about the extent of the wealth in the 1970s. Read some of the story here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/may/29/scottish-independence-oil-healey
But independence is about taking responsibility for our own future and having good relations with England. Our complaint is against Westminster governments that have not served Scotland well, not with the English people.
original reddit post (removed).
He clearly hates doing JW videos now. I can’t imagine who enjoys watching this stuff either. It would have been better for himself as well as for everyone else if the channel had abruptly crashed and he was forced to move on to something else than his JW video business already. As it is the channel will probably die a very slow death and at the end of a long drawn out process he will have nothing o fall back on. At least if it had ended abruptly he would have had to face up to finding an alternative way of making a living.
ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.
let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.
they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
SBF et al rely on George Howard's study to say that the "original" LXX and the "original" NT may have had the Tetragrammaton... but Howard's study at bestallows for the possibility of the Tetragrammaton being in quotes of the OT...
That’s incorrect. Howard’s original article suggested that the divine name was used, not only in quotes, but also in certain established OT phrases, such as “angel of Jehovah”, and “word of Jehovah” you have been discussing here. It’s worth bearing in mind that the NWT was published before Howard’s article and has never been bound by his methodology, but in the matter of using the divine name in the phrase “word of Jehovah”, he supported the NWT’s approach.
I quote the relevant part from Howard’s article here:
If the Tetragram was used in the NT, how extensively was it used? Was it confined to OT quotations and OT paraphrastic allusions, or was it used in traditional phrases, such as "the word of God / Lord" (see the variants in Acts 6:7; 8:25; 12:24; 13:5; 13:44, 48; 14:25; 16:6, 32), "in the day of the Lord" (cf. variants in 1 Cor 5:5), "through the will of God" (cf. variants in Rom 15:32)? Was it also used in OT-like narratives such as we have in the first two chapters of Luke?
We have discussed Heb 1.10 elsewhere. This quotation is from the Greek version of the Psalm which may have been interpreted as a messianic Psalm and used kyrios for the Hebrew equivalent Adonai rather than the divine name, just as was the case with the second “Lord” in the often quoted 110th Psalm.
Btw can any Trinitarian explain why Jesus as “Lord” adoni/kyrios is distinguished from and subordinate to YHWH in Psalm 110.1? Judging by the popularity of that Psalm among early Christians they were in absolutely no doubt that Jesus was distinct and subordinate to Jehovah.
Jehovah declared to my Lord:“Sit at my right handUntil I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
You are completely correct that the NWT may be not be right about every instance where the divine name should be restored. That’s an easy point to concede because they have implied as much themselves and have simply claimed to do the best they could on the available evidence.
ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.
let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.
they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
By the way, I think that this "ΙΑΩ" does not refer to the fully pronounced Tetragrammaton ("Yahweh"), but to its short, liturgically preserved form (יָהּ, Yāh), which is also preserved in mainstream Christianity in the form "Halleluyah" (Alleluia).
This is incorrect. ΙΑΩ was pronounced Yaho and IA was the Greek form that was pronounced Yah. The two occur side by side in onomastic texts.
So the statement of the Watchtower that the early Christians "hated" the divine name YHWH and destroyed all manuscripts containing it with fire and iron is not true either,
I don’t recall Watchtower ever saying anything about early Christians hating the divine name or destroying manuscripts, never mind with fire or iron. That’s pretty wild stuff. Have you got a reference for that?
ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.
let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.
they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.
I’ve been thinking about this question posed above or in another thread: if the divine name was originally in the NT then why didn’t Origen mention it was in the NT the same way he mentioned that the most accurate copies of the LXX contained the divine name? I think the reason for that may be the fact that when Christians stopped using copies of the LXX that contained the divine name Jews nevertheless continued to use copies of the LXX and other Greek versions of the OT that contained the divine name. So the reason there were still copies of the LXX around with the divine name for Origen to find is because Jews were still using them. When it comes to the NT obviously Jews didn’t preserve copies of the NT as they did the OT in Greek, so when Christians stopped using copies of the NT with the divine name they fell into disuse altogether. Remember that Origen sourced the best manuscripts of the LXX he could find from Jews. He couldn’t do the same with the NT. Another thing to remember is that the earliest and most accurate copies of the LXX that Origen could find contained the divine name in the form of the tetragrammaton, whereas we know that the early LXX used the form the divine name transliterated into the Greek Yaho. Origen doesn’t mention finding any of those, even though we know that they existed and that copies of the LXX with Yaho are probably the closest analogy to how the early NT would have handled the divine name.
As for the early Christian use of the divine name transliterated into the form Yaho, we have the testimony of the early onomastica name lists that Christian scribes preserved for centuries into the common era. These strongly indicate that at an early stage of their transmission Christians used copies of the LXX and NT with the divine name transliterated into the Greek form Yaho. It is difficult to account the for the use of Yaho in the onomastica otherwise.
On top of which George Howard’s basic point still stands: the contemporary manuscript evidence indicates that Jews in the first century used the divine name in their texts and it is reasonable to think NT authors probably followed contemporary practice. The fact that the NT text contains so many variants around loci with the divine name corroborates this argument as Earnest has explained above.
haven't been to a meeting in 13 years.
family that lives 1300 miles away doesn't know.
just visited them and here is what i observed.
There are twice as many JWs now compared with 1993.
