Posts by slimboyfat

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

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.

slimboyfat

You are correct YHWH is in the MT of Psalm 102 I made a mistake about that. (Edit: No I checked again - I think I was right the first time, YHWH is not used in this verse in the MT.)

But on the wider point what I am saying is that Kyrios in the LXX didn’t always translate YHWH. Sometimes it translated Adonai as it does in its second occurrence in Psalm 110.1.

What did the original LXX of Psalm 101.26 read? If it was understood as a Messianic Psalm in the LXX then it’s possible that the “Lord” here translated Adonai rather than YHWH because the Davidic ruler was viewed as Adonai/Kyrios. The Messiah was not viewed as YHWH but as his servant, as the ubiquitous use of Psalm 110.1 in the NT demonstrates.

This isn’t an argument Watchtower has ever made as far as I know. It is me trying to work out what is going on in Hebrews 1 and the Psalm it quotes.

What convinces me that the early Christians viewed Jesus as distinct and subordinate to YHWH is that when applying the title “Lord” to Jesus they specifically chose Psalm 110.1 where the “Lord” is distinct and subordinate to YHWH. That’s a rather odd choice of what they were really trying to say is that Jesus = Jehovah, don’t you think?

Psalm 110.1

Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.2 Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

Jesus, as “Lord”, is distinguished from and is subordinate to Jehovah/YHWH in this Psalm, and everywhere it is quoted in the NT, such as Acts 2 and elsewhere.

As far as I can work out YHWH is always distinguished from Jesus in NT quotations of the OT. This is true in the vast majority of cases even Trinitarians would agree. There are a handful of cases such as Romans 10.13 and 1 Cor 2.16 where Trinitarians would argue YHWH = Jesus. (In particular the scholar David Capes makes this argument.) But even in those handful of cases it still makes sense to read the text as referring to God rather than Jesus. For example in Romans 10.13 people call of the name of Jehovah because it says God raised Jesus from the dead in verse 9. So an acclamation to God fits here too. In 1 Cor 2.16 Paul’s argument seems to be that scripture says we can’t know the mind of YHWH but that Christians can know ‘the mind of Christ’, who perfectly reflects God’s character. So again a careful distinction is being made between YHWH and Jesus that is lost if you fail to note the difference between YHWH and Jesus as ‘Lord’.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

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.

slimboyfat

Jesus is distinguished from Jehovah, not from “the Father”, in scripture, including in Psalm 110.

110 Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 Jehovah will [send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

This verse is quoted many times throughout the New Testament and each and every time Jesus, as “Lord”, is distinguished from Jehovah.

Trinitarian slicing and dicing of scripture and the meaning of “God” is wild and shows no regard for what the text actually says.

If I made the statement “Jesus is not Jehovah”, you’d probably say that is heresy.

Yet when the Bible says that Jesus is not Jehovah, you say something like: “What you’ve got to understand is that ‘Jehovah’ here just means ‘the Father’, and the Trinity teaches that Jesus is not the Father, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement ‘Jesus is not Jehovah’ from a Trinitarian point of view.”

Psalm 110 shows that Jesus, as Lord and Messiah, is distinguished from Jehovah God. Attempting to mix and redefine “God” and “Jehovah” for each verse in order to prop up a later Trinitarian dogma is desperate.

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

Our common ancestors with other primates were hominoids.

That’s the wrong way round. Primates didn’t evolve from hominoids, hominoids evolved from early primates.

Hominoid is the narrower term, which is now used synonymously with “ape”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Primate is the broader term which includes lemurs, monkeys, and other mammals, as well as apes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Classification_of_living_primates

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

For clarity:

People who use the word ape to describe humans and their ancestors - scientists

People who say the term ape is “unhelpful” if used that way - Cofty

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

In current nomenclature humans are a kind of ape, as are various of their ancestors such as Homo erectus. So I don’t see a problem with saying that humans evolved from apes from an evolutionary perspective. Humans (a kind ape) evolved from Homo erectus (another kind of ape). It’s been scientific practice to use “Ape” as the umbrella term since the 1960s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

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.

slimboyfat

I think there is a good explanation for Heb 1.10 that actually enhances the case the for the divine name in the NT and the distinction between Jehovah and Jesus, or YHWH and kyrios in the original.

Because, as you mention, it is the Greek version, not the Hebrew that is quoted here. The Hebrew doesn’t have Lord in verse 26, but the Greek version does. An English translation of the entire Psalm can be read here:

https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/PSA101.htm#FN2

The question is what did the Greek of this Psalm say before the divine name was removed? The Greek version of this Psalm can be read as a Messianic Psalm, and the Lord in verse 26 is the Lord Messiah rather than YHWH. This is indicated in verse 24 where is says “he answered him”. Who answered who? This is apparently YHWH and Jesus speaking to each other.

This is similar to Psalm 110 where David says, “Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand” and quoted so many times in the New Testament, applying the “Lord” to Jesus as distinct from YHWH in the same verse.

This raises a question I never see Trinitarians answer. How can they say Jesus and Jehovah are elided in the New Testament when the most popular OT quotation in the entire NT makes the clear distinction between YHWH and the messianic Lord.

The entire point of quoting Psalm 110.1 throughout the NT is to distinguish YHWH from Jesus. Although it’s more difficult to see, because there’s a difference between the Hebrew and Greek versions in Psalm 101/2, the same thing is going on there as the messianic “Lord” is distinguished from YHWH in the original Greek version.

So the NWT probably got it right, the Greek version of the Psalm probably did have “Lord” rather than YHWH in this particular quotation.

As for 1 Peter 2.3 I think they could have used Jehovah there because it could as easily be a reference to Jehovah God rather than Jesus.

Rom 10.13 applies to God because he is the one who resurrected Jesus in the previous verses.

The Gospel scriptures applying Isaiah to the coming of Jesus makes sense because Jesus comes in the name of Jehovah as his representative.

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

Cofty are you still living out that ironic position, which I take to be an art form that you have distinctively perfected, of insisting that others need to read books in order to know what they are talking about, meanwhile condemning “Marxist postmodernists”, apparently not realising that Marxism and postmodernism are at odds with one another, and refusing to read an actual Marxist or postmodernist book yourself to find out where you got confused between the two.

Foucault was not a Marxist. A common critique of Foucault from a Marxist perspective is that his philosophy leads to inertia rather than class struggle, and therefore conservatism.

Jordan Peterson has apparently never read a book by a postmodernist or a Marxist either. He said he had a brief look at the Communist Manifesto in preparing for the “debate” but didn’t even finish that. (It’s a very short book, more like a pamphlet.)

https://youtu.be/oDOSOQLLO-U

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

I get your point, that there is a tension between the competing claims that the NT was accurately preserved on the one hand, and that the divine name has been removed on the other. That makes a certain amount of sense and is a viable criticism from a faith perspective. It is a well known problem that JWs have never directly addressed in the Watchtower.

Purely as a matter history, however, theological considerations don’t detract from the historical reasons for thinking that the original NT contained the divine name. The scholars who argue that the original NT contained the divine name have various faith backgrounds that don’t seem to impinge on the matter one way or another. George Howard, Lloyd Gaston, David Trobisch and others argue for the divine name in the divine name in the original NT on historical rather than religious grounds. They would probably agree that the text has been corrupted in various ways because they are not committed to upholding the overall integrity of the NT text.

I do think there is also a religious defence JWs could make, although they do not do so explicitly. They could argue that in general the NT text was preserved while the divine name in particular was removed, perhaps partly under the influence of Satan. But that Jehovah has played a hand in restoring the divine name in the last days by preserving crucial LXX fragments with his name and by bring in these to the attention of his named people Jehovah's Witnesses, who restored the divine name to the NT.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Jimmy Dore Show, not shore. Doh!

If you ever go on a long boat trip remember to take a bar of soap with you, that way if you’re shipwrecked you can always wash ashore. ⛴️ 🏝️

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

Yes I like Kurt Metzger and the Jimmy Dore shore 👍