Posts by pizzahut2023

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.

pizzahut2023

I don’t know why they didn’t include the divine name in Acts 19.10. Maybe they should have. A possible reason might be that Fred Franz didn’t find agreement in the Hebrew versions he used as guidance. The NWT said it erred on the side of caution as regards restoring the divine name in general. There are arguably a number of places where they could have included it but did not, especially in the book of Acts.

I found out why. The Textus Receptus says "Word of the Lord Jesus". Which is why many Bibles, such as the King James Bible, says "Lord Jesus". The J versions are divided on this. For example, Hutter's Polyglot (J7) says "Lord Jesus" in most of the 14 languages (the one exception is Latin, where it just says "Lord"). Even the Hebrew says "Lord Jesus"... I can't read what it says in Aramaic, Polish, or Czech. The rest of the J versions I have examined (I am barely on J31) have "Lord", "Ha Adon" (the True Lord, a term reserved only for Jehovah in the Masoretic text, according to the Witnesses), or "Jehovah" (YAHWEH, Master YAHWEH, etc)....

So even though the phrase "Word of the Lord" is understood to be exclusively "Word of Jehovah" in the Old Testament, it is not necessarily the case in the New Testament.

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.

Thank you for pointing that out. He gave them a "carte blanche" to insert Jehovah wherever they wanted...

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.

I am sorry. How can you see that chapter as Messianic?? The WHOLE thing refers to Jehovah!!!

Read it in the New World Translation, it says "Jehovah" tons of times! There is one moment where the human talks about himself, about how he's mortal, but then he goes back to describing Jehovah as immortal and the Creator.

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.”

Not in every J version.

There are some J versions that imply that Jesus said "Jehovah":

J29 and J30 pretty much say the same thing (I quote J29)

Matthew 22:43-45

43. He said to them, "And how did David by The Spirit call him THE LORD JEHOVAH, for he said:"

44. 'THE LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, 'sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet'? *

45. "If therefore David called him THE LORD JEHOVAH*, how is he his son?"

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.

I am sorry, can you share WT quotes where they have said such a thing? Every single thing I read, they're very sure

of having "restored" the Name to the "right" places. In any case. if they truly respected the available evidence, they would have

put "Jehovah" thousands of times in the OT, and ZERO in the NT.

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.

pizzahut2023

Earnest:

The Watchtower accepts "MarYah" and/or "MarYa" as being equivalent to "Jehovah".

*** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of Colossians ***

The Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Translation, by Janet M. Magiera, 2006, uses “LORD” in the main text of this verse. The introduction of this Bible states: “LORD is MARYA, meaning LORD of the Old Testament, YAHWEH.”

*** nwtsty C4 Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Translation, by Janet M. Magiera, Truth or Consequences, NM, U.S.A., 2006. This translation uses “LORD” in the main text of various verses. The introduction states: “LORD is MARYA, meaning LORD of the Old Testament, YAHWEH.”
*** nwtsty C4 Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***One Unity Resource Bible . . . With Some Transliterated Hebrew Notations, by Thomas Robinson, 2016. This translation uses “ADONAI,” “Yahweh,” or “MarYah [Master Yahweh]” in the main text of various verses, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The appendix on page 705 explains that the Hebrew word “Yahweh” corresponds to the English translation “LORD, GOD, The LORD, ADONAI, Jehovah.”
*** nwtsty C4 Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***Las Escrituras de Restauración Edición del Nombre Verdadero (The Bible, in Spanish), by Yosef Koniuchowsky, North Miami Beach, FL, U.S.A., 2010. This translation uses יהוה, “Yahweh,” “MarYah,” or a combination of יהוה and “Yahweh” or “MarYah” in the main text of numerous verses, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The translator explains: “Our purpose in publishing [this edition] is to provide . . . a translation that first of all exalts and proclaims the True Names of YHWH and of Yahshua, as they originally appeared.”
*** Rbi8 Genesis 2:4 ***“Jehovah.” Heb., יְהוָה (YHWH, here vowel-pointed as Yehwahʹ), meaning “He Causes to Become” (from Heb., הָוָה [ha·wahʹ, “to become”]); LXXA(Gr.), Kyʹri·os; Syr., Mar·yaʼ; Lat., Doʹmi·nus. The first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, יהוה (YHWH); these four Heb. letters are referred to as the Tetragrammaton. The divine name identifies Jehovah as the Purposer. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear this name. See App 1A.
*** Rbi8 p. 1561 1A The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***Regarding the divine name, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, edited by J. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1979 reprint, p. 298, says that Mar·yaʼ “in the [Syriac] Peshita Version of the O. T. represents the Tetragrammaton.”

If that is so, then Luke 2:11 says that "Jehovah" was born.

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.

pizzahut2023

I think the post has been carried away and has missed the point of the original post.

Let's suppose for a moment that SBF et al. are correct and the Tetragrammaton or some version of it was indeed in the New Testament, but the original NT was hopelessly lost and we only have "corrupt" 2nd century and beyond Greek manuscripts of the NT.

Ok, so... WHERE in the "original, uncorrupted" NT did the Tetragrammaton appear?

In EXACTLY the 237 times that it appears in the New World Translation?

Why not 238 times?

Why, for example, did the NWT not translate THIS particular "Lord" as "Jehovah"?

(Acts 19:10) 10 This took place for two years, so that all those inhabiting the [district of] Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

They had everything needed to translate it as such:

It is a phrase that is usually associated with "Jehovah", not "Jesus"...

As shown in the NWT, in the same book:

(Acts 8:25) 25 Therefore, when they had given the witness thoroughly and had spoken the word of Jehovah, they turned back to Jerusalem, and they went declaring the good news to many villages of the Sa·marʹi·tans.
They have had to retroactively imply that the "Lord" in Acts 19:10 is "Jehovah":

*** bt chap. 20 p. 161 par. 11 “Growing and Prevailing” Despite Opposition ***11 Paul may have spoken in that school auditorium daily from about 11:00 a.m. until about 4:00 p.m. (See study note on Acts 19:9, nwtsty.) Those were likely the quietest but hottest hours of the day when many stopped their work to eat and rest. Imagine if Paul followed that rigorous schedule for two full years, he would have spent well over 3,000 hours teaching. Here, then, is another reason why the word of Jehovah kept growing and prevailing. Paul was industrious and adaptable. He adjusted his schedule so that his ministry met the needs of the people in that community. The result? “All those living in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10) What a thorough witness he gave!

What if the Witnesses didn't "restore" that one "Jehovah"? Are they guilty of not respecting Jehovah's name sufficiently, and acting like the "evil" sopherim who changed "Jehovah" for "Lord" 134 times?

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 best allows for the possibility of the Tetragrammaton being in quotes of the OT...

Ok, but again I ask, WHERE? WHICH ONES? All of them?

ALL of them?

Then that would mean that Hebrews 1:10, 1 Peter 2:3, and possibly others, had "Jehovah" in them.

Hebrews 1:8-12 would then read:

(Hebrews 1:8-12) . . .But about the Son, he says: ... 10 And: “At the beginning, O Jehovah, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.” And if you think about it, many of the quotes from the OT that do have "Jehovah" in them in the NWT actually help the trinitarian point of view.

(Matthew 3:3) . . .This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: “Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people! Make his roads straight.’”
(Mark 1:1-4) . . .The] beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ: 2 Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “(Look! I am sending forth my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way;) 3 listen! someone is crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people, make his roads straight,’” 4 John the baptizer turned up in the wilderness, preaching baptism [in symbol] of repentance for forgiveness of sins.
Who actually walked the Earth? Jesus, or Jehovah? Why then were "Jehovah's" roads made straight, if Jesus walked them?

What about the "rule" that Kyrios, when used without the definite article, is grammatically like a name?

That would imply that Luke 2:11 says that "Jehovah the Christ" was born. Which is why many of the J versions translate it exactly like that!

So again... careful what you wish for!

Every single "rule" you come up with will have sufficient cases where it identifies Jesus as Jehovah, and so my take on this is that EVEN IF we find ONE manuscript proving that the NT had the Tetragrammaton in it, odds are, that it will have a text that goes against the Witnesses... and even then, supposing we do find a spot where it agrees 100% with the Witnesses, what about the other 236 occasions? What manuscript evidence will you have for or against it?

But right now, as the evidence stands, there is nothing in the manuscripts to indicate that the Tetragrammaton was in the original, and so the Watchtower has to rely on very circumstantial evidence that can go either way and can be interpreted in both ways... and relying on J versions which are wildly more trinitarian than any other NT that does NOT have "Jehovah" in it!

Even when you do find the VERY few J versions which aren't trinitarian, these J versions differ in opinion with the NWT as to whether a specific instance of "Lord" is "Jehovah" or "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.

pizzahut2023

I think it might be wise for Trinitarians to accommodate the idea that the divine name occurred in the New Testament into their theology because, you never know, the evidence for it might get stronger and stronger as more discoveries are made. Two hundred years ago there were no copies of the LXX with the divine name, all we had was outside evidence. Now there are a number of manuscripts with direct evidence and further corroborating outside evidence. It’s reasonable to suppose that fragments of the New Testament with the divine name may be uncovered at some point.

LOL I can't wait till the fragments are discovered and they say something you don't want them to say. Luke 2:11 or something saying that Jehovah the Christ has been born... as it DOES say in the Peshitta NT, from the 6th century.

Again, careful what you wish for!

Or maybe 1st century manuscripts, ALSO with Nomina Sacra, pointing to maybe that the autographs already had them. Or maybe then you'll move your goalposts again, as the WT has done and you'll demand early 1st century manuscripts, or even the autographs, to settle the issue!

Again, the LXX is a different scenario. The evidence does NOT only point to "Jehovah" being in there originally, it points towards "Kyrios" having been there originally and "Jehovah" being INSERTED... in a Hebraizing recension.

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.

pizzahut2023

How do you know when the earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jude 5 is in the third/fourth century? And when the tetragrammaton or other forms of God's name occurs in all copies of the LXX prior to 200.

Uh... because you have ZERO Greek manuscripts pointing towards Jehovah... anywhere in the New Testament!

Whereas there is at least one (actually lots!) of manuscripts pointing towards Jesus. If we go by the EARLIEST manuscript evidence, then it's WORSE for your position because P72 says "God Christ"!!

And lastly:

The LXX is not the New Testament... for the billionth time!!

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.

pizzahut2023

The Tetragrammaton it was certainly not in Jude 5. Nor anywhere in the NT.

It's a moot point for those who believe in the Trinity, it's just a "nod" to them if Jesus was in the text.

Trinity believers won't see a difference if it's "Jesus", "The Lord", or "God", or even, "Jehovah".

It's only non-Trinity believers who will have a huge issue if it's "Jesus".

Just my two cents.

26

It's official: JW celeb Nicolas King publicly out

by neat blue dog in

after years of speculation, jw movie star & chorus member nicolas king, who ironically starred as the bad guy espousing homosexuality in a jw movie, has coupled up with his performing partner and also performed in a church for pride month.. .

.

pizzahut2023

Found the exact moment when "it" happened. Beard and look at the comment about the band-aid.

26

It's official: JW celeb Nicolas King publicly out

by neat blue dog in

after years of speculation, jw movie star & chorus member nicolas king, who ironically starred as the bad guy espousing homosexuality in a jw movie, has coupled up with his performing partner and also performed in a church for pride month.. .

.

pizzahut2023

You should have used THIS pic as "proof".

Good for him!!

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.

pizzahut2023

LOL you backpedalled so hard!! Now you would LOVE it if this hypothetical scenario would read "Lord" instead of "Jehovah" in this supposed "original" Septuagint!!

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.

I read both the LXX and the MT versions and if you see the MT version has "Jehovah" or "Jah" EVERY single time "Lord" is read in the LXX.

The LXX and MT diverge in reading in vss 23-24 (MT) (24-25 in LXX), but and with the exception of "Oh Lord/Jehovah", the LXX and MT go back to saying the same thing afterwards.

The ENTIRE chapter talks about Jehovah, and even the verse by the context (referring to that "Lord" as the Creator) points towards this hypothetical "original" LXX reading "Jehovah" there!

In any case, the WT readily admits that the verse in Psalms is referring to Jehovah. So they have to do mental gymnastics to say that the text applies to Jehovah in the OT but applies to Jesus in the NT, but it doesn't make Jehovah equal to Jesus...

71

"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/.

pizzahut2023

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.

Whether your position is right or it is wrong, the Witnesses lose.

If your position is right, then there is absolutely no basis at all to believe any word in the entire Bible. The NT was promptly and so thoroughly corrupted that a central point of belief, the nature of God, was changed and forever changed the history of the church.

5000 manuscripts, the most well attested of ancient texts... means nothing. It still was corrupted within 50 years.

If your position is wrong, then the Witnesses changed the Bible to fit their ideology, and are therefore condemned by the Bible itself.

From a purely historical viewpoint, and given the historical evidence available to us, I think that the NT autographs did NOT contain the Tetragrammaton.

Up till 2018 when it was finally published and analyzed, there were tantalizing news of a possible First Century Mark.

Then it was published and lo and behold, it had Nomina Sacra. And it was 3rd Century.

If it had been 1st century, the Watchtower would have probably then argued that we need more 1st Century manuscripts to confirm either way, whereas 99.9% of NT textual critics would have said "This pretty much clinches it. It shows that the Tetragrammaton was never there."

They have been moving the goalposts since the 1980's...

In the 1980's the corruption happened in the 4th century.

In the October 2018 JW Broadcasting, they said that we needed 1st century manuscripts to prove this either way.