Posts by slimboyfat

73

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

slimboyfat

The NT is all about Jesus so it makes sense that the name Jesus appears so frequently. To some this might be evidence that Jesus in some way replaces Jehovah of the OT, but this is not a very careful reading of the NT text. All the writings of the NT make it abundantly clear that the whole purpose of Jesus’ mission was to glorify God and his name (John 17.26) and that the exaltation of Jesus is ‘to the glory of God the Father’ (Phil 2.11).

When you realise that the name Jesus (then pronounced Yahoshua) means “Yaho saves”, and that the first Christians were very aware of this fact (Matt 1.21, Acts 4.12), then you don’t count the instances of the name Jesus and his God Jehovah in separate tallies. Because every instance of the name Jesus (Yahoshua) is in fact a reminder, to the first Christians, and to us if we read the NT carefully, that Jesus is the saviour that Jehovah sent into he world to save mankind.

73

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

slimboyfat

We only have one tiny manuscript of the LXX that contains the divine name in the Greek form Yaho (photo above) yet Emanuel Tov, a leading textual critic of the Hebrew Bible/LXX, argues that Yaho was probably the original form of the divine name in the LXX. This is because there is good circumstantial evidence to support the idea. Even if we didn’t have the fragment with Yaho in it, the circumstantial evidence would be strong that the early LXX used the divine name Yaho. Of the earliest NT manuscripts we have, none of them can confidently be dated earlier than the year 200 CE. (See God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts (2018) by Brent Nongbri) By 200 CE the divine name was no longer in use in the LXX, so if it was used in the early NT, then we have no manuscripts from the era before 200 CE which would correspond to the period when the divine name was used. So we don’t have any direct manuscript evidence either way for how the NT handled the divine name prior to 200 CE. We do have manuscript evidence for the LXX in this earlier period and it did use the divine name.

A copy of the NT with the divine name Yaho might turn up one day, but even if it doesn’t there are good reasons to believe the name did occur in the early NT text. Because, if we are being reasonable about it, if Jews used the divine name Yaho in the first century, in their texts and also verbally, as the evidence suggests, then the early Christians must have done so as well because they emerged from the Jewish community. Plus it makes sense of so much of the biblical data that original use of the divine name is key to understanding much about the NT. A striking example is the often quoted Psalm 110 which in the extant manuscripts confusingly reads, “the Lord said to my Lord”, whereas the early LXX, and presumably the NT as well, would have read, “Yaho said to my Lord”. Another is the fact that the meaning of the name Jesus would have been much more intelligible to people who pronounced it as Yahoshua, and who also used the divine name Yaho. The connection between God Yaho, and his sent forth saviour Yahoshua would have been obvious, as apparently it was. (See Matt 1.21 and Acts 4.12)

73

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

slimboyfat

Written in Paleo-Hebrew, not translated or transliterated into Greek. It was considered unpronounceable and forbidden to be changed even in text or spoken.

The divine name was translated in the early LXX into the Greek form Yaho.

Emanuel Tov notes that in this manuscript a second scribe inserted the four-letter Tetragrammaton where the first scribe left spaces large enough for the six-letter word Κύριος

Tov argues that the early LXX used the divine name transliterated into Greek.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49646926/293.Symm-div-25-subm.open-libre.pdf?1476654107=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3D293_P_Vindob_G_39777_Symmachus_and_the_U.pdf&Expires=1684366743&Signature=SaCLH0cP8z85NP-7bvzT-RBOI4KLf2JsoWXEQwDQC0cnoVpnz2ZSwJ~stgi1hngwLad2AOGxq7RmafHCdxbr7xS3g7gon61rQlweN1Qw-T80PGNK8uRA8hcVKzQQM9WOvyJFtwsZzUvgMcsanLwDwu8WkE4kSxaEHvgBYeGl3cTUYSEMIFhkRwVMHDWHIi3~nkrKO8e77CbzNuXxjojMJ6i9IvJIUgfUNMmAUE4j9KxoIqany1cpLTulLpNAauPgmf1hUAQrWMFzz1ln0~PvH1YERcbLMc7XhkSbf0FpP2kkXFnHjfRzYmbe0-39zjIEwqK1ZsqI8mUJGMPq3vs1oA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Ordinary Jews in the time of Jesus used the form of the divine name Yaho. This is shown by 1) the statement from the Greek historian Diodorus that Jews called their God Yaho, 2) the Leviticus fragment of the LXX from the first century CE with the divine name transliterated into Greek IAW, pronounced Yaho, 3) entries in early onomastica that show the form of the divine name persisted in the early Christianity. The idea that no Jews were using the divine name in Jesus’ day is erroneous. While some Jews avoided the name, others were still using it in this period.

12

Anthony ,Tony , Morris where is he ? How is he ? Anyone ?

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

has anybody any information as to the whereabouts or the health of anthony morris ?.

slimboyfat

(Holds up match and blows out the flame)

Poof!

50

To All Those Keen To Tell Us About Their Beliefs

by Simon in

we seem to have had an influx of religiots - the people who want to tell us all about how we / the wts / whoever are wrong, wrong, wrong about everything and how right they are.

they obviously have special insight, or voices (probably voices, right?

) telling them the real truth.. as proof, there is inevitably a wall of random scripture references and quotes.. sorry, but we're not here for that.

slimboyfat

After William Miller got the 1843/4 prediction wrong he went around the country apologising to people he misled for his mistake. That stands out as pretty unusual behaviour for an end time prophet. Apparently he really believed in his prediction, but acknowledged he had got it wrong and, instead of trying to rationalise it, attempted to make amends. I’d never heard about that before, and I don’t see anything about it on Wikipedia, but I read it in the book Protestants: Radicals Who Made the Modern World (2018) by Alec Ryrie,

20

Curtailing zoom

by road to nowhere in

co visit, so right from the horse's mouth ( or somewhere).

too many are staying on zoom, missing face to face encouragement.

look for the elders to implement changes.. also people at the door are so receptive and glad to see us.

slimboyfat

I think just over a third are still on Zoom here, roughly 22 on Zoom to 42 in the KH.

I thought the GB wouldn’t dare take away Zoom, but who knows, maybe they are crazy and controlling enough to do it, regardless it it loses them 10 to 20% of members.

On the other hand, there were always people ‘on the phone link’, even before the pandemic, so presumably there will still be some provision for people at home. Most people can make some sort of case why they can’t get in to the KH. So presumably there will always be Zoom, or something like it. Some elders might be strict or obnoxious about it, but in my experience anyone who said they needed the ‘phone link’ got it.

I know a congregation nearby that as recently as a couple of months ago reverted to Zoom meetings for a couple of weeks because too many people caught covid all at once. This decision was apparently taken by the local elders. I don’t know if they were given permission or took the decision unilaterally. But as far as I know it’s a bit of an outlier.

They may resort to Zoom in future in cases of heavy snowfall or similar adverse weather, I would suspect.

In short, who knows what they’ll do with Zoom in future, it’s unpredictable.

50

To All Those Keen To Tell Us About Their Beliefs

by Simon in

we seem to have had an influx of religiots - the people who want to tell us all about how we / the wts / whoever are wrong, wrong, wrong about everything and how right they are.

they obviously have special insight, or voices (probably voices, right?

) telling them the real truth.. as proof, there is inevitably a wall of random scripture references and quotes.. sorry, but we're not here for that.

slimboyfat

I've yet to find anyone start a religious group and claim to have insight that A, B or C is going to happen, which is super important because it will be the precursor to The End™ happening, but that it will occur at any other time but the one in which the author is living.

Isaac Newton, who was extremely into his Bible prophecy, apparently predicted the end for 2060, or, to put it more precisely, that 2060 was the latest date it could possibly be. If I recall correctly, this date was arrived at by adding 1260 day/years from Revelation to the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD.

Charlemagne also figured in the Nazi political eschatology as the so-called first Reich was allegedly dated from Charlemagne in 800 to 1800, the second Reich under Bismarck in 1871 to 1917, and the Third Reich from 1933, which was intended to last 1000 years, but was defeated after just 12 years, in 1945.

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.

this is not a joke.

anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!

slimboyfat

“Don’t ask what happened”

They are such control freaks. I’ve never known any other group of people to act as controlling as this. Not only must you not know what happened, you’re not even allowed to ask what happened. Next you’ll not be allowed to think about what happened. If these guys ever get hold of the Chinese technology that reads kids’ brains to see if they are paying attention in school, you can bet Watchtower would get JWs to wear them in the KH. Who am I kidding, they’d get JWs to wear them 24/7.

If I was in the Bahamas receiving the instruction, “don’t ask Tony’s son what happened”, I’d be tempted to say to Tony’s son, if there was a discreet opportunity: “hey Tony’s son, did you know they are instructing everyone not to ask about your father?” And just wait and see what his reaction is. You’re not breaking their rule if you just tell Tony’s son about the rule, are you?

I wonder if even the people who made the “don’t ask” rule know what happened themselves. Or are they passing on a “no ask” policy from above without being informed what the situation is about. They are such control freaks.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

That’s interesting that Philo had “acquired”. Philo didn’t read Hebrew, so I wonder where he got the reading from, as it was before Jerome and the other non-LXX Greek versions were produced. The quote also says “God” rather than “Lord”, I wonder if that’s significant.

As it is, “acquired” is arguably closer in meaning to “created” than Jerome’s “possessed”, in the crucial sense that an acquisition is a point in time, whereas possession is a state of affairs. The accompanying “first of his works” and “founded me” also point toward God creating wisdom before anything else.

JWs agree that the creation of Jesus was different than the rest of creation because Jehovah created Jesus directly whereas he created everything else through his Son.

The point of the quote from Origen was to show that he held a similar view about God first creating his Son, as personified Wisdom, then created everything else through his Son. You seem to be saying that because you consider Origen to be a Trinitarian it is therefore not legitimate to quote him when he agrees with JW understanding on a particular issue. That doesn’t follow, and the weight of the evidence is that Origen differed significantly from fourth century Nicene Trinitarianism in any case.

73

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

slimboyfat

If you read Howard’s article he clearly argues that Jesus and God are distinct in the New Testament. It’s a key part of his argument.

You have only counted the direct quotations, you have not counted the OT “stock phrases” as George Howard put it, of which there are many, especially in the book of Acts and the first two chapters of Luke.