Lord and Jehovah [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Sparko

January 31st 2005, 02:04 PM

(With thanks to Praxi who mentioned this in Pal Talk yesterday)

Why are the translators of the NWT not consistant with their tampering of the word "Lord?" They translate the same word for "Lord" as "Jehovah" in many places in the New Testament EXCEPT where it would go against their doctrine that Jesus was not God.

Why don't they translate Lord as Jehovah in these verses?

John 21:7
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus used to love said to Peter: “It is the Lord!” Hence Simon Peter, upon hearing that it was the Lord, girded about himself his top garment, for he was naked, and plunged into the sea.

John 21:12
Jesus said to them: “Come, take YOUR breakfast.” Not one of the disciples had the courage to inquire of him: “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord.

John 20:28
In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.”

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I would have YOU know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.

Philippians 2:11
and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

An especially obvious bias is shown in this verse:

First the NIV:

1 Corinthians 4: 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.

Now the NWT:

For I am not conscious of anything against myself. Yet by this I am not proved righteous, but he that examines me is Jehovah. 5 Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes,

The exact same greek word "Kurios" is used in both places, but the NWT translators changed the first instance to Jehovah, but left the second one "the Lord"

Why? because the second instance talks about the Lord "coming" and that means it is an obvious reference to Jesus. And since they claim Jesus is not God, then they can't use Jehovah in that place.

Pretty good evidence of nonconsistant scripture tampering, IMHO.

Sparko

February 3rd 2005, 03:57 PM

:bump:

No replies?

Bill the Cat

February 3rd 2005, 03:58 PM

I think we lost our JW guy...:sigh:

Sparko

February 3rd 2005, 04:21 PM

Maybe he is just out celebrating a late Christmas, or a birthday or something.

barryrob

February 4th 2005, 07:21 AM

Maybe he is just out celebrating a late Christmas, or a birthday or something.

Malachi 1:6-8
6 "‘A son, for his part, honors a father; and a servant, his grand master. So if I am a father, where is the honor to me? And if I am a grand master, where is the fear of me?’ Jehovah of armies has said to YOU, O priests who are despising my name. "‘And YOU have said: "In what way have we despised your name?"’
7 "‘ presenting upon my altar polluted bread*.’ "‘And YOU have said: "In what way have we polluted you?"’ "‘By YOUR saying: "The table of Jehovah is something to be despised."
[b]8 And when YOU present a blind [animal]* for sacrificing: "It is nothing bad." And when YOU present a lame [animal]* or a sick one: "It is nothing bad."’" "Bring it near, please, to your governor. Will he find pleasure in you, or will he receive you kindly?" Jehovah of armies has said.

*The Spiritual Food and techings offered up by the Churches is todays parallel!

'The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures' which is published by The Watchtower and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (Jehovah's Witnesses) at Rom 10:13 reads "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." is a direct quote from Joel 2:32 which reads thus, "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh ) will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah (Heb. vuvh ) has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah (Heb. vuvh ) is calling.""

The following are various other renderings of Rom 10:13:-

"since everyone who calls on the name of Adonai will be delivered. (ftn. reads) "A.do.nai - the LORD, Jehovah."-'Jewish New Testament translated by David H. Stern p.211.

"For Whoever calls with the name of Yahweh will be saved""-'The Book Of Yahweh - The Holy Scriptures' p.881.

"for whoever shall call on the name of Yahweh shall be saved."-'The Sacred Scriptures' (Bethel Edition) p.883.

For conclusive proof that the New World Translation's rendering of Romans 10:13 (note the italics) which includes the personal name of Almighty God, "Jehovah," Heb. - " vuvh " as recorded in the 'The New Testament in Hebrew and English' by The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures p.327. 1 Rectory Lane, Edgware, Middlesex, England, UK is the rendering of Joel 2:32 as found in 'The New International Version Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament' Ed. by John R. Kohlenberger III Vol 4 page 505:-

"and-he-will-be every-one who he-calls on-name-of Yahweh he-will-be-saved for on-Mount-of Zion and-in-Jerusalem she-will-be delivered-one as-what he-said Yahweh even-among-the-survivers whom Yahweh calling.

Love
Barryrob

Sparko

February 4th 2005, 11:27 AM

Barry you did not answer the question. Why do the NWT translators translate Lord as "Jehovah" in some places but leave it as Lord in other places, especially where it would show that Jesus is God (like where Thomas says "My Lord and My God")

================================
Regarding Romans 10:13

The english / greek interlinear is:

For (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1063) * (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) * whosoever (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302) shall (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739) call upon (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1941) (5672 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5672)) the name (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) of the Lord (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) shall be saved (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4982)

Pav (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) gar (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1063) ov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739) an (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302) epikaleshtai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1941) to (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) onoma (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) swqhsetai. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4982)

The word used is Kuriou, of which the root is Kurios meaning Lord or Master. A few verses back, in Romans 10:9 the same word is used and the NWT leaves it translated as Lord instead of changing it to Jehovah like it does in 10:19.

Why is that? Don't you see how your NWT translators are using twisting the scripture?

barryrob

February 4th 2005, 01:50 PM

Barry you did not answer the question. Why do the NWT translators translate Lord as "Jehovah" in some places but leave it as Lord in other places, especially where it would show that Jesus is God (like where Thomas says "My Lord and My God")

================================
Regarding Romans 10:13

The english / greek interlinear is:

For (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1063)* (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956) * whosoever (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302)shall (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739) call upon (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1941) (5672 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5672)) the name (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) of the Lord (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) shall be saved (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4982)

Pav (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3956)gar (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1063)ov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3739)an (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=302)epikaleshtai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1941)to (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)onoma (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3686) kuriou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) swqhsetai. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4982)

The word used is Kuriou, of which the root is Kurios meaning Lord or Master. A few verses back, in Romans 10:9 the same word is used and the NWT leaves it translated as Lord instead of changing it to Jehovah like it does in 10:19.

Why is that? Don't you see how your NWT translators are using twisting the scripture?

Rom 10:13 is an O.T. quote so any Bible translation that does not use the Name "Jehovah" or at least "Yahweh" here is inaccurate and in this instance.

If the Context demands it then it goes in or weight of other scriptural support it goes in because:-

Psalm 145:21
The praise of Jehovah my mouth will speak; And let all flesh bless his holy name to time indefinite, even forever.

Micah 4:5
For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we*, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah our God to time indefinite, even forever.
*Jehovah's Christian Witnesses

No others will be left on this earth because Jehovah says so, thus only Jehovah's Witnesses can fulfil the above.

Barryrob

Krusader

February 4th 2005, 01:54 PM

Rom 10:13 is an O.T. quote so any Bible translation that does not use the Name "Jehovah" or at least "Yahweh" here is inaccurate and in this instance.

If the Context demands it then it goes in or weight of other scriptural support it goes in because:-

Psalm 145:21
The praise of Jehovah my mouth will speak; And let all flesh bless his holy name to time indefinite, even forever

Micah 4:5
For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we*, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah our God to time indefinite, even forever.
*Jehovah's Christian Witnesses

No others will be left on this earth because Jehovah says so, thus only Jehovah's Witnesses can fulfil the above.

Barryrob

You still didn't answer his question!

barryrob

February 4th 2005, 04:25 PM

You still didn't answer his question!
True but the Bible did and does.
Barryrob

Krusader

February 4th 2005, 04:29 PM

True but the Bible did and does.
Barryrob
Your post means nothing. I could simply say that the Bible proves you wrong as well. Face it, you don't have an answer because your position is indefensible.

barryrob

February 4th 2005, 04:35 PM

Your post means nothing. I could simply say that the Bible proves you wrong as well. Face it, you don't have an answer because your position is indefensible.

God says of himself:-

Isaiah 42:8 "I am Jehovah. That is my name; ..."

The Bible also answers your above comment:

Psalm 83:16-18 Fill their faces with dishonor, That people may search for your name, O Jehovah. 17 O may they be ashamed and be disturbed for all times, And may they become abashed and perish; 18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Barryrob

Sparko

February 4th 2005, 04:46 PM

Rom 10:13 is an O.T. quote so any Bible translation that does not use the Name "Jehovah" or at least "Yahweh" here is inaccurate and in this instance.

Are you saying Paul was innacurate? He is the one who used the word Kurios in the original greek. What right does your translators have to change Paul's choice of words? Wasn't Paul inspired by God to write the words he wrote? So for the NWT translators to actually go in and 'correct' Paul's words is the height of hubris. They changed scripture to fit with what they wanted it to say.

Or are you saying that the NWT translators only changed Lord into Jehovah when it was a clear cut case of someone quoting an old testament verse where the word YHWH was used in the original?

Because if you are saying that, then I can come up with plenty of examples where the NWT translators changed Kurios (Lord) into Jehovah where it was not a quote from the old Testament. For example:

NIV:

Rev 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

NWT:
Rev 1:8 “I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

But the real question I have is why didn't they remain consistant and change EVERY instance of Kurios (Lord) to "Jehovah?"

Could it be them showing bias and dishonesty in wanting to preserve certain JW doctrines?

Either they should not change 'Lord' into 'Jehovah' anywhere in the bible (my opinion) or they should be consistant and do it everywhere.

Tampering with the scriptures in such a biased manner is a sure sign of the watchtower's dishonesty.

barryrob

February 4th 2005, 05:40 PM

Are you saying Paul was innacurate? He is the one who used the word Kurios in the original greek. What right does your translators have to change Paul's choice of words? Wasn't Paul inspired by God to write the words he wrote? So for the NWT translators to actually go in and 'correct' Paul's words is the height of hubris. They changed scripture to fit with what they wanted it to say.

First do not put word into my mouth I did not say Paul was inaccurate as I was talking of older & modren translation of what he penned as you full well know!

Deut 32:3 (X-ref Mt 6:9, Joh 17:26)
N.W.T. "For I shall declare the name of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh). Do you attribute greatness to our God!"

N.I.V. "I will proclaim the name of the LORD (Heb. vuv). Oh, praise the greatness of our God!"

Please consider the following comments made by various eminent Bible Translators, also make time to read their works in the Libraries for yourself!

"o KurioV, = Hebr. Yahweh, Lxx Ge.11.5 al ...."-A Greek-English Lexicon H.G.Liddell & R.Scott p.1013 (9th ed 1989)"

"oKurioV, = Hebr. Jehovah : the Lord ..."-A Greek-English Lexicon H.G.Liddell & R.Scott p.421. (M. DCCC XLIII ed)"

"One of the scrolls found at Qumran by the Dead Sea is A Greek papyrus of MS of Leviticus (4QLXX Lev. b), in a hand similar to that of the Fouad papyrus of Deuteronomy (first century B.C.), employs "1" instead of Kyrios, which nowhere occurs in the document."-'Yahweh the divine name in the Bible' by G.H. Parke-Taylor p.84

Concise Dictionary of the words in the Hebrew and Greek Bible with their renderings in the Authorised English Version by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., as following reads:-

"Lord - Heb, No. 136 hbst ' Adonay, ad-o-noy'; an emphatic form of 113: the Lord (used as a prip. name of God only):- (my) Lord."

"Jehovah - Heb, No.3069 vuvh Yehovah, yeh-ho-vee’; from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God :- Jehovah, the Lord. Comp. 3050, 3060."

In most translations of the Bible (in English) the Hebrew name of almighty God vuvh (Jehovah) is rendered by the word "lord" but in large and small capitals combined together as follows: "the Lord" or sometimes "God" (see the preface of most English translations of the Bible). In various translations of the Christian Greek scriptures (N.T.) into the Hebrew language they contain the proper and personal name for God "vuvh" when the writer quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T.) note the following quotations:-

"Jehovah ... the Lord God. XVI (Tindale, Exod. vi 3, 1530). alt. of the sacred Tetragrammaton vuvh JHVH of the Hebrews, the ineffable name of the Almighty, produced by the insertion of the vowel - points repr. the vowels ' (a), o, a of Adonai as a direction to substitute this for the ineffable name (as is done by Jerome in Exod. vi 3). It is held that the orig. name was Jahve(h), Yahwe(h)."-'The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.'

"lord —n. 1 master or ruler. 2 hist. feudal superior, esp. of a manor. 3 peer of the realm or person with the title Lord. 4 (Lord) (often prec. by the) God or Christ. 5 (Lord) a prefixed as the designation of a marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, or (to the Christian name) of the younger son of a duke or marquis. b (the Lords) = *House of Lords. —int. (Lord, good Lord, etc.) expressing surprise, dismay, etc. lord it over domineer. [Old English, = bread-keeper: related to *loaf1, *ward]."-'The Oxford Dictionary'

"Lord" as you know is not a "Name" but Jehovah is as you know. The following shows the Problem:-

The following quotation is by Robert B. Gridlestone, born in England in 1836, was head of the translation department of the British and Foreign Bible Society, principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and minister of St. John's Downshire Hall, Hampstead:-

"It has been urged with some force that the name Jehovah (3068) ought to have been adopted more generally in translations of the Bible, whereas it is confined to a very few. Putting aside the difficulty as to the right spelling of the word, it may be observed that the LXX had set an example before our Lord's time that would not be easy to depart from now. If that version had retained the word, or had used one Greek word for Jehovah (3068) and another for Adonay (113), such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N.T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110 th Psalm, instead of saying, "The Lord said unto my Lord," might have said, "Jehovah [3068] said unto Adoniy [113]" how such a course would have affected theological questions it is not easy to surmise; nor is it needful to attempt any conjectures on the subject, as the stubborn fact remains before us that Adonay (136) and Jehovah (3068) are alike rendered in the Septuagint, and that the LXX usage has led to the adoption of the same word in the N.T. It is certainly a misfortune, and cannot easily be rectified without making a gulf between the O.T. and the N.T. How can it be gotten over?"-'Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament' Their bearing on Christian Doctrine, Third Edition, 1983 p.56 published by Baker Book House.

It is now a know FACT the The LXX DID retain God NAME "JHVH/YHWH" e.g.:-

A Greek papyrus MS of Leviticus (4QLXX Lev.b), in a hand similar to that of the Fouad papyrus of Deuteronomy (first century B.C.**), employs ' 1' instead of Kyrios, which nowhere occurs in the document. ..... the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmschus represents the divine name by Pi, Iota, Pi, Iota, capitalised, [PIPI] obviously intended to approximate to the Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX, ....' -'YAHWEH The divine name in the Bible' by G.H. Parke-Taylor p.84-85.

SO as the LXX used God Personal Name and not the suragot Lord we follow the more accurate rendering of the Hewgrew text as a guide for they both preserved God's Name show that what Girdlestone aid is very true it would and did have a great impact on Biblical Theology.

As we have seen, some of the points made by R.B. Gridlestone in the above quotation are in need of a total review as we can now see that the Septuagint (LXX) DID RETAIN THE personal NAME of Almighty God -JEHOVAH- IN IT'S TEXT and THIS WILL HAVE A PROFOUND EFFECT ON N.T. TRANSLATION as the LXX whas also used in N.T. Quotes!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 4th 2005, 10:04 PM

First do not put word into my mouth I did not say Paul was inaccurate as I was talking of older & modren translation of what he penned as you full well know!

Deut 32:3 (X-ref Mt 6:9, Joh 17:26)
N.W.T. "For I shall declare the name of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh). Do you attribute greatness to our God!"

N.I.V. "I will proclaim the name of the LORD (Heb. vuv). Oh, praise the greatness of our God!"
I am speaking of the NEW TESTAMENT. Deuteronomy is in the OLD Testament and was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek (LXX) and the Jews used Lord there as a sign of respect because they were afraid to take the name of God in vain. Kind of the OPPOSITE that you JW's do. And they were consistant.

all of the rest of your quotes also deal with the OLD Testament and therefore are not relevant.

The Old testament was written in hebrew and translated into greek. When the jews translated it into greek, they used kurios where the hebrew had YHWH. So a case could be made to change it back to YHWH by modern translators.

But the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but written in Greek. So the word YHWH was not used where we see the word LORD, but Kurious WAS. Paul did not use YHWH, he used Kurios, both in referring to God and to referring to Jesus. So did every other writer of the New Testament.

So the NWT has no excuse to change it to Jehovah. And even if you can come up with a reason, you must then explain why they don't do it consistantly????

If you allow for them to translate 'kurios' as Jehovah in Rev 1:8, then you must also translate it as Jehovah when Thomas says "My Lord and My God" to Jesus. It should read in the NWT as "My Jehovah and My God"

So drop the old testament stuff and answer me why they are not consistant in their mistranslations and twisting of the word Kurios in the New Testament.

barryrob

February 5th 2005, 04:39 AM

I am speaking of the NEW TESTAMENT. Deuteronomy is in the OLD Testament and was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek (LXX) and the Jews used Lord there as a sign of respect because they were afraid to take the name of God in vain. Kind of the OPPOSITE that you JW's do. And they were consistant.

all of the rest of your quotes also deal with the OLD Testament and therefore are not relevant.

[/font][/font][/left][/font]
The Old testament was written in hebrew and translated into greek. When the jews translated it into greek, they used kurios where the hebrew had YHWH. So a case could be made to change it back to YHWH by modern translators.

But the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but written in Greek. So the word YHWH was not used where we see the word LORD, but Kurious WAS. Paul did not use YHWH, he used Kurios, both in referring to God and to referring to Jesus. So did every other writer of the New Testament.

So the NWT has no excuse to change it to Jehovah. And even if you can come up with a reason, you must then explain why they don't do it consistantly????

If you allow for them to translate 'kurios' as Jehovah in Rev 1:8, then you must also translate it as Jehovah when Thomas says "My Lord and My God" to Jesus. It should read in the NWT as "My Jehovah and My God"

So drop the old testament stuff and answer me why they are not consistant in their mistranslations and twisting of the word Kurios in the New Testament.

Jesus show you to be WRONG and all the scriptures are important:-

Matthew 22:37-38
He said to him: "‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. .

Mark 12:29-30
Jesus answered: "The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’

Luke 10:25-27
Now, look! a certain man versed in the Law rose up, to test him out, and said: "Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?" 26 He said to him: "What is written in the Law? How do you read?" 27 In answer he said: "‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind,’ and, ‘your neighbor as yourself.’"

THIS IS WHAT JESUS SAID AND FROM HERE:-

Deuteronomy 6:4-9
"Listen*, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. 5 And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force. 6 And these words that I am commanding you today must prove to be on your heart; 7 and you must inculcate them in your son and speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road and when you lie down and when you get up. 8 And you must tie them as a sign upon your hand, and they must serve as a frontlet band between your eyes; 9 and you must write them upon the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
*They did not "listen" and it seems you and the Churches in general do not either!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 5th 2005, 02:58 PM

Jesus show you to be WRONG and all the scriptures are important:-
So why can't you answer me then? Why do you keep sidestepping my questions? Why were the NWT translators not consistant in translating Kurios as Jehovah in all placed in the New Testament? Why did they choose only some places to change scripture and put words in the Apostle's documents that they did not write? Don't you think they could have written Jehovah if they meant to say Jehovah in certain parts of the bible? They obviously knew how to write.

Matthew 22:37-38
He said to him: "‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. .

Mark 12:29-30
Jesus answered: "The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’

Luke 10:25-27
Now, look! a certain man versed in the Law rose up, to test him out, and said: "Teacher, by doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?" 26 He said to him: "What is written in the Law? How do you read?" 27 In answer he said: "‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind,’ and, ‘your neighbor as yourself.’"

The problem here Barryrob is that the writers of the New Testament didn't use the word Jehovah, they used the word kurios which means Lord and Master. Why didn't the authors use Jehovah? Why did the NWT authors feel they had the right to change scripture?

THIS IS WHAT JESUS SAID AND FROM HERE:-

Deuteronomy 6:4-9
"Listen*, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. 5 And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force. [/QUOTE]

Try answering these questions instead of sidestepping the issue again. Please?

1. In your examples above, why didn't the NWT change "your mind" to "all of your vital force" in order to keep the quote consistant with the OT. If that was the reason they decided to change kurios to Jehovah. They should have changed "mind" to "vital force".

2. Why did they change kurios to Jehovah in Rev 1:8? It was not a quote of the OT.

3. Why did they not remain consistant and change kurios to Jehovah when Thomas says "My Lord and My God?"

barryrob

February 5th 2005, 04:45 PM

The problem here Barryrob is that the writers of the New Testament didn't use the word Jehovah, they used the word kurios which means Lord and Master. Why didn't the authors use Jehovah? Why did the NWT authors feel they had the right to change scripture? Hebrew copies of the Christian Greek Texts read (the most important word as seen (in Red) in Hebrew N.Ts.).

Matthew 22:37-38
He said to him: "‘You must love vuvh your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. .

Jesus set the model for Christians (as the Christain Greek texts (N.T.) did not exist until after his day) to follow in calling God by his proper name when approprate. As I said Jesus shows you to be wrong!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 5th 2005, 07:13 PM

barryrob

February 6th 2005, 04:59 AM

Uh what about Rev 1:8???? how did they translate that verse?

And can you show me where these hebrew translations of the Greek manuscripts are so I can check them out myself to see if they even exist or if they indeed changed Lord to Jehovah as you claim? Or if they might have changed Lord to Jehovah when Thomas said "My Lord and My God" to Jesus?

I am also interested in how long ago these hebrew translations were made and by whom. If you tell me they were made by the Watchtower Tract Society I will of course laugh heartily at you. Or if they were made by any other modern translators. Unless you can show me that they were translated into hebrew by the early apostolic church with the approval of the apostles, I have the same problem with them as I do with the NWT. What gave them the right to change scripture?

Unless you can give me some references, I will have to assume you are just spouting watchtower propoganda again.

The Hebrew New Testament's quoted are:-

New Testament in Hebrew by the Bible Society in Israel P.O. Box 44-Jerusalm p.403. United Bible Societies

The New Testament in Hebrew and English by The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures p.327. 1 Rectory Lane, Edgware, Middlesex, England, UK

The Hebrew N.T. by The Trinitarian Bible Society London. Trirnity Bible House Tyndale House, Dorset Road London SW19 3NN England.

Barryob

Sparko

February 6th 2005, 02:53 PM

barryrob

February 7th 2005, 04:32 AM

Yeah, I looked them up on the internet barryrob. http://www.sdhs.co.uk/ They are using modern hebrew translations (the oldest was from 1886 I believe, and done by ONE person, Salkinson) which means that they are just as much in error in their changing of the word Kurios into YHWH as your NWT translators were. And for the same reasons. To use one error to support another doesn't work, barryrob.

I have not found how they translated specific verses yet, such as where Thomas cries "My Lord and My God!" to Jesus. That would be interesting to see. You could let me know if you have them.

But to use a modern translation of the ancient greek into hebrew is not exactly a good example to use. Besides the NWT translators did not USE those hebrew translations of the NT, they used the greek so referring to them as a reason that they did is spurious.

You still have to answer my questions.

1. Why did they translate verses that were NOT quotes of the OT, but used the word Kurios into Jehovah? Example Rev 1:8

2. Why didn't they use it when Thomas was exclaiming
John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Especially since in a previous thread you and nontrinitarian where claiming that Thomas was really talking to the Father when he said this. If that were the case, why did not the NWT translators change kurios into Jehovah there?

I think you have missed an important point, when Jesus said what he said at Matthew 22:37-38 he was quoting directly from the Hebrew Texts or as you call it the O.T., (as the N.T. did not even exist then) and in that verse, which he would have read in the Synagogue, from the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) uses YHWH and not adoni ((Lord) which over time has been used by men (not God) as a replacement for God’s Name which Jesus would not do, He would stay with what the Text properly read as he saw it first penned by Moses)) for God's Name. So Jesus still show your reasoning wrong! So when Hebrew N.Ts. use YHWH they reflect the correct rendering as Jesus would of read in the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) of His day.

Barryrob

Sparko

February 7th 2005, 10:37 AM

I think you have missed an important point, when Jesus said what he said at Matthew 22:37-38 he was quoting directly from the Hebrew Texts or as you call it the O.T., (as the N.T. did not even exist then) and in that verse, which he would have read in the Synagogue, from the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) uses YHWH and not adoni ((Lord) which over time has been used by men (not God) as a replacement for God’s Name which Jesus would not do, He would stay with what the Text properly read as he saw it first penned by Moses)) for God's Name. So Jesus still show your reasoning wrong! So when Hebrew N.Ts. use YHWH they reflect the correct rendering as Jesus would of read in the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) of His day.

Barryrob
Barryrob, the Jews often will not speak the sacred name YHWH out loud. So even when reading from sacred texts that did have YHWH in them, they often would substitute "Adonai" when they came to that word in the verse. It is entirely likely that when Jesus quoted the OT verses, he used "Adonai"

But regardless, we CAN be sure of one thing. The NT authors did NOT use YHWH when they wrote their books. They used Kurios. That is a fact. So for anyone to change it to YHWH is tampering with scripture.

And yet again, you are avoiding my questions. Please try to answer them:

1. Why did they translate kurios into Jehovah on verses that were NOT quotes of the OT? Example Rev 1:8

2. Why didn't they translate Kurios into Jehovah when Thomas was exclaiming
John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” - especially since the JW's maintain that in this instance Thomas was talking to the Father and not Jesus.

barryrob

February 7th 2005, 04:35 PM

Barryrob, the Jews often will not speak the sacred name YHWH out loud. So even when reading from sacred texts that did have YHWH in them, they often would substitute "Adonai" when they came to that word in the verse. It is entirely likely that when Jesus quoted the OT verses, he used "Adonai"

But regardless, we CAN be sure of one thing. The NT authors did NOT use YHWH when they wrote their books. They used Kurios. That is a fact. So for anyone to change it to YHWH is tampering with scripture.

And yet again, you are avoiding my questions. Please try to answer them:

1. Why did they translate kurios into Jehovah on verses that were NOT quotes of the OT? Example Rev 1:8

2. Why didn't they translate Kurios into Jehovah when Thomas was exclaiming
John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” - especially since the JW's maintain that in this instance Thomas was talking to the Father and not Jesus.
Re Matthew's Gospel:-

There is evidence that Jesus’ disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work De viris inlustribus [Concerning Illustrious Men], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it." (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 8, 9.)

Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.

I will get to 1 & 2 later

Barryrob

Sparko

February 7th 2005, 04:51 PM

barryrob

February 7th 2005, 05:06 PM

Thanks for the info Barryrob. I learned something new. :thumb:

But at best you can only say he MIGHT have used the name YHWH in his quotations of the OT verses. But where Matthew was quoting the actual WORDS of Jesus as Jesus spoke the old Testament, then he was only obligated to quote Jesus' actual words and not the OT itself.

In other words, If Jesus said "adonai" instead of YHWH when he quoted the OT verses (whether out of respect for the jewish tradition, or if he was quoting the Septuagent where 'Adonai' was used) then Matthew would have used Adonai also.

But since we don't HAVE these Hebrew scriptures, saying that the originals did or did not use YHWH is a guess.

We can only go by why we do have. And what we do have is lots of manuscripts of Matthew that use Kurios and NONE that use Jehovah.

And please, answer my questions.

But what did Jesus say and feel about the Traditions of the Scibes etc. in his day:-

Matthew 15:6-9
And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. 7 YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’"

Mark 7:13
and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which YOU handed down. And many things similar to this YOU do."

As they -The Scribes- changed YHWH to LORD as a HUMAN Tradition, Jesus would not of followed it as the above texts show his attitude to such things, so Matthew would not of either, as he was Faithful to the Hebrew Bible said.

Barryrob

Sparko

February 8th 2005, 10:30 AM

barryrob

February 8th 2005, 01:33 PM

That is called rationalization Barryrob. - There is no indication that Jesus disaproved of using Adonai as a term of repect for God. You are wanting it to be that way, and so you rationalize it to be that way but you have no evidence that it was that way.

WE do have three other gospels and numerous epistles that were written in Greek originally. NONE of those use Jehovah anywhere in them, even when quoting the scriptures of the old testament. So the circumstantial evidence is that neither did Matthew. Remeber, the NT is the inspired word of God. If God wanted them to use Jehovah, they would have.

But how just for arguments sake I give in on the OT quotes in the NT and allow that might be OK to change Adonai to Jehovah in that instance? If I do that, just to get this thread moving, will you answer my questions?

1. Why did they translate kurios into Jehovah on verses that were NOT quotes of the OT? Example Rev 1:8

2. Why didn't they translate Kurios into Jehovah when Thomas was exclaiming
John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” - especially since the JW's maintain that in this instance Thomas was talking to the Father and not Jesus.

I do not think you are right as Jesus disagreed with Scribal "Traditions" of which the facts show that to change YHWH to Adoni is one, as to alter the Holy Texts is an act against God and what he says. So the "circumstantial evidence" and Scriptial evidence still is against you as the Bible shows.

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513

*”generic adj. 1 characteristic of or relating to a class; general, not specific or special. 2 Biol. characteristic of or belonging to a genus. generically adv. [Latin: related to *genus].”-Oxford Dic.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father*, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”

*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-

John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”

John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-

John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.

John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”“

Is The Fathers name God?

*“god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.

“name —n. 1 word by which an individual person, family, animal, place, or thing is spoken of etc. 2 a (usu. abusive) term used of a person etc. (called him names). b word denoting an object or esp. a class of objects etc. (what is the name of those flowers?). 3 famous person. 4 reputation, esp. a good one. —v. (-ming) 1 give a name to. 2 state the name of. 3 mention; specify; cite. 4 nominate. have to one's name possess. in the name of as representing; by virtue of (in the name of the law). in name only not in reality. make a name for oneself become famous. nameable adj. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.

So what else did Jesus say:-

The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-

Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””

“hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy].”-Oxford Dic.

Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”

Christians are to identify with “the name of the Father”.

What is God The Father’s Personal Name?

Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”

Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.

**Who became “Israel.”

During the formation of the Christian Congregation:-

Acts 15:14 “Symeon has related thoroughly how God [of Israel, Jehovah] for the first time turned his attention to the [non Israelite] nations [who became Christians] to take out of them a people for his name [Jehovah].”

Acts 15:17 “in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations [who became Christians], people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,”

So to identify with The God of Israel who was preached by Jesus and the Apostles shouldn’t we use his Personal name not just a title such a God or Lord.

Barryrob

I will get to 1 & 2 Later

As per campus decorum, large portions of copyrighted material, especially when uncited, is not permissible. Please re-word an argument in your own words.

Krusader

February 8th 2005, 02:01 PM

I do not think you are right as Jesus disagreed with Scribal "Traditions" of which the facts show that to change YHWH to Adoni is one, as to alter the Holy Texts is an act against God and what he says. So the "circumstantial evidence" and Scriptial evidence still is against you as the Bible shows.

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513

*”generic adj. 1 characteristic of or relating to a class; general, not specific or special. 2 Biol. characteristic of or belonging to a genus. generically adv. [Latin: related to *genus].”-Oxford Dic.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father*, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”

*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-

John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”

John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-

John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.

John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”“

Is The Fathers name God?

*“god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.

“name —n. 1 word by which an individual person, family, animal, place, or thing is spoken of etc. 2 a (usu. abusive) term used of a person etc. (called him names). b word denoting an object or esp. a class of objects etc. (what is the name of those flowers?). 3 famous person. 4 reputation, esp. a good one. —v. (-ming) 1 give a name to. 2 state the name of. 3 mention; specify; cite. 4 nominate. have to one's name possess. in the name of as representing; by virtue of (in the name of the law). in name only not in reality. make a name for oneself become famous. nameable adj. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.

So what else did Jesus say:-

The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-

Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””

“hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy].”-Oxford Dic.

Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”

Christians are to identify with “the name of the Father”.

What is God The Father’s Personal Name?

Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”

Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.

**Who became “Israel.”

During the formation of the Christian Congregation:-

Acts 15:14 “Symeon has related thoroughly how God [of Israel, Jehovah] for the first time turned his attention to the [non Israelite] nations [who became Christians] to take out of them a people for his name [Jehovah].”

Acts 15:17 “in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations [who became Christians], people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,”

So to identify with The God of Israel who was preached by Jesus and the Apostles shouldn’t we use his Personal name not just a title such a God or Lord.

Barryrob

I will get to 1 & 2 Later

Why don't you try answering on your own instead of posting Watchtower literature? Why don't you answer the thread regarding Watchtower spiritism - can't you find any WT lit on that statement?

Sparko

February 8th 2005, 02:12 PM

barryrob

February 8th 2005, 08:49 PM

Barry, I am not arguing with you on whether Jesus said Jehovah or not. I already said that to move this discussion along, I will, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, not contest the point on whether it is OK to use "Jehovah" in the NT where it is quoting an OT verse that used Jehovah orginally.

so, let's move on and answer my questions.

also, please do not quote large portions of copyrighted watchtower literature without permission. We told you about doing that before. It is illegal. A small portion here or there is fine under the fair use act, but entire articles or large portions are not, especially without giving references, or posting the copyright information, or getting written permission to use those large portions.Lets try again.

*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-

John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”

John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-
John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.

John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”“

Is The Fathers name God?
So what else did Jesus say:-
The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-
Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””

Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”

Christians, as Christ did are to identify with “the name of the Father”.
What is God The Father’s Personal Name?
Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.” See KJV

Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.

Thus must remain in the Bible forever!

So Jesus unlike the Scribes made God’s NAME known which the Scriptures show to be Jehovah as “God” or Lord” are just titles of power etc.

As an example of persons who refuse to follow God's teaching as Jesus taught go to the bottom and do a word search for "Jehovah" in the NIV, then try Young's Lit. Tran. and see a man's work that had better understanding of God's Word, even though he does not use God's Name in the Greek Texts (N.T.) it far better than the NIV as one can X-ref to see where Jehovah should apper in the N.T..

Barryrob

PS the only quotes from the Watchtower in my other post where the Biblical Texts!!

Sparko

February 8th 2005, 10:41 PM

PS the only quotes from the Watchtower in my other post where the Biblical Texts!! In post #27 you posted an entire watchtower article which started in this manner:

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an,

And above you still fail to answer my questions. Why do you keep dodging?

Bill the Cat

February 8th 2005, 10:45 PM

Dang!! :dots:

barryrob

February 9th 2005, 05:33 AM

Why don't you try answering on your own instead of posting Watchtower literature? Why don't you answer the thread regarding Watchtower spiritism - can't you find any WT lit on that statement?
Because it is not worth my efforts.

barryrob

February 9th 2005, 05:46 AM

In post #27 you posted an entire watchtower article which started in this manner:

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an,

And above you still fail to answer my questions. Why do you keep dodging?

I am showing you some Jesus words that answer your question.

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?*

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513

*Heading my own words

"Lord" is a title not a NAME Jesus made God's NAME "manifest" or as Jesus said (KJV):-

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

So the faithfull follower of Jesus would have also "manifested" God's personal name when penning the Bible.

Barryrob

Krusader

February 9th 2005, 11:25 AM

Because it is not worth my efforts.
No, it is worth your effort. If the Watchtower is not espousing pagan spiritism, then what are we to understand by those remarks in Revelation - Grand Climax? What's the matter, barry, somebody got your tongue? Isn't the answer in one of your answer books? Ask your elders, they should know.

However, maybe the real answer is found in the fact that the Watchtower is actually being controlled by entities posing as the dead!

Sparko

February 9th 2005, 01:11 PM

I am showing you some Jesus words that answer your question.

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?*

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513

*Heading my own words

"Lord" is a title not a NAME Jesus made God's NAME "manifest" or as Jesus said (KJV):-

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

So the faithfull follower of Jesus would have also "manifested" God's personal name when penning the Bible.

Barryrob

So you are saying that the whole article was YOUR own words and not a cut and paste from someplace else?

barryrob

February 9th 2005, 02:14 PM

So you are saying that the whole article was YOUR own words and not a cut and paste from someplace else?

I quoted from New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by Intervarsity Press p.513, one quote (as in my other post 36) ; and a few word definitions from the Oxford Dictionary

Barryrob

Sparko

February 9th 2005, 04:33 PM

I quoted from New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by Intervarsity Press p.513, one quote (as in my other post 36) ; and a few word definitions from the Oxford Dictionary

Barryrob
Well when you do quote, you need to give such information. And limit your quotes to relevant portions, not entire articles.

When your entire posts consist of using other people's words, then we are not interacting with barryrob but with whoever you are quoting. Doing this once in a while is ok (as long as you give citations and references) But to consistantly do it is VERY frustrating to all the rest of us.

For instance in this thread you still have not bothered to answer my two questions. Instead you keep dodging the questions and posting quotes from other sources regarding the name Jehovah and so on. That does not answer my questions.

There are many verses in the NT where the author used kurios and it was NOT a quote from the old testament and they changed it to Jehovah. Why? What gives them the right to change the words of the NT?

And if you can give me a good reason for why they do that, then why are they NOT consistant? Why did they not change kurios to Jehovah when Thomas says "My Lord (kurios) and My God!" when he sees Jesus.

barryrob

February 9th 2005, 06:57 PM

Well when you do quote, you need to give such information. And limit your quotes to relevant portions, not entire articles.

When your entire posts consist of using other people's words, then we are not interacting with barryrob but with whoever you are quoting. Doing this once in a while is ok (as long as you give citations and references) But to consistantly do it is VERY frustrating to all the rest of us.

For instance in this thread you still have not bothered to answer my two questions. Instead you keep dodging the questions and posting quotes from other sources regarding the name Jehovah and so on. That does not answer my questions.

There are many verses in the NT where the author used kurios and it was NOT a quote from the old testament and they changed it to Jehovah. Why? What gives them the right to change the words of the NT?

And if you can give me a good reason for why they do that, then why are they NOT consistant? Why did they not change kurios to Jehovah when Thomas says "My Lord (kurios) and My God!" when he sees Jesus.

Did Thomas think that Jesus was Almighty God. Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Christ’s being "a god," though not "the only true God as Jesus called Jehovah, bearing in mind the the Title "God" or "Lord" are relative* term according to context.-John 1:1; 17:1-3

*e.g. John 11:27 She said to him: "Yes, Lord**; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God, the One coming into the world."
**Christ as "Lord" in relation to His Father who is called "God."

Jesus is "Lord" (to the Glory of God the Father) but as Thomas was not talking to Almighty God it would not right here to render kurios as Jehovah.

I could say the Jesus is My Lord and my God in relation with all other intelegent life in the Cosmos, except in relation to The Father Jehovah, compaired to Him Jesus remains a god as only Jehovah is Almighty.

Barryrob

Sparko

February 9th 2005, 07:11 PM

barryrob

February 9th 2005, 07:38 PM

So you are admitting that the NWT translators picked and chose which occurances of Kurios they wanted to change into Jehovah and that choice was bases on JW doctrine and not any consistant reason (such as only when the OT said YHWH as you first claimed)

When Thomas said "My Lord and My God" to Jesus, the NWT did not change it because according to their doctrine it would be improper to call Jesus Jehovah. That is what you are saying?
As Jesus is not Jehovah then the answer is yes.

ANY Bible translation(s) will have the theologial bias of it's translator(s) that applies the the KJV, NIV, RSV. NRSV, NEB, NKJV, NWT or any other translation or version you care to mention. I think it not possibly to avoid that in ANY version, e.g. if a text can be worded to support the trinity or or worded not, then a translator who believes the Trinity will render it to support his idea and a translator that does not believe the trinity will word it to support his idea.

Barryob

Sparko

February 9th 2005, 10:34 PM

As Jesus is not Jehovah then the answer is yes. Then I have proven my opening statement. The NWT twist the scripture to fit their doctrines. To the point of changing actual words into other words.

ANY Bible translation(s) will have the theologial bias of it's translator(s) that applies the the KJV, NIV, RSV. NRSV, NEB, NKJV, NWT or any other translation or version you care to mention. I think it not possibly to avoid that in ANY version, e.g. if a text can be worded to support the trinity or or worded not, then a translator who believes the Trinity will render it to support his idea and a translator that does not believe the trinity will word it to support his idea.

All bibles will have a small amount of bias, this is true. But usually because they were limited in their source material. For example, the KJV was translated mostly using the latin vulgate as the source. They didn't have all the greek manuscripts that we do today.

But if you check, most recognised orthodox bibles all pretty much agree on the meaning of the verses and the words used. They are all honest translations of the greek and hebrew, and they are done by teams of translators that check each other to keep doctrinal bias out of it.

In fact that there are so many different denominations, including trinitarian and nontrinitarian and they all use the same bibles show that there is no doctrinal bias in true christian bibles.

Nowhere will you find an orthodox mainstream Christian bible that substitutes entire words to fit their doctrine like the NWT does with the examples in this thread. No where do you see translators actually add in words like "[a] god" or "all [other] things" to make a verse fit with their doctrines.

The only exceptions to this might be the paraphrase bibles, like the Message, but they clearly state they are not a word-for-word translation, but an idea for idea translation and they do have bias, which the writers readily admit.

No, the NWT is not a translation of the bible, it is a corruption of the bible. A book that has been changed to fit the watchtower's agenda and further their brainwashing.

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 06:22 AM

Then I have proven my opening statement. The NWT twist the scripture to fit their doctrines. To the point of changing actual words into other words.

All bibles will have a small amount of bias, this is true. But usually because they were limited in their source material. For example, the KJV was translated mostly using the latin vulgate as the source. They didn't have all the greek manuscripts that we do today.

But if you check, most recognised orthodox bibles all pretty much agree on the meaning of the verses and the words used. They are all honest translations of the greek and hebrew, and they are done by teams of translators that check each other to keep doctrinal bias out of it.

In fact that there are so many different denominations, including trinitarian and nontrinitarian and they all use the same bibles show that there is no doctrinal bias in true christian bibles.

Nowhere will you find an orthodox mainstream Christian bible that substitutes entire words to fit their doctrine like the NWT does with the examples in this thread. No where do you see translators actually add in words like "[a] god" or "all [other] things" to make a verse fit with their doctrines.

The only exceptions to this might be the paraphrase bibles, like the Message, but they clearly state they are not a word-for-word translation, but an idea for idea translation and they do have bias, which the writers readily admit.

No, the NWT is not a translation of the bible, it is a corruption of the bible. A book that has been changed to fit the watchtower's agenda and further their brainwashing.

So here we will have to disagree. As Alan S. Duthie said in his book 'How to choose your Bible wisely' on page 30:-

"Jehovah's Witnesses: NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult. [Fee & Stuart, p.41*], even though a few aberations can be found."
*'How to read the Bible for all its worth', Zondervan/Scripture Union, 1982/3

Barryrob

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 12:36 PM

So here we will have to disagree. As Alan S. Duthie said in his book 'How to choose your Bible wisely' on page 30:-

"Jehovah's Witnesses: NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult. [Fee & Stuart, p.41*], even though a few aberations can be found."
*'How to read the Bible for all its worth', Zondervan/Scripture Union, 1982/3

Barryrob I am sorry Barryrob, but you are arguing with my conclusion (that you already admitted to in the previous post) by quoting the review and personal opinion from some third party? That doesn't wash. What if I provided a quote from someone else who agreed with me and says the NWT is completely corrupted and twisted? Would that even things up? What if I provided two such quotes? would that mean I won?

No. The NWT has to stand on its own evidence and as such, it fails miserably as a good bible. You admitted they read their ideas into the text and changed it to suit their preconcieved doctrine.

When a bible translator takes the original words of the bible author and says "ah! This is what they REALLY meant to say..." and changes the text to what he wants it to say, then he is tampering with the word of God. And that is exactly what the NWT translators did.

They went through the bible, finding passages where the original authors used "kurios" and said to themselves "Oh this one obviously refers to God, so the author really meant to say "Jehovah" and so I will correct it for him." and then did so. This is tampering with the word of God. If they were to at least point these places out with footnotes and an explanation of this is why they changed it, that would be one thing. But they make it seem like the word Jehovah was in the original text and they were faithfully translating it. That makes them liars.

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 01:07 PM

I am sorry Barryrob, but you are arguing with my conclusion (that you already admitted to in the previous post) by quoting the review and personal opinion from some third party? That doesn't wash. What if I provided a quote from someone else who agreed with me and says the NWT is completely corrupted and twisted? Would that even things up? What if I provided two such quotes? would that mean I won?

No. The NWT has to stand on its own evidence and as such, it fails miserably as a good bible. You admitted they read their ideas into the text and changed it to suit their preconcieved doctrine.

When a bible translator takes the original words of the bible author and says "ah! This is what they REALLY meant to say..." and changes the text to what he wants it to say, then he is tampering with the word of God. And that is exactly what the NWT translators did.

They went through the bible, finding passages where the original authors used "kurios" and said to themselves "Oh this one obviously refers to God, so the author really meant to say "Jehovah" and so I will correct it for him." and then did so. This is tampering with the word of God. If they were to at least point these places out with footnotes and an explanation of this is why they changed it, that would be one thing. But they make it seem like the word Jehovah was in the original text and they were faithfully translating it. That makes them liars.

Of core you would say that as you do not worship Jehovah a Almoghty God as we do so we go back to what is recorded at:-

Psalm 74:10
How long, O God, will the adversary keep reproaching? Will the enemy keep treating your name with disrespect forever?

Isaiah 52:5-6
"And now, what interest do I have here?" is the utterance of Jehovah. "For my people were taken for nothing. The very ones ruling over them kept howling," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and constantly, all day long, my name was being treated with disrespect. For that reason my people will know my name, even for that reason in that day, because I am the One that is speaking. Look! It is I."

Ezekiel 36:23
‘And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations, which YOU profaned in the midst of them; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among YOU* before their eyes.
*Jehovah's Witnesses

Thus says Jehovah!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 02:33 PM

Of core you would say that as you do not worship Jehovah a Almoghty God as we do so we go back to what is recorded at:-

Psalm 74:10
How long, O God, will the adversary keep reproaching? Will the enemy keep treating your name with disrespect forever?

Isaiah 52:5-6
"And now, what interest do I have here?" is the utterance of Jehovah. "For my people were taken for nothing. The very ones ruling over them kept howling," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and constantly, all day long, my name was being treated with disrespect. For that reason my people will know my name, even for that reason in that day, because I am the One that is speaking. Look! It is I."

Ezekiel 36:23
‘And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations, which YOU profaned in the midst of them; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among YOU* before their eyes.
*Jehovah's Witnesses

Thus says Jehovah!

Barryrob
So now you are saying the apostles, Paul and Luke did not worship God as good as YOU do? It is THEIR words you are correcting, not mine. I am just saying we should stick with the original author's words, and not substitute our own.

So your position is that the Watchtower and YOU are more holy and godly than the people who actually WROTE the bible.

That kind of hubris was the downfall of Satan and it will be the downfall of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower.

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 03:08 PM

So now you are saying the apostles, Paul and Luke did not worship God as good as YOU do? It is THEIR words you are correcting, not mine. I am just saying we should stick with the original author's words, and not substitute our own.

So your position is that the Watchtower and YOU are more holy and godly than the people who actually WROTE the bible.

That kind of hubris was the downfall of Satan and it will be the downfall of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower.
You are preety good at putting words into others mouths but very poor applying them to you self?

Time to rethink John.

The reason that it seems most unusual for the name "Jehovah" to appear in the Christian Greek Scriptures is that, for centuries, it was thought that this name did not appear in the Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles. But more recent discoveries definitely prove that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the Septuagint in those times. Thus Professor Howard of the University of Georgia states: "We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write [the Tetragrammaton] within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. . . . It would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself." So he concludes: "Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. On the analogy of pre-Christian Jewish practice we can imagine that the NT text incorporated the Tetragram into its OT quotations." Professor Howard also notes that when the Tetragrammaton was removed from the Septuagint it was also removed from the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures appearing in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This change evidently took place at the beginning of the second century C.E. There is no question that the name Jehovah does belong in the Christian Greek Scriptures, as we find it in the New World Translation.

Food for thought, as we do not have any of the very first Greek Texts penned by the name of the person of the Book, say Paul, Jude, Luke etc.!

Barryrob

MuggleOrSquib

February 10th 2005, 03:11 PM

John,
I am a trinitarian, so my answer is certainly not from an Arian, neo-Arian, or anti-Trinitarian basis.
Why did they not change kurios to Jehovah when Thomas says "My Lord (kurios) and My God!" when he sees Jesus.

An examination of the Greek, the Hebrew, and/or the Aramaic (Ezra,Daniel) will show that proper names are not shown in this form. You don't find 'my David' or 'my John'. I myself, as a Trinitarian, would translate Thomas' remark as 'My Lord and my God!'.
As far as I know, Modern Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew also don't use the possive suffix with proper names. One might say 'David who is mine', but not 'my David' in the same way one might say 'my house' or 'my God'. (The word 'God' [Elohim] is a common noun, NOT a name or a proper noun).

The Peshitta, the ancient Syriac translation, also doesn't use 'mrya' [the Aramaic usually used for YHWH] in this passage, but rather uses 'mry' --'My lord'. (In Philipians 2, the Peshitta DOES use 'mrya', stating that Jesus is YHWH "mrya hw ySHw'")

(refer to http://www.peshitta.org/ )

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

MuggleOrSquib

February 10th 2005, 03:13 PM

John,
As far as I know, Modern Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew also don't use the possive suffix with proper names.

Ooops! Make that 'possessive suffix'.

Krusader

February 10th 2005, 04:48 PM

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 07:07 PM

In the same book mentioned by you, Duthie also said that the NWT translation of John 1:1 is "incoherent polytheism."

Always remember that Jehovah's Witnesses are great "partial" quoters - as poor Dr. Mantey discovered! His letters to the Society went unanswered. He had requested that any reference to his approval of their translation be deleted from Watchtower literature.Which is better than incomprehensible polytheism of the Trinity with God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit making one God!
Barryrob

Krusader

February 10th 2005, 07:32 PM

Which is better than incomprehensible polytheism of the Trinity with God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit making one God!

BarryrobYou used the term "polytheism" to describe the Trinity. Christians do not believe in many Gods, or even two gods, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. Christians believe in One God who is Tri-Personal in nature.

However, let me ask you this: If God is always supposed to be addressed as Jehovah, why is there no record of Jesus addressing God the Father as Jehovah? In fact, the model prayer (the Lord's prayer) indicates that we should address God as "Father."

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 07:39 PM

You are preety good at putting words into others mouths but very poor applying them to you self?

Time to rethink John.

The reason that it seems most unusual for the name "Jehovah" to appear in the Christian Greek Scriptures is that, for centuries, it was thought that this name did not appear in the Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and his apostles. But more recent discoveries definitely prove that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the Septuagint in those times. Thus Professor Howard of the University of Georgia states: "We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write [the Tetragrammaton] within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. . . . It would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself." So he concludes: "Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. On the analogy of pre-Christian Jewish practice we can imagine that the NT text incorporated the Tetragram into its OT quotations." Professor Howard also notes that when the Tetragrammaton was removed from the Septuagint it was also removed from the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures appearing in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This change evidently took place at the beginning of the second century C.E. There is no question that the name Jehovah does belong in the Christian Greek Scriptures, as we find it in the New World Translation.

Food for thought, as we do not have any of the very first Greek Texts penned by the name of the person of the Book, say Paul, Jude, Luke etc.!

Barryrob
Uh Barryrob, as far as I can tell, we have NO copies of the new testament manuscripts where the tetragrammaton is mentioned. NONE. So I don't know what Howard is talking about. Maybe he is speaking of some copies of the septuagent that use YHWH, but that has nothing to do with the New Testament.

We have NO (nada, zero, zip) indications or copies of NT manuscripts that use YHWH.

IF the originals did have it in them, then the likelyhood is that most of the copies would have it in them too. Even if someone tried to take it out of them, there would have been some that survived and would have been copied. Or are you saying that God is not able to preserve his word as it was written?

No, this is just wishfull thinking on your part.

When you can produce ancient manuscript copies of the greek NT with Jehovah written in them, and show me that the NWT translators knew about them and used them in their translation, THEN I will back down.

But they didn't have them. They were just bible twisting and changing words to suit their own doctrine.

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 07:44 PM

John,
I am a trinitarian, so my answer is certainly not from an Arian, neo-Arian, or anti-Trinitarian basis.

An examination of the Greek, the Hebrew, and/or the Aramaic (Ezra,Daniel) will show that proper names are not shown in this form. You don't find 'my David' or 'my John'. I myself, as a Trinitarian, would translate Thomas' remark as 'My Lord and my God!'.
As far as I know, Modern Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew also don't use the possive suffix with proper names. One might say 'David who is mine', but not 'my David' in the same way one might say 'my house' or 'my God'. (The word 'God' [Elohim] is a common noun, NOT a name or a proper noun).

The Peshitta, the ancient Syriac translation, also doesn't use 'mrya' [the Aramaic usually used for YHWH] in this passage, but rather uses 'mry' --'My lord'. (In Philipians 2, the Peshitta DOES use 'mrya', stating that Jesus is YHWH "mrya hw ySHw'")

(refer to http://www.peshitta.org/ )

Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Thanks Bob, but I agree that "my Lord and my God" is the correct translation (it actually reads "the Lord of me and the God of me")

My point was that the JW's go through the NT, changing kurios to Jehovah whereever they please as long as it supports their doctrine. Where ever it may negatively impact their doctrine and intimate Jesus is God, they leave it as Lord. Purely for doctrinal reasons. They have no other methodology, as Barryrob has admitted.

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 07:56 PM

Uh Barryrob, as far as I can tell, we have NO copies of the new testament manuscripts where the tetragrammaton is mentioned. NONE. So I don't know what Howard is talking about. Maybe he is speaking of some copies of the septuagent that use YHWH, but that has nothing to do with the New Testament.

We have NO (nada, zero, zip) indications or copies of NT manuscripts that use YHWH.

IF the originals did have it in them, then the likelyhood is that most of the copies would have it in them too. Even if someone tried to take it out of them, there would have been some that survived and would have been copied. Or are you saying that God is not able to preserve his word as it was written?

No, this is just wishfull thinking on your part.

When you can produce ancient manuscript copies of the greek NT with Jehovah written in them, and show me that the NWT translators knew about them and used them in their translation, THEN I will back down.

But they didn't have them. They were just bible twisting and changing words to suit their own doctrine.Jesus and his follower would have seen and thus used God Personal name (see comment after the text) in the O.T. texts they used in thier day.

Hebrew Deuteronomy 6:5
:lstnkfcu lapb kfcu lcck kfc lhvkt vuvh ,t ,cvtu

LXX (see below) DEUTERONOMION VI .5
Kai agaphseiV vuvh o QeoV sou ex olhV teV dianoiaV sou kai ex olhV thV yuchV sou kai ex olhV thV dunamewV

The papyrus fragments of the Greek Septuagint (Fouad Inv. 266), from the first century B.C.E., show the Tetragrammaton in portions of Deuteronomy. The use of these four Hebrew letters representing the divine name continued in some copies of the Septuagint for centuries thereafter. Thus, in addition to having the Hebrew text of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ and his disciples had the Greek Septuagint; both of these contained the divine name. Undoubtedly, then, the original writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used the divine name, especially when they quoted passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the Tetragrammaton -vuvh- for God Personal Name so Jesus would have used and his follower would of used it when copying from the LXX when they penned the Christian Greek Scriptures (N.T.) so it Jehovah or Yahweh has a God given place in the N.T.

Thus the rendering in the N.W.T. is an accurate reflection of what God had penned from Moses down to today:-

Deut 6:5 - Mtt 22:37 He said to him: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind."

Barryrob

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 08:11 PM

Jesus and his follower would have seen and thus used God Personal name (see comment after the text) in the O.T. texts they used in thier day.

Hebrew LXX by Sir L.C.L.Brenton
(sorry I cannot seem to get spaces between the Greek & Hebrew text side by side, but note the Hrbrew letters in the midst of the Greek LXX text!)
Deuteronomy 6:5 DEUTERONOMION VI .5

,cvtu Kai agaphseiV
,t -
vuvh vuvh
lhvkt o QeoV sou
-kfc ex olhV
lcck teV dianoiaV sou
-kfcu kai ex olhV thV
lapb yuchV sou
-kfcu kai ex olhV thV
:lstn dunamewV

The papyrus fragments of the Greek Septuagint (Fouad Inv. 266), from the first century B.C.E., show the Tetragrammaton in portions of Deuteronomy. The use of these four Hebrew letters representing the divine name continued in some copies of the Septuagint for centuries thereafter. Thus, in addition to having the Hebrew text of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ and his disciples had the Greek Septuagint; both of these contained the divine name. Undoubtedly, then, the original writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used the divine name, especially when they quoted passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the Tetragrammaton -vuvh- for God Personal Name so Jesus would have used and his follower would of used it when copying from the LXX when they penned the Christian Greek Scriptures (N.T.) so it Jehovah or Yahweh has a God given place in the N.T.

Thus the rendering in the N.W.T. is an accurate reflection of what God had penned from Moses down to today:-

Deut 6:5 - Mtt 22:37 He said to him: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind."

Barryrob Are we back to that again? Even if the NWT stated that they only went back and corrected the NT quotes of OT verses, they would still be guilty of changing scripture. Besides, I have shown that they did not limit themselves to correcting NT quotes of OT verses. So for you to keep trying to show this as their reasoning is ludicrous.

You are so dogmatic. No matter what anyone says, you refuse to engage the post head on, but just dodge the issue and post some irrelevant quote from some source that you think supports your dogmatic view.

I am tired of arguing with your quotes. Either answer me directly, say "I don't know" or just stay out of the threads. This thread has over 50 replies and even after you already admitted that they just arbitrarily changed the text to fit their own notions, you are still trying to go back and say they only did it to OT verses.

:poke:

PS: Crusader is right. If Jesus would have used Jehovah when addressing God, then why did he not do so in his prayers? He called God "Father."

His prayers did not mention Jehovah in them at all. Why is that?

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 08:19 PM

Are we back to that again? Even if the NWT stated that they only went back and corrected the NT quotes of OT verses, they would still be guilty of changing scripture. Besides, I have shown that they did not limit themselves to correcting NT quotes of OT verses. So for you to keep trying to show this as their reasoning is ludicrous.

You are so dogmatic. No matter what anyone says, you refuse to engage the post head on, but just dodge the issue and post some irrelevant quote from some source that you think supports your dogmatic view.

I am tired of arguing with your quotes. Either answer me directly, say "I don't know" or just stay out of the threads. This thread has over 50 replies and even after you already admitted that they just arbitrarily changed the text to fit their own notions, you are still trying to go back and say they only did it to OT verses.

:poke:

PS: Crusader is right. If Jesus would have used Jehovah when addressing God, then why did he not do so in his prayers? He called God "Father."

His prayers did not mention Jehovah in them at all. Why is that?
You obviously have less respect for The Bible than I credited you for!
Barryrob

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 08:21 PM

You obviously have less respect for The Bible than I credited you for!
Barryrob Hm. You have no answer so you toss out an insult. Nice.

Actually I respect the bible greatly. I consider it the inerrant word of God and I don't think ANYONE should go around changing it.

I have ZERO respect for the NWT and it is not a bible at all, but a tool for brainwashing the laity of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

barryrob

February 10th 2005, 08:25 PM

[QUOTE=JohnSparks]Hm. You have no answer so you toss out an insult.QUOTE]

That is what is see!
Barryrob

MuggleOrSquib

February 10th 2005, 08:37 PM

I found it quite instructive to do an analysis of LXX quotes and references in the New Testament where the LXX might have had the tetragrammaton (YHWH).

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Sparko

February 10th 2005, 08:44 PM

Well, I already answered you regarding your post, so why should I do so again? You also admitted (around posts 40-43) that the reason they did not change Kurios into Jehovah when Thomas was speaking was purely because the translators did not believe Jesus was Jehovah. Also I showed you a verse: rev 1:8 where the NWT does translate kurios into Jehovah when it was not an OT quote.

So the only reason they changed it in certain places was because they were furthering their own personal beliefs and not because they were trying to honestly and accurately translate the bible into english.

This is even more troubling considering the foreward to the NWT where it says

"It is a very responsible thing to translate Holy Scriptures from their original languages... Translating the Holy Scriptures means a rendering into another language the thoughts and sayings of the heavenly author... Jehovah God, which holy men of long ago put down into writing under inspriation for our benefit today.... This is a sobering thought. The translators...feel a responsibilty to Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."

I guess that shows how hypocritical they really are. They had no concern about accuracy, but rather how to change the scripture to fit their doctrine. Shame on them.

barryrob

February 11th 2005, 10:10 AM

Another version of the LXX reads from the Hebrew:-

Deuteronomy 6:5

:lstn kfcu lapb kfcu lcck kfc lhvkt vuvh ,t ,cvtu

Kai agaphseiV P I P I o QeoV sou ex olhV teV dianoiaV sou kai ex olhV thV yuchV sou kai ex olhV thV dunamewV

Deut 6:5 - Mtt 22:37 NWT He said to him: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind."

A Greek papyrus MS of Leviticus (4QLXX Lev.b), in a hand similar to that of the Fouad papyrus of Deuteronomy (first century B.C.), employs ' 1' instead of Kyrios, which nowhere occurs in the document. ..... the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmschus represents the divine name by Pi, Iota, Pi, Iota, capitalised*, obviously intended to approximate to the Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX, ....' -'YAHWEH The divine name in the Bible' by G.H. Parke-Taylor p.84-85.
*PIPI

It is quite clear which renders what Jesus quote from Deut 6:5 correctly!

As Jesus said at:-
Matthew 6:9 ""‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified ("Hallowed" KJV).""

"hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy]."-Oxford Dic.

Thus no Christian from any time would deliberately omit or otherwise remove or supplant the NAME of God as show along with even trying to render it in their own language to the best of their ability! This is somthing you (along with millions of others) do not do, hold God's Personal name as Holy and to be made known as Jesus and his followers do and did!
Barryrob

Sparko

February 11th 2005, 11:56 AM

As Jesus said at:-
Matthew 6:9 ""‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified ("Hallowed" KJV).""

"hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy]."-Oxford Dic.

Why didn't Jesus USE his name, then? Why did he just say Father all the time?

Thus no Christian from any time would deliberately omit or otherwise remove or supplant the NAME of God as show along with even trying to render it in their own language to the best of their ability! This is somthing you (along with millions of others) do not do, hold God's Personal name as Holy and to be made known as Jesus and his followers do and did!
Barryrob
Well, we do have the example of the New Testament writers using Lord instead of Jehovah. If that were not the case, then this thread would not be here, since the NWT translators would have been true in their translation. But that is not the case. They changed the word kurios (Lord) into Jehovah a myrad of times in the NT. So you are saying that the Apostles and Paul were not good christians because they used kurios instead of YHWH.

Do you know why Jesus did not call the Father, Jehovah? Because Jehovah is the name of the triune God. It is the name of God that encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. So Jesus is just as much Jehovah as the Father is. Think of it as a family name.

Krusader

February 11th 2005, 12:27 PM

[QUOTE=JohnSparks]Hm. You have no answer so you toss out an insult.QUOTE]

That is what is see!
Barryrob
Your insult is simply a psychological defense mechanism. Instead of rational, critical thinking, you slip into the defense mode and attack. Muslims do the same thing when confronted with facts.

John has consistently demonstrated his love and devotion to the Word of God - disagreement with your Watchtower interpretation does not show disrespect for God's Word.

However, insulting people does show disrespect for the God you claim to serve.

barryrob

February 11th 2005, 01:14 PM

Your insult is simply a psychological defense mechanism. Instead of rational, critical thinking, you slip into the defense mode and attack. Muslims do the same thing when confronted with facts.

John has consistently demonstrated his love and devotion to the Word of God - disagreement with your Watchtower interpretation does not show disrespect for God's Word.

However, insulting people does show disrespect for the God you claim to serve.

Malachi 1:6
"‘A son, for his part, honors a father; and a servant, his grand master. So if I am a father, where is the honor to me? And if I am a grand master, where is the fear of me?’ Jehovah of armies has said to YOU, O priests who are despising my name.. . .

Hosea 4:6
My people will certainly be silenced, because there is no knowledge. Because the knowledge is what you yourself have rejected, I shall also reject you from serving as a priest to me; and you keep forgetting the law of your God, I shall forget your sons, even I.

The Bible shows what God's views of those who [b]hate his name and try to justify it being replaced, reject or deliberately cover it over with false ideas which is the very oppersite to what Jesus Christ did as recorded in John Ch. 17, so I simply just agree with Jehovah and Jesus. If you do not like that then it your problem with God to put right.

Barryrob

Krusader

February 11th 2005, 01:59 PM

Malachi 1:6
"‘A son, for his part, honors a father; and a servant, his grand master. So if I am a father, where is the honor to me? And if I am a grand master, where is the fear of me?’ Jehovah of armies has said to YOU, O priests who are despising my name.. . .

Hosea 4:6
My people will certainly be silenced, because there is no knowledge. Because the knowledge is what you yourself have rejected, I shall also reject you from serving as a priest to me; and you keep forgetting the law of your God, I shall forget your sons, even I.

The Bible shows what God's views of those who [b]hate his name and try to justify it being replaced, reject or deliberately cover it over with false ideas which is the very oppersite to what Jesus Christ did as recorded in John Ch. 17, so I simply just agree with Jehovah and Jesus. If you do not like that then it your problem with God to put right.

Barryrob
"Hate His Name?" Now you're trying to say that John hates the name Jehovah? That's bearing false witness.

And, don't take Old Testament verses out of context - in the verses cited, God is speaking to the Jews.

barryrob

February 11th 2005, 04:38 PM

"Hate His Name?" Now you're trying to say that John hates the name Jehovah? That's bearing false witness.

And, don't take Old Testament verses out of context - in the verses cited, God is speaking to the Jews.

Once again I will point you to what God says!

Acts 15:14-17
"Symeon has related thoroughly how God* for the first time turned his attention to the nations** to take out of them a people for his name*. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets (see Amos 9:11^) agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah****, together with people of all the nations**, people who are called by my* name***, says Jehovah****, who is doing these things."
*The God of the Jews
**Gentiles
***Jehovah
****The Name of theGod of the Jews see Ps 83:18

^Amos 9:11-12 Reads N.W.T. ""‘In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and I shall certainly repair their breaches. And its ruins I shall raise up, and I shall certainly build it up as in the days of long ago, 12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E´dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, who is doing this." Showing it is Jehovah who is being spoken of in Acts 15:14-17.

Thus Christian are Called Jehovah's Witnesses as in Isa 43:10:-
""YOU are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.""

as God calls his servants old and new which would have included Jesus as He was of the Isrealite nation whom God is addressing in Isa 43:10, so Jesus was an Israelite Witness of Jehovah so his true follower are Christian Witnesses of Jehovah as we LOVE the Name of Jehovah who do and will make it well know world wide, thoses who do not show disliking or hatred for that Name and refuse to use it etc. so Jehovah says:-

Ezekiel 11:12
YOU will have to know that I am Jehovah, because in my regulations YOU did not walk and my judgments YOU did not do, . .

Ezekiel 20:44
And YOU will have to know that I am Jehovah when I take action with YOU for the sake of my name, not according to YOUR bad ways or according to YOUR corrupted dealings, O house of Israel,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah."

Ezekiel 36:23
And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations [because they refuse to use it or know the person to whom it belongs], which YOU profaned in the midst of them; and [i]the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among YOU [Jehovahs Christian Witnesses] before their eyes.

In the above I have added what is in the [ ] for meaning.

Barryrob

Krusader

February 11th 2005, 05:24 PM

Once again I will point you to what God s

Acts 15:14-17
"Symeon has related thoroughly how God* for the first time turned his attention to the nations** to take out of them a people for his name*. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets (see Amos 9:11^) agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah****, together with people of all the nations**, people who are called by my* name***, says Jehovah****, who is doing these things."
*The God of the Jews
**Gentiles
***Jehovah
****The Name of theGod of the Jews see Ps 83:18

^Amos 9:11-12 Reads N.W.T. ""‘In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and I shall certainly repair their breaches. And its ruins I shall raise up, and I shall certainly build it up as in the days of long ago, 12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E´dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, who is doing this." Showing it is Jehovah who is being spoken of in Acts 15:14-17.

Thus Christian are Called Jehovah's Witnesses as in Isa 43:10:-
""YOU are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.""

as God calls his servants old and new which would have included Jesus as He was of the Isrealite nation whom God is addressing in Isa 43:10, so Jesus was an Israelite Witness of Jehovah so his true follower are Christian Witnesses of Jehovah as we LOVE the Name of Jehovah who do and will make it well know world wide, thoses who do not show disliking or hatred for that Name and refuse to use it etc. so Jehovah says:-

Ezekiel 11:12
YOU will have to know that I am Jehovah, because in my regulations YOU did not walk and my judgments YOU did not do, . .

Ezekiel 20:44
And YOU will have to know that I am Jehovah when I take action with YOU for the sake of my name, not according to YOUR bad ways or according to YOUR corrupted dealings, O house of Israel,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah."

Ezekiel 36:23
And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations [because they refuse to use it or know the person to whom it belongs], which YOU profaned in the midst of them; and [i]the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among YOU [Jehovahs Christian Witnesses] before their eyes.

In the above I have added what is in the [ ] for meaning.

BarryrobUUUMMMMM! Barryrob, aren't you familiar with that little warning in Scripture about not adding to the Scriptures lest you come under judgment? Interesting how you just threw JWs into Ezk. 36.

Interpolating again! God is speaking to the Jews. You must learn to correctly divide the Word of God.

barryrob

February 11th 2005, 05:33 PM

UUUMMMMM! Barryrob, aren't you familiar with that little warning in Scripture about not adding to the Scriptures lest you come under judgment? Interesting how you just threw JWs into Ezk. 36.

Interpolating again! God is speaking to the Jews. You must learn to correctly divide the Word of God.

Your comment show how little you really know about us as we are under God Judgment 1st:-

1 Peter 4:17
For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God. Now if it starts first with us, what will the end be of those who are not obedient to the good news of God?

Barryrob

Krusader

February 11th 2005, 05:50 PM

Your comment show how little you really know about us as we are under God Judgment 1st:-

1 Peter 4:17
For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God. Now if it starts first with us, what will the end be of those who are not obedient to the good news of God?

Barryrob

Yes, but Scripture says that for those who are in Christ there is no condemnation - why don't you become part of the born-again body of believers that don't have to worry about judgment for salvation anymore?

Sparko

February 11th 2005, 08:19 PM

Malachi 1:6
"‘A son, for his part, honors a father; and a servant, his grand master. So if I am a father, where is the honor to me? And if I am a grand master, where is the fear of me?’ Jehovah of armies has said to YOU, O priests who are despising my name.. . .

So if I don't use Jehovah in place of kurios in the NT then I hate the name of Jehovah?

What does that say about the authors who originally used kurios instead of Jehovah? You know, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Paul et al? I suppose since we have written evidence that they used kurios in places that YOU think they should have used Jehovah, then they must hate God's name too.

Nice going Barryrob. You just condemned the authors of the NT as god haters.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Even God says not to mess with his words. The NWT obviously had. They might think they have good intentions but they are changing the word of God to suit what THEY think it should be, not preserving it as it was.

Also, I read somewhere that the reason that the NWT reads so awkwardly sometimes is that the translators wanted to keep it a word for word translation as much as possible and keep the word order the same as in the original. Well they sure messed up THAT goal.

barryrob

February 16th 2005, 04:42 AM

So if I don't use Jehovah in place of kurios in the NT then I hate the name of Jehovah?

What does that say about the authors who originally used kurios instead of Jehovah? You know, Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Paul et al? I suppose since we have written evidence that they used kurios in places that YOU think they should have used Jehovah, then they must hate God's name too.

Nice going Barryrob. You just condemned the authors of the NT as god haters.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Even God says not to mess with his words. The NWT obviously had. They might think they have good intentions but they are changing the word of God to suit what THEY think it should be, not preserving it as it was.

Also, I read somewhere that the reason that the NWT reads so awkwardly sometimes is that the translators wanted to keep it a word for word translation as much as possible and keep the word order the same as in the original. Well they sure messed up THAT goal.

Being as no one has any of the very first texts (originals) of the NT penned you cannot say that (re: Matthew's Gospel was first penned in Hebrew and would have had "YHWH" in it) it is a poorly based assumption. But as I have shown you there is, to use your words, "strong circumstantial" evidences they did e.g. they (living in Jesus day and some time after) would of read and quote from the LXX which did have "YHWH" in the Hebrew script in the midst of the Greek text. And then we also have this as evidence, to whit, the mi·nim´? The word means "sectarians" and could refer to the Sadducees or the Samaritans. But according to Dr. Freedman [Translator of the Babylonian Talmund], in this passage it most likely refers to Jewish Christians. So, what were the gil·yoh·nim´, translated "blank spaces" according to Dr. Freedman? There are two possible meanings. They could be the blank margins of a scroll or even blank scrolls. Or—in an ironic application of the word—they could be the writings of the mi·nim´, as if to say that these writings are as worthless as blank scrolls. In dictionaries this second meaning is given as "Gospels." In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above-quoted portion reads: "The Books of Minim are like blank spaces [gil·yoh·nim´]."

In the book 'Who Was a Jew?' by Lawrence H. Schiffman, the above-quoted portion of the Talmud is translated as follows: "We do not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the Gospels and the books of the minim (‘heretics’). Rather, they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During the week, one should cut out their Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said Rabbi Tarfon: May I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them along with their Tetragrammata." Dr. Schiffman goes on to argue that the mi·nim´ here are Jewish Christians.

As I said before, time to think again John!

You are rigth God does not mess with his word, he does not have to the churches does that, thats why I say way from them!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 16th 2005, 02:28 PM

barryrob

February 16th 2005, 07:49 PM

You are basing your whole argument on "they might have used Jehovah on the originals"

Well, Barryrob, they MIGHT NOT HAVE EITHER. In fact judging by the only evidence we do have (thousands of copies of manuscripts of which NONE have Jehovah in them) we can be pretty sure they did not use Jehovah in the NT. Surely if they wrote it in the originals, the copies would have it in them too. At least some of them.

You are arguing from silence and that won't wash.That does not apply to Matthew's Gospel as it was first penned in Hebrew and you comment does not explain away modern and not son modern Hebrew N.Ts. that have "YHWH" in them!

Just because "YHWH" are not in the Greek Texts does not prove that "YHWH" was not in the originals as they thought that was the case with the LXX whcih has now been show to be totaly wrong as they have found copies of the LXX whit "YHWH" in them as as the early Christian used the LXX then thye would have included "YHWH" from the LXX. Today the copies of the LXX have now had "YHWH" removed from it (wrongly), so it would seem has the Greek NTS baised on the LXX!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 16th 2005, 08:05 PM

Yes it does.

barryrob

February 19th 2005, 06:09 PM

Yes it does.
Here http://jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm is worth a visit.

Barryrob

Barryrob,

Argument by weblink isn't allowed.

MuggleOrSquib

February 22nd 2005, 07:51 PM

barryrob

February 23rd 2005, 06:53 AM

There has been academic speculation based on literary evidence that the earlier (earliest?) manuscripts of much of the Greek New Testament either had the tetragrammaton or an attempt to reproduce the tetragrammaton.

I don't know how one would determine either which books of the New Testament would contain the tetragrammaton. I would tend to expect it in quotes from the Old Testament. Otherwise, I'd need to rely on parallel literature (Josephus, Philo, the sectarian and apocryphal materials from Qumran...)

Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Sounds fair to me.

We could add where the God of the Jews is mentioned in conection woth His namee.g.:-

James 5:11
Look! We pronounce happy those who have endured. YOU have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome Jehovah* gave, that Jehovah* is very tender in affection and merciful.
*The God of Job in the OT

Revelation 15:4
Who will not really fear you, Jehovah, and glorify your name, because you alone are loyal? For all the nations** will come and worship before you, because your righteous decrees have been made manifest."
**Gentiles coming to worship the God of the Jews, Jehovah.

Barryrob

Sparko

February 23rd 2005, 04:25 PM

Sounds fair to me.
Because some people might think that the word Jehovah was used in the original does not prove that it was. As I said, all copies we have show the world Kurios being used and Jehovah not being used.

But even if it were, that does not excuse the NWT from translating kurious into Jehovah in places where there are no OT quotes and for not being consistant with it. They will translate one version of kurios to Jehovah and leave another occurence as Lord, right within the same paragraph.

Acts 7:59 And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: “Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.”

The word kurios was in the original greek for both occurances above. It is not an OT quote. If they were consistant in their tampering of scripture they should have translated it "Jehovah Jesus, receive my spirit" or if they left it the way it was written, it should have said "Lord, do not charge this sin against them."

The NWT are scripture twisters of the first degree.

MuggleOrSquib

February 23rd 2005, 05:04 PM

Acts 7:59 And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: “Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.”

The word kurios was in the original greek for both occurances above. It is not an OT quote. If they were consistant in their tampering of scripture they should have translated it "Jehovah Jesus, receive my spirit" or if they left it the way it was written, it should have said "Lord, do not charge this sin against them."

Part of the argument is whether or not the word KYPIOC (kurios) WAS in the ORIGINAL Greek for both occurrences. However, it IS in ALL of the Greek manuscripts of the passage which we NOW possess.

On the other hand, do you have any evidence for such a usage as "Jehovah Jesus"? As a Trinitarian I would translate the phrase as 'Lord Jesus', as that is far more consistent with general usage.

"Jehovah" is not a title. It is a name.
It is fairly common in a number of languages to precede (or follow) a name with a title. Thus 'Rabban Gamliel', 'Maran Yeshu' Mshikha', 'David haMelek'...

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Sparko

February 23rd 2005, 05:15 PM

Part of the argument is whether or not the word KYPIOC (kurios) WAS in the ORIGINAL Greek for both occurrences. However, it IS in ALL of the Greek manuscripts of the passage which we NOW possess.
That is my point. No translator has the right to assume what might have been. They can only work with what they have. If the document they are translating says "kurios" then they have the responsibility to translate it as "Lord" or "Master" and NOT "Jehovah". They can speculate all they want, but with no evidence to support it, to change it is to meddle with scripture.

On the other hand, do you have any evidence for such a usage as "Jehovah Jesus"? As a Trinitarian I would translate the phrase as 'Lord Jesus', as that is far more consistent with general usage.
I think you miss the point. Of course I would translate it as Lord because that is what the greek says. I was making the point that if the NWT can translate the word kurios in the next sentence into Jehovah, then why are they not consistant in their scripture meddling and change it in this case too? It is because they are not using any consistant methodology to change kurios to Jehovah in the NT, they are just going around changing it wherever is supports their doctrine and NOT changing it where it would hurt their doctring (like saying Jesus was Jehovah, for instance)

MuggleOrSquib

February 23rd 2005, 06:59 PM

barryrob

February 24th 2005, 05:28 AM

In this case, the NWT translators have chosen a translation which is consistent with other usage.
On the other hand, I'd want evidence for public use of The Name during the 2nd Temple period, or at least knowledge among the population of the pronunciation of The Name. Without such evidence, we would lack evidence both that Stephen knew how to pronounce The Name and that the common Jewish Christians knew that Stephen was calling on G_D.

Be Well,
Bob GriffinGod’s personal name “YHWH” appears in “THE TEMPLE SCROLL (11QT) Sixty Times which falls into the 2nd Temple period as it is attributed to the 2nd Century B.C..
See ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls in English’ by G. Vermes pp.128-158

Barryrob

MuggleOrSquib

February 24th 2005, 07:51 PM

On the one hand the Qumran sect was a sect of priests, among whom pronunciation of the Name was known. Also, usage of the tetragrammaton in a document does not indicate any pronunciation of the Name. In fact, for all the instances where the Name is written in the TeNaK, it is always pronounced either 'Adonai' or 'Elohim' by the Jews.

On the other hand, the occurrence of the Name in a 2nd Temple period sectarian document indicates that there was at least literary usage of the name in some sectarian documents. Thus, usage in the epistles and editorial usage in the gospels receives some support from the usage in the Temple Scroll.

I don't remember whether the Temple Scroll is in Hebrew or Aramaic. Could you check that out and get back to us?

Thanks,
Bob Griffin
Trinitarian

barryrob

February 25th 2005, 05:02 AM

MuggleOrSquib

February 25th 2005, 02:49 PM

Barry,
Your argument would have been somewhat stronger had the Temple Scroll been in Aramaic, but I greatly appreciate the honesty.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

barryrob

February 25th 2005, 07:07 PM

Barry,
Your argument would have been somewhat stronger had the Temple Scroll been in Aramaic, but I greatly appreciate the honesty.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin
I think we should always remember that during the same period The Holy Texts Themselves (Hebrew Texts) in some renderings in all periods have had "YHWH" in them anyway.

I personally think they have the most authority at the end of the day as they contain God's own words. Even the Catholic Church saw the need to put God's personal Name ("Yahweh") back into the Bible in their Jerusalem Bible translation.

Barryrob

barryrob

February 26th 2005, 09:08 AM

So if I don't use Jehovah in place of kurios in the NT then I hate the name of Jehovah?

Please note he bold type:-

"The NAME of God is described as his 'holy name' more often than all other adjectival qualifications taken together. It was this sense of the sacredness of the name that finally led to the obtuse refusal to use 'Yahweh', leading as it has done to a deep lose of sense of the divine name in EVV*(with the notable exception of the JB** ). The holiness of the name, however, does not remove if from use but from abuse: this is the reason why revelation of the divine name must never confused with any thought of magical power with the divine. Far from man being able to use the name to control God, it is the name which controls man, both in worship Godward (e.g. Lv 18:21) and in service manward (e.g. Rom 1:5). The NAME is thus the motive of service; it is also the message (e.g. Acts 9:15), and the means of power (e.g. Acts 3:16; 4:12)."-'NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY', second edition p.813, also see p.430
*English Versions
**Jerusalem Bible [& New Jerusalem Bible]

Malachi 3:16-18 At that time those in fear of Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") and for those thinking upon his name. 17 "And they will certainly become mine," Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") of armies has said, "at the day when I am producing a special property. And I will show compassion upon them, just as a man shows compassion upon his son who is serving him. 18 And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him."

So the Bible is clear those who refuse to identfy with God's Personal Name God himself will reject as if stands for the exceptance of His rulership etc..

Barryrob

Sparko

February 26th 2005, 02:59 PM

Please note he bold type:-

"The NAME of God is described as his 'holy name' more often than all other adjectival qualifications taken together. It was this sense of the sacredness of the name that finally led to the obtuse refusal to use 'Yahweh', leading as it has done to a deep lose of sense of the divine name in EVV*(with the notable exception of the JB** ). The holiness of the name, however, does not remove if from use but from abuse: this is the reason why revelation of the divine name must never confused with any thought of magical power with the divine. Far from man being able to use the name to control God, it is the name which controls man, both in worship Godward (e.g. Lv 18:21) and in service manward (e.g. Rom 1:5). The NAME is thus the motive of service; it is also the message (e.g. Acts 9:15), and the means of power (e.g. Acts 3:16; 4:12)."-'NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY', second edition p.813, also see p.430
*English Versions
**Jerusalem Bible [& New Jerusalem Bible]

Malachi 3:16-18 At that time those in fear of Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") and for those thinking upon his name. 17 "And they will certainly become mine," Jehovah (Heb, "YHWH") of armies has said, "at the day when I am producing a special property. And I will show compassion upon them, just as a man shows compassion upon his son who is serving him. 18 And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him."

So the Bible is clear those who refuse to identfy with God's Personal Name God himself will reject as if stands for the exceptance of His rulership etc..

Barryrob

What is this? Re-run week? We went over this before. Since as far as we can tell, the authors of the NT are the ones who used kurios in the first place, you are now calling them God haters. The people who wrote the bible. Paul, Luke, John, etc.

Repent Barryrob. Get out of that cult you are in and see the light. You are being decieved.

Besides, "Jehovah" is almost certainly NOT how YHWH is pronounced. So by your own admission, you all don't use God's true name.

reslight

February 26th 2005, 07:46 PM

So why can't you answer me then? Why do you keep sidestepping my questions? Why were the NWT translators not consistant in ranslating Kurios as Jehovah in all placed in the New Testament? [/font]

Hello,

I was doing some searches on the WEB concerning the divine name, and came across this discussion. I am not with the JWs, but I have studied a great deal concerning the divine name. Part of the problem here is that the question assumes that the NWT translators "translated" KURIOS as "Jehovah". This is a false assumption. The way this question is often asked throws many JWs as well as others into thinking that the NW translators actually did translate KURIOS as Jehovah. I have read the NWT appendices as well as many other articles and material put out by the WTS concerning the NWT. I don't remember ever seeing any claim that they were translating *KURIOS* as Jehovah. The claim is that the divine name has been substituted for KURIOS in the NT, and "Jehovah" -- being an English liguistic form of the divine name -- is used to restore the divine name where it has been replaced. Thus, the question being asked of why didn't the translator's always put Jehovah where KURIOS appears in the Greek is meaningless, since the NWT translators *never* translated "KURIOS" as Jehovah. KURIOS, when it is apparent that it is not a replacement of Jehovah, should still be translated as "Lord", "Master", "Mister", or "sir", etc.

Christian love,
Ronald

barryrob

February 26th 2005, 07:58 PM

What is this? Re-run week? We went over this before. Since as far as we can tell, the authors of the NT are the ones who used kurios in the first place, you are now calling them God haters. The people who wrote the bible. Paul, Luke, John, etc.

Repent Barryrob. Get out of that cult you are in and see the light. You are being decieved.

Besides, "Jehovah" is almost certainly NOT how YHWH is pronounced. So by your own admission, you all don't use God's true name.

God decides on the right way it is pronounced and as "Jehovah" just cannot be dislodged from it's place of prominence in the English language ("YHWH" would sound different in differing languages*) it would seem that He is pleased with it to date, so time has shown you to this point in time you seem to be fighting a losing battle to say it is wrong!

Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah
Awabakal - Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu - uJehova

As the Scriptures say:-

Psalm 145:21 The praise of Jehovah my mouth will speak; And let all flesh bless his holy name to time indefinite, even forever.

Micah 4:5 we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah our God to time indefinite, even forever.

Then we also have:-

"HALLELU'JAH (hal-e-lu'ya; Heb. hallelu-ya; "praise ye Jah," i.e., Jehovah; Gk allelouia). Evidently a common form of adoration and thanks-giving in Jewish worship, as appears from its frequent employment at the beginning and close of many psalms (See Pss 106,111-13,117,135). In the great hymn of triumph in heaven over the destruction of Babylon the large multitude in chorus, like the voice of mighty thunderings, burst forth, Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns," in response to the voice from the throne saying "Give praise to our God, all you His Bond-servants" (Rev. !9:1-6)."-'NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY' p.518; also see Hebrew, Greek, and 'English Dictionary of Scriptural words' by H. Browne, M.D. Lond.

Latin = Alleluia = Praise Jah**
Greek = Halleloia = Praise Jah**
Hebrew = Hallelujah = Praise Jah**
**( Heb) vh (Eng) Jah or Yah is a shortened form of the name JEHOVAH/YAHWEH.

So when the word "Alleluia" it is praise to Jehovah not some nameless "Lord."

Barryrob

Sparko

February 26th 2005, 08:15 PM

Hello,

I was doing some searches on the WEB concerning the divine name, and came across this discussion. I am not with the JWs, but I have studied a great deal concerning the divine name. Part of the problem here is that the question assumes that the NWT translators "translated" KURIOS as "Jehovah". This is a false assumption. The way this question is often asked throws many JWs as well as others into thinking that the NW translators actually did translate KURIOS as Jehovah. I have read the NWT appendices as well as many other articles and material put out by the WTS concerning the NWT. I don't remember ever seeing any claim that they were translating *KURIOS* as Jehovah. The claim is that the divine name has been substituted for KURIOS in the NT, and "Jehovah" -- being an English liguistic form of the divine name -- is used to restore the divine name where it has been replaced. Thus, the question being asked of why didn't the translator's always put Jehovah where KURIOS appears in the Greek is meaningless, since the NWT translators *never* translated "KURIOS" as Jehovah. KURIOS, when it is apparent that it is not a replacement of Jehovah, should still be translated as "Lord", "Master", "Mister", or "sir", etc.

Christian love,
Ronald

Hi Ronald. Yes I agree they were not "translating" kurios as Jehovah as if they thought kurios was greek for Jehovah. They instead substituted Jehovah whereever they felt like it. Which is what this thread is about. What gives them the right to change the NT? Translators are to attempt to translate the original language in the best way possible into a new language while retaining the meaning of the original words. Changes in grammar are understandable, but changing the word Lord into Jehovah on a whim is not. It is scripture tampering. If Paul wanted to say Jehovah (or YHWH) then he would have done so in the original text. And our copies would reflect that. But we have NO copies where Jehovah is used in the original greek, so the only thing we can conclude is that the JW's decided to insert their doctrines into their translation of the bible.

That was the whole point of this thread.

Sparko

February 26th 2005, 08:36 PM

God decides on the right way it is pronounced and as "Jehovah" just cannot be dislodged from it's place of prominence in the English language ("YHWH" would sound different in differing languages*) it would seem that He is pleased with it to date, so time has shown you to this point in time you seem to be fighting a losing battle to say it is wrong!

How do you know he is pleased with the pronunciation? If it is so important that you are identifed with the TRUE personal name of God, it should be important that you pronounce it right. Jehovah is not even CLOSE to the right pronunciation.

By about 200 B.C., after the time of the Exile, and due to superstition, Jews would no longer pronounce God’s name for fear that they would take it in vain by not saying it properly. Instead of pronouncing the tetragrammaton, they would say Adonai, which is the Hebrew word meaning Lord. Because of this superstition, no one today knows exactly how it was pronounced. This was also true of the Masoretic scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures. When the Masoretic scribes, in the 9th to 10th ceturies, invented a system of vowels to preserve the pronunciation of the Hebrew Bible, they also inserted some vowels into the tetragrammaton. Because they too, did not know exactly how to pronounce God’s name, and did not believe one should attempt to, they did not try to insert the correct vowels into the tetragrammaton. Instead, they inserted the vowels from the Hebrew word Adonai, which are the sounds of the short a, long o, and another a with the sound of the word awesome. The insertions of these vowels were not for the purpose of pronunciation, but to remind the reader to say Adonai when they came to God’s name instead of pronouncing God’s name.

...
Later on, in the days of the Renaissance, people were discovering the ancient languages all over again. The Hebrew Scriptures were being learned and read. When people came to the tetragrammaton, they simply pronounced it with the inserted vowels, not realizing that the vowels did not belong to YHWH, but were intended as indicators to say Adonai. As a result, they pronounced God’s name as Yehowah.

The spelling of "Iehovah" entered the English language through William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible completed in 1537. He transliterated the tetragrammaton into the English language with the Masoretic vowel markings as had those in the Renaissance. The letter and sound of the English "J" was a later development of the English language, and so this spelling and pronunciation would not change to "Jehovah" until the late 17th century. Since this time many English speakers have pronounced God’s name as Jehovah.

So Jehovah is really one of the pronunciations that we actually KNOW is wrong. We may not know how to pronounce God's name exactly, but we do know what his name is NOT. It is not Fred, Jack, Rumplestilskin, or Jehovah.

You are identifying yourself with a false name of God. Kind of ironic since you belong to a false version of Christianity, a cult.

reslight

February 26th 2005, 09:40 PM

Hi Ronald. Yes I agree they were not "translating" kurios as Jehovah as if they thought kurios was greek for Jehovah. They instead substituted Jehovah whereever they felt like it. Which is what this thread is about. What gives them the right to change the NT? .

So are you saying that someone gave the NT writers the right to change the divine name to THEOS, KURIOS, DUNAMIS, etc.? Where in the scriptures do we find that that any authorization has been given to anyone to replace the divine name with other words? There is no authorization given to anyone to change the divine name to KURIOS, THEOS, or any other word. There is nothing in the Bible itself that offers any direct explanation as to why the divine name has been replaced with KURIOS or some other word. The closest I can find is: Daniel 7:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:4-11; 1 John 2:18.

I do not believe the NWT translators went and substituted Jehovah "wherever they felt like it". This is absurd.

Who sent Jesus anyway, and in whose name did Jesus come? The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 tells us:

Deuteronomy 18:15 - Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; Deuteronomy 18:16 - according to all that you desired of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die.
Deuteronomy 18:17 - Yahweh said to me, They have well said that
which they have spoken.
Deuteronomy 18:18 - I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.
Deuteronomy 18:19 - It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Notice especially verse 19. Yahweh says that "he shall speak *in my name*." I believe Jesus confirms this when he says to Jerusalem: "Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you will say, 'Blessed
is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matthew 23:38,39, World English -- The DuTillet manuscript indicates that Jesus used the divine name here.) The Restored Name KJV reads: "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of YHWH".

It is generally thought that Jesus was referring to Psalm 118:27, which says: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahweh! We have blessed you out of the house of Yahweh." This prophecy speaks of the day that Yahweh makes, which I believe is the millennial age in
which Israel will say: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahweh!"

One *has* to assume something for an explanation of "who" authorized the change and who decided upon this change for the NT, "why" the change was authorized and it is therefore not found in the NT, "when" this authorization was done, and when it was carried out in the NT writings, since there is not one scripture anywhere in the Bible that gives any explanation as to why God's name was changed to KURIOS, or something else. Thus, regardless of what possition one takes, it is built upon some kind of assumption. I believe that the NT writers did use the name, since to think otherwise would tend to place Jesus as a false prophet. Did Jesus really say he came in the name of a god named Kurios rather than Yahweh as prophesied of him? (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Since the prophecy states that especially this prophet like Moses would come in the name of Yahweh, and that if a prophet came in another name (even if what he said came true), he was to be put to death, then either Jesus did come in the name of Yahweh, or I would be left wondering if might be a false prophet.

The Jewish leaders did begin to advocate that readers of the Hebrew text should audibly substitute "Adonai" instead of pronouncing his name, based on a misinterpretation of Exodus 20:7. At least this is the reason they openly gave for not pronouncing the divine name. Thus the expression: "ineffable name."

When the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint -- LXX), they still retained the divine name in its original Hebrew form, as can be seen by various earlier fragments of the LXX. Later copyists of the LXX substituted KURIOS for the tetragrammaton. That there were still copies that contained the divine name even after the first century can be seen by various references to such. Origen and Jerome noted that some of the LXX texts of their times still contained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. Jerome (Epistola 25, Ad Marcellum) complained that "certain ignorant ones" would mispronounce the tetragrammaton they found in Hebrew square script characters, saying "Pi pi". As Emanuel Tov notes, "This habit [of Jewish-Greek translations using the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew/paleo-Hebrew characters] was mentioned by Origen in his commentary on Psalm 2 (Migne XII, 1104) and Jerome, Prologus galeatus" (pg. 220, "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"). The Ambrosiana palimpsest, which contains about 150 verses of Origin's Hexapalaric Psalter, contains the name YHWH in the block Hebrew script in all columns (including the LXX column, which at times is followed by the nomina sacra for Kurios).

The actual law (of man, not God) forbidding the pronouncing the divine name evidently came after Jesus died, since Josephus stated: "God declared to him [Moses] his holy Name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say anymore." (Josephus; Antiquities 2:12:4) While I believe that Josephus is wrong when he said "which had never been discovered to men before", but that is another subject.* The point is that Josephus reports that it is not lawful for him to say the divine name anymore, which lets us know that earlier in his life it was allowable for him to say the divine name. Since Josephus was not even born until *after* Jesus died, then we can conclude that it was still allowable to say the divine name when Jesus was alive and for some time afterward.

I will try, Yahweh willing to return to the rest of this post later.

In service of Jesus,
Ronald

Sparko

February 26th 2005, 11:05 PM

So are you saying that someone gave the NT writers the right to change the divine name to THEOS, KURIOS, DUNAMIS, etc.? Where in the scriptures do we find that that any authorization has been given to anyone to replace the divine name with other words? There is no authorization given to anyone to change the divine name to KURIOS, THEOS, or any other word. There is nothing in the Bible itself that offers any direct explanation as to why the divine name has been replaced with KURIOS or some other word. The closest I can find is: Daniel 7:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:4-11; 1 John 2:18.

:lmbo:

Now you are claiming that the the NT writers changed the name of God to kurios?

Uh, they WROTE the original words and so they changed nothing. They used Kurios where God inspired them to use it in the first place. They did NOT use YHWH anywhere.

I do not believe the NWT translators went and substituted Jehovah "wherever they felt like it". This is absurd.

Uh, yes they did. Go read their bible. They pop in Jehovah wherever they think it is speaking of God, but leave it out if they even suspect it is referring to Jesus, but the greek has the word kurios in all places.

Notice especially verse 19. Yahweh says that "he shall speak *in my name*."

What are you, dense? "in my name" means "by my authority"

If I say "stop in the name of the Law" whose name am I using?

barryrob

February 27th 2005, 07:19 PM

barryrob

February 27th 2005, 07:23 PM

:lmbo:

Now you are claiming that the the NT writers changed the name of God to kurios?

Uh, they WROTE the original words and so they changed nothing. They used Kurios where God inspired them to use it in the first place. They did NOT use YHWH anywhere.

Uh, yes they did. Go read their bible. They pop in Jehovah wherever they think it is speaking of God, but leave it out if they even suspect it is referring to Jesus, but the greek has the word kurios in all places.

What are you, dense? "in my name" means "by my authority"

If I say "stop in the name of the Law" whose name am I using?

Not so John as the O.T. was first done in Hebrew where "YHWH" appears many time, as you well know, and as I have said Matthew 1st penned his account in Hebrew, so you seem to keep avoiding theses points!

Barryrob

reslight

February 28th 2005, 12:33 AM

Now you are claiming that the the NT writers changed the name of God to kurios?

No, but that is evidently what you are claiming. If no one replaced the name from the New Testament, when the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament scriptures that contain the divine name, we would find the divine name in those New Testament scriptures. But we don't, so it is self-apparent that the divine name has been removed in those places in the New Testament.

For instance, let us look at Matthew 4:7:

Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'" -- Matthew 4:7, World English Bible translation (WEB).

Here Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16: "You shall not tempt Yahweh your God." (WEB) It is evident that someone replaced the divine name here in the Greek with a form of Kurios, without the definite article as it appears in the English. Someone had to remove it, else we would find some form of the Divine Name in this verse instead of Kurios. The question is who? Did Jesus remove it? Did Matthew remove it? Did Jesus or Matthew simply join with the disobedient Jews is replacing the name? Or did someone else later remove it? I believe the latter to be true.

Uh, they WROTE the original words and so they changed nothing. They used Kurios where God inspired them to use it in the first place. They did NOT use YHWH anywhere.

Of course, we do not have the original autographs to verify that they actually replaced the name of Yahweh with Kurios, Theos or Dunamis.

The New Testament writers did often quote from the Old Testament. If they did not replace the divine name (which I believe that they did not replace it), how do account that the divine name is removed in the OT quotations? It is self-evident fact that someone, at some time, and for some reason not given, has replaced the divine name with other words, such KURIOS, THEOS, and DUNAMIS.

What are you, dense? "in my name" means "by my authority"

Precisely, Jesus did not come in the name of, or by the authority of a god by the name of Kurios. The prophecy was that Jesus was to come in the name of -- the authority of -- Yahweh, not Kurios. There is nothing anywhere that says that Yahweh's name was to be replaced by Kurios, Theos, or Dunamis, or any other word or title.

Christian love,
Ronald

barryrob

February 28th 2005, 08:38 AM

Yes it does.

NO John!
Revelation 22:18-19

“I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.

So anyone taking God Personal Name –“Jehovah” or “YHWH” out of the Scrolls of the Bible are condemned to receive some of the destructive plagues as described in the Book of Revelation and as the followng show it would also be an act of “unrighteousness” as God has not given anyone permission to remove it from any of the sacred texts:-

2 Timothy 2:19

For all that, the solid foundation of God stays standing, having this seal: “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,”* and: “Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.”

*Numbers 16:5

Then he spoke to Korah and to his entire assembly, saying: “In the morning Jehovah (YHWH) will make known who belongs to him and who is holy and who must come near to him, and whoever he may choose will come near to him.

*1 Corinthians 8:3

But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.

*Isaiah 26:13

O Jehovah (YHWH) our God, other masters besides you have acted as owners of us. By you only shall we make mention of your name.

*Zephaniah 3:9

For then I shall give to peoples the change to a pure language, in order for them all to call upon the name of Jehovah (YHWH), in order to serve him shoulder to shoulder.’

*Zephaniah 3:12

And I shall certainly let remain in the midst of you a people humble and lowly, and they will actually take refuge in the name of Jehovah (YHWH).

*Romans 10:13

For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah (YHWH) will be saved.” As quote from Joel 2:32 “And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah “(YHWH) will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah (YHWH) is calling.”” And Zephaniah 3:9 For then I shall give to peoples the change to a pure language, in order for them all to call upon the name of Jehovah (YHWH), in order to serve him shoulder to shoulder.’ Thus Acts 2:21 reads “And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’

So Jehovah Witnesses restore the Personal Name of Almighty God back into the Holy Texts by Divine Right as it has an unassailable place and right to be there as it says at:-

Exodus 20:1-17

And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying:

1

2 “I am Jehovah (Heb. vuvh) your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 3 You must not have any other gods against my face.

2

4 “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah (Heb. vuvh) your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me; 6 but exercising loving-kindness toward the thousandth generation in the case of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3

7 “You must not take up the name of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh) your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah (Heb. vuvh) will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way**.

**Surely it is a “worthless” act to remove God’s Personal Name from the Word He had penned!!

Thus say the first three of the Ten Commandments! The Churches say the live by the Ten Commandments but totaly reject the first three, is that not wrong thing to do!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 28th 2005, 10:59 AM

Aas we do not have any of the original (very 1st one) copies of the Christian Greek texts it is just as big an assumption to say that it was not there when it clearly was when Matthew first penned his Godpel in Hebrew!

Barryrob

Barryrob, you are just wrong. We have over 15000 manuscript copies of the NT texts. And NONE of them have YHWH in them. And as far as I know, we have NO ancient copies of Matthew written in Hebrew. We only have ONE comment from an ancient church father that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew. And we don't know if he used YHWH or Adonai. You are assuming things with ZERO evidence.

I am only saying that the job of translators is to translate what they HAVE, not guess at what was written in some hypothetical document that they wish existed. We have 15000 manuscripts and none have YHWH in them. Therefore since translators use these manuscripts to translate from, they should translate what those manuscipts say, and not what they want them to say.

All actual documentary evidence points to fact the name YHWH was not used in the NT. Speculation contrary to that is not evidence, it is wishful thinking, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

barryrob

February 28th 2005, 12:15 PM

Barryrob, you are just wrong. We have over 15000 manuscript copies of the NT texts. And NONE of them have YHWH in them. And as far as I know, we have NO ancient copies of Matthew written in Hebrew. We only have ONE comment from an ancient church father that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew. And we don't know if he used YHWH or Adonai. You are assuming things with ZERO evidence.

I am only saying that the job of translators is to translate what they HAVE, not guess at what was written in some hypothetical document that they wish existed. We have 15000 manuscripts and none have YHWH in them. Therefore since translators use these manuscripts to translate from, they should translate what those manuscipts say, and not what they want them to say.

All actual documentary evidence points to fact the name YHWH was not used in the NT. Speculation contrary to that is not evidence, it is wishful thinking, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

We stil do not have any of the original NTs. to show what you say is true, but we do have to Hebrew OT to show that God Personal Name, "YHWH" belongs in the NT so your argumant has a hole in so big one could drive a Bus through it!

Barryrob

Sparko

February 28th 2005, 12:44 PM

We stil do not have any of the original NTs. to show what you say is true, but we do have to Hebrew OT to show that God Personal Name, "YHWH" belongs in the NT so your argumant has a hole in so big one could drive a Bus through it!

Barryrob

You just argue in circles, barryrob. I have answered you on the matter several ways and times on this.

We do have thousands and thousands of copies of the originals. If the originals DID have Jehovah in them, at least a few copies would have it also. NONE DO. You are claiming we should go with speculation with no proof or evidence rather than relying on what evidence we actually DO have.

The only Hebrew NT we have is one that was written 100 years ago by someone who translated the GREEK into Hebrew. It is just as flawed in its use of YHWH was your NWT is.

Your arguments have holes large enough to move a large planet through.

barryrob

February 28th 2005, 01:07 PM

You just argue in circles, barryrob. I have answered you on the matter several ways and times on this.

We do have thousands and thousands of copies of the originals. If the originals DID have Jehovah in them, at least a few copies would have it also. NONE DO. You are claiming we should go with speculation with no proof or evidence rather than relying on what evidence we actually DO have.

The only Hebrew NT we have is one that was written 100 years ago by someone who translated the GREEK into Hebrew. It is just as flawed in its use of YHWH was your NWT is.

Your arguments have holes large enough to move a large planet through.

The late scholar of Bible texts F. G. Kenyon wrote that "in the case of the Bible books, as also of all works of the classical authors and of nearly all mediæval works, the original autographs and all early copies of them have disappeared." The early second-century fragment of a portion of John 18 is considered to be the oldest known text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

So as in this case of part of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek by Aquila, a Jewish proselyte who lived in the second century C.E. we observe in several places in the Greek text that Jehovah’s name was written in archaic Hebrew characters. This shows that as late as the second century C.E., Jehovah’s name in Hebrew was still being written in Greek manuscripts. There is therefore no reason to doubt that Jesus’ disciples would also have used it when they originally wrote the Christian Greek Scriptures under divine inspiration.

But today God's personal name "YHWH" has been delibratly removed from the LXX by others who also have no respect for God or God's name. Then as I said before we have Hebrew NTs along with other English NTs which also show to be in total error.

Barryrob

Sparko

February 28th 2005, 01:25 PM

[/font]

The late scholar of Bible texts F. G. Kenyon wrote that "in the case of the Bible books, as also of all works of the classical authors and of nearly all mediæval works, the original autographs and all early copies of them have disappeared." The early second-century fragment of a portion of John 18 is considered to be the oldest known text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

I will try ONE MORE TIME. Every copy of the NT manuscripts we have does NOT have YHWH in it. None. Any claim that the originals did have it is just wishful thinking with NO EVIDENCE. Translators are supposed to translate documents that exist, not documents they imagine. Every document available for translation has kurios in it, not Jehovah. Translators that insert Jehovah are inserting what they wish was there and not doing their job. That is scripture tampering. Nothing you can say can change that because we have NO evidence of any copies with Jehovah in it.

So as in this case of part of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek by Aquila, a Jewish proselyte who lived in the second century C.E. we observe in several places in the Greek text that Jehovah’s name was written in archaic Hebrew characters. This shows that as late as the second century C.E., Jehovah’s name in Hebrew was still being written in Greek manuscripts. There is therefore no reason to doubt that Jesus’ disciples would also have used it when they originally wrote the Christian Greek Scriptures under divine inspiration.

Again, we have NO copies of NT manuscripts with YHWH in them. What you are speaking of is the Greek LXX septuagent of the OLD TESTAMENT. It has nothing to do with the New Testament. No copies of the new testament manuscripts have Jehovah in them

But today God's personal name "YHWH" has been delibratly removed from the LXX by others who also have no respect for God or God's name. Then as I said before we have Hebrew NTs along with other English NTs which also show to be in total error.

Actually the jews took the name of God YHWH and inserted the vowels for Adonai into the mix, so that the readers would know to say "Lord" out of respect and because they were afraid to take the name of God in vain. I posted all this above where I show that Jehovah is a corruption of this and is NOT the correct name of God.

And again, the Hebrew NT was not written by the original authors, it was written 100 years ago by someone who translated the GREEK into Hebrew. If he put YHWH in, then he is just as wrong as the NWT translators are.

I am tired of repeating this, so next time you repeat yourself, I will just point back to this post.

I can do this forever if you want me to.

MuggleOrSquib

February 28th 2005, 02:55 PM

Barry,

I have seen an instance where the belief that the Name is 'Jehovah' has caused some confusion and mis-identification.
A Jehovah's Witness has written to an Aramaic language group asking for information on the name 'Jehovah'. Because the 'waw' in Aramaic takes a 'w' rather than a 'v' sound, the Aramaic speaker hosting the group responded with an interpretation of YHBH rather than YHWH. 'Yehobah' means 'The Giver' in Aramaic. 'Yahweh' apparently meant 'He causes to be' in ancient Hebrew (there is no existing hiphil/causative form of the verb HYH/HWH in Hebrew, but just as you can recognize the tense of 'frummeling' [a non-existent English verb] by analogy with other English verbs, so a Hebrew speaker would/could recognize the form 'Yahweh' as a causative form of HYH/HWH by analogy with other causative forms).
So the teachings of the WBTS are actually misleading some members to misunderstand the Name.

There is a tradition among the 'Nestorians' that the Name is to be pronounced 'Yahwa'.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

barryrob

February 28th 2005, 07:34 PM

[/b]I will try ONE MORE TIME. Every copy of the NT manuscripts we have does NOT have YHWH in it. None. Any claim that the originals did have it is just wishful thinking with NO EVIDENCE. Translators are supposed to translate documents that exist, not documents they imagine. Every document available for translation has kurios in it, not Jehovah. Translators that insert Jehovah are inserting what they wish was there and not doing their job. That is scripture tampering. Nothing you can say can change that because we have NO evidence of any copies with Jehovah in it.
[/font]

Again, we have NO copies of NT manuscripts with YHWH in them. What you are speaking of is the Greek LXX septuagent of the OLD TESTAMENT. It has nothing to do with the New Testament. No copies of the new testament manuscripts have Jehovah in them

Actually the jews took the name of God YHWH and inserted the vowels for Adonai into the mix, so that the readers would know to say "Lord" out of respect and because they were afraid to take the name of God in vain. I posted all this above where I show that Jehovah is a corruption of this and is NOT the correct name of God.

And again, the Hebrew NT was not written by the original authors, it was written 100 years ago by someone who translated the GREEK into Hebrew. If he put YHWH in, then he is just as wrong as the NWT translators are.

I am tired of repeating this, so next time you repeat yourself, I will just point back to this post.

I can do this forever if you want me to.

But as with the LXX that does not prove what you say is true as they thought the same about the LXX, until new texts came to light showing they where wrong as they found texts of the LXX with the "YHWH" in them so as the 1st Christian used the older LXXs of which the former mentioned are some them they would of use the Tetragrammaton, hence the usage in Hebrew NTs.

One of the main problems is that most view the Bible as Old and New Testaments which we do NOT we view it as just ONE testament about the unfolding purpose of ONE God Jehovah.

So we will probably never agree.

Barryrob

barryrob

March 1st 2005, 06:02 AM

An example of trying to hide the fact that Jesus made God's Personal Name known:-

John 17:6, 26.

In his Prayer to His Farther recorded in John Ch. 17 Jesus said that he would make God's "name know" or "manifest" to his disciples (Christians):-

John 17:6 The Greek text (Nestle's 21st) is as found in 'The NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear Translation' by Alfred Marshell'.*

Greek Text. efanerwsa sou to onoma ...
Transliteration. I manifested of thee the name….

N.W.T. I have made your name manifest …..
N.A.S.B. I manifest Thy name ….

K.J.V. I have manifest thy name ….

N.R.S.V. I have made your name known ….

N.I.V. I have revealed you ….

They (the translators of the N.I.V.) have obeyed your word?" according to the New International Version (N.I.V.) with the exception of making the Father's personal "name (Gk.onoma) known" as Jesus said that he did!! 'TheGood News Bible' or T.E.V. does the same as the N.I.V. in this verse and leaves out the word "name"!! WHY?

John 17:26

Greek Text. kai egnwrisa autoiV to onoma sou kai gnwrisw ina

Transliteration. and I made know to them the name of thee and will make it known, ….

N.W.T. And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, …

N.A.S.B. and I have made Thy name known to them, and will make it known; ….

K.J.V. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: ….

N.R.S.V.I made your name known to them, and will make it known; ….

N.I.V. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known; …

Once again according to the N.I.V., they, the translators of the N.I.V., "have obeyed your word" (John 17:6) with the exception of making The Father's personal "name (Gk. onoma) known" as Jesus did!! 'The Good News Bible' or T.E.V. does the same as the N.I.V. in this verse and leaves out the word "name"!! WHY? Yet at John 12:28 the N.I.V. records the very words of Jesus and God, The Farther, "Father, glorify your name.!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” but their Bible version they then follow the TRADITIONAL AND NON-BIBLICAL JEWISH SUPERSTITION of replacing " vuvh, Yehovah, yeh-ho-vee", God's Personal Name, with " hbst , LORD, ad-o-noy" on a false premise as shown by the following comment on this practice extracted from 'The Deluxe Multimedia Bible CD by Focus Essential'.
The Removal of God's NAME!

"Jehovah the special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord [adonai]) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews (Ex. 6:2, 3). This name, the Tetragrammaton of the Greeks, was held by the later Jews to be so sacred that it was never pronounced except by the high priest on the great Day of Atonement, when he entered into the most holy place. Whenever this name occurred in the sacred books they pronounced it, as they still do, "Adonai" (i.e., Lord), thus using another word in its stead. The Massorets gave to it the vowel-points appropriate to this word. This Jewish practice was founded on a false interpretation of Lev. 24:16. . . . The Hebrew name "Jehovah" is generally translated in the Authorized Version (and the Revised Version has not departed from this rule) by the word LORD printed in small capitals, to distinguish it from the rendering of the Hebrew Adonai and the Greek Kurios, which are also rendered Lord, but printed in the usual type. . . ."-'The Deluxe Multimedia Bible CD by Focus Essential'

From the above Leviticus 24:16 reads in the N.W.T., thus "So the abuser of Jehovah’s (Heb. vuvh) name should be put to death without fail. The entire assembly should without fail pelt him with stones. The alien resident the same as the native should be put to death for his abusing the Name."

Further to the above we can add the thought contained in the 3rd of The Ten Commandments given by God to Moses, which read as follows:-

Exodus 20:7 "You must not take up the name of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh) your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah (Heb. vuvh) will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way."-N.W.T.

What greater "abuse" of God's Personal Name which He had recorded some 7,000 times for his glory and our benefit, could there be than removing from the Bible completely and substituting with a surrogate "LORD" without his authorisation?! In this we have Jesus own example when he said:-

John 5:17-20 ""Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called 'least' in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. As for anyone who does them and teaches them, this one will be called 'great' in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. 20 For I say to YOU that if YOUR righteousness does not abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, YOU will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens."

So if Jesus Christ said that "one smallest letter or one particle of a letter [should not] pass away from the Law" how can anyone go against what he says by changing the Bible Texts and still be pleasing to Him or His Father, for braking "The Law" and teaching other "to that effect"?

MODERN DAY "scribes and Pharisees"

I think we may have come to mutual agreement, based upon the Bibles' Teachings, that the Jewish scribal tradition and practice (as this was also happening in Jesus day) of removing of God's Personal Name, Jehovah, in Hebrew vuvh, from the Hebrew and English Text of the Bible is grossly wrong and is wholly displeasing to God who had the Bible penned so that humans may get to know Him accurately, and that this practice is done buy persons trying to support their false doctrine of the Trinity, or at least this is one of their reasons. This tradition in effect falsifies the English Bible text to some degree, and it is this on point that Jesus and Paul said some strong words about such persons and practices as these. They likened the above type of scribal practise to "Leaven," and said that it stops persons from having an expectable standing before God, in fact it does the very opposite and makes a person unacceptable to God; see the following scriptures:-

Mat 15:6-9 And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

Mat 15:12-14 Then the disciples came up and said to him: “Do you know that the Pharisees stumbled at hearing what you said?” In reply he said: “Every plant that my heavenly Father [Jehovah] did not plant will be uprooted. LET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

Mat 16:6 Jesus said to them: “Keep YOUR eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Mat 16:11-12 But watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the leaven of the loaves, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

Mat 23:13 “Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for YOU yourselves do not go in, neither do YOU permit those on their way in to go in.

Luke 12:1 . . . he started out by saying first to his disciples: “Watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

1 Cor 5:6-8 YOUR [cause for] boasting is not fine. Do YOU not know that a little leaven ferments the whole lump?Clear away the old leaven, that YOU may be a new lump, according as YOU are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed. Consequently let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unfermented cakes of sincerity and truth.

Jesus said the "teaching" of the "Scribes", "Pharisees" and "Sadducees" of his day where as "Leaven" and from "Hypocrites," as they misrepresent God and that they where also spiritual "blind" and "shut[s] up the kingdom of the heavens before men" so they will not get to know His God, adding to this Paul said that "Leaven" is paralleled to "Badness" and "Wickedness" thus both of them seem to point out that this type of teaching practice it from the Devil, do you agree?

This raises the some questions about what is being taught in the various Churches! Is it showing to persons who the True God is? Is it pleasing to God? Is it True? Is it what Jesus taught, and what He wants to be taught now about His and Our Father? Will it bring salvation to those who put what they teach into practice? IS IT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS? If not, is it from God or the Devil? Something to pray and think about!

Barryrob

Sparko

March 1st 2005, 10:21 AM

Barryrob, please see post #104 for my reply to you. You still have not shown me wrong in my claims, no matter how you try to change the subject. If the NIV translators did something you consider wrong, then you can bring that up in another thread. Even if you are right, it does not excuse the NWT for THEIR wrongs. Two wrongs don't make a right (but three rights make a left :smile:)

barryrob

March 1st 2005, 01:52 PM

Sparko

March 1st 2005, 02:09 PM

You have not show me the that NWT is wrong as yet!
Barryrob

I have given several examples. you just either refuse to see it or are blind.

Also, If i have not shown you where the NWT is wrong, then what are you arguing against? :doh:

See post 104.

barryrob

March 1st 2005, 02:23 PM

Yes I have. you just either refuse to see it or are blind.

I have given several examples.

See post 104.

Re: post 104 "Lord" or "Adoni" is NOT a NAME, just a Title, whereas Jehovah (YHWH) is a Name and the one Jesus made know as recorded in his prayer at John Ch. 17 to Jehovah His Father, so you still fail to support your points!
Barryrob

Sparko

March 1st 2005, 02:40 PM

Re: post 104 "Lord" or "Adoni" is NOT a NAME, just a Title, whereas Jehovah (YHWH) is a Name and the one Jesus made know as recorded in his prayer at John Ch. 17 to Jehovah His Father, so you still fail to support your points!
Barryrob

Non Sequitur. Whether Lord or Adonai is a name or not has nothing to do with my post, we are talking about whether it is OK for somone to insert that name where it was not originally written as far as all evidence we have shows. See post 104.

Krusader

March 1st 2005, 02:58 PM

Non Sequitur. Whether Lord or Adonai is a name or not has nothing to do with my post, we are talking about whether it is OK for somone to insert that name where it was not originally written as far as all evidence we have shows. See post 104.

John, Barryrob claims that Jesus taught us to call God Jehovah in John 17. However, a quick look at that chapter teaches us that Jesus addressed God as "Father." vs. 1. This is the same way he taught the disciples to pray when he gave the model prayer. Today, as Christians, we can rightly address God as "Father," for the Holy Spirit has entered our hearts, saying "Abba," (meaning Daddy, or Papa).

Jehovah's Witnesses have no close relationship with the remote Jehovah, who is not an omnipresent deity (he actually sits on a throne someplace, probably near the Mormon's Elohim on star Kolob), does not communicate through the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is a non-personal force to Witnesses (thus, having to use deceased beings to direct his "organization), and had to send an angel named Michael to save his world.

Christians have no problem with addressing God as Father or Lord - but if we were to be legalistic about it, ofcourse we would have to pronounce it in the Hebraic manner, "Yah-weh," not as "Jehovah," which is the false transliteration.

barryrob

March 1st 2005, 07:36 PM

Non Sequitur. Whether Lord or Adonai is a name or not has nothing to do with my post, we are talking about whether it is OK for somone to insert that name where it was not originally written as far as all evidence we have shows. See post 104.

Ohh yes it does because Jesus also said:-

Matthew 6:9
"‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.
Thus Jesus as a Jews showed his true follower what to do.

So as the following shows "Lord" is a MAN MADE illegal substitute for the proper personal Name of the Father:-

'Vine's Expository Dictionary' p.376 says:-
"LORD, LORDSHIP kurios ... properly an adjective signifying having power or authority is used as a noun, variously translated in the N.T. Lord, master, Master, owner, Sir, a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the N.T., save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an owner, as in Lu 19 :33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt 12:8 ... (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father Matt 21:30, a husband 1 Pet 3:6, a master Matt 13:27, Lu 13:8, a ruler Matt 27:63 an angel Acts 10:4, Rev 7:14. (f) As a title of courtesy, addressed to a stranger, ... from the outset of his ministry, this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus alike by the people ... and by his disciples ... (g) Kurios in the Sept[uagint] (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, O.T.) and N.T. representative of Heb[brew], Jehovah ("LORD* in English versions") See Matt 4:7; James 5:11 e.g. of Adon, Lord Matt 22:44, and Adony, Lord 1:22, it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet 1:25
"thus the usage of the word in the N.T. follows two main lines : one -- a -- f, customary and general, the other, g, peculiar to the Jews*, and drawn from the Greek translation of the O.T."
*Jesus was a Jew

So as "Lord" is "representative of Heb[brew], Jehovah" in the "N.T." it show once again the the NWT is right and you are still not supported in your points!
Barryrob

barryrob

March 1st 2005, 07:38 PM

John, Barryrob claims that Jesus taught us to call God Jehovah in John 17. However, a quick look at that chapter teaches us that Jesus addressed God as "Father." vs. 1. This is the same way he taught the disciples to pray when he gave the model prayer. Today, as Christians, we can rightly address God as "Father," for the Holy Spirit has entered our hearts, saying "Abba," (meaning Daddy, or Papa).

Jehovah's Witnesses have no close relationship with the remote Jehovah, who is not an omnipresent deity (he actually sits on a throne someplace, probably near the Mormon's Elohim on star Kolob), does not communicate through the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is a non-personal force to Witnesses (thus, having to use deceased beings to direct his "organization), and had to send an angel named Michael to save his world.

Christians have no problem with addressing God as Father or Lord - but if we were to be legalistic about it, ofcourse we would have to pronounce it in the Hebraic manner, "Yah-weh," not as "Jehovah," which is the false transliteration.

But "Jehovah" will just not go away will it?
Barryrob

Krusader

March 1st 2005, 07:51 PM

But "Jehovah" will just not go away will it?
Barryrob

You know, Barryrob, you really make some dumb comments. Neither will the word "Allah." Does that make it right?

barryrob

March 1st 2005, 07:58 PM

You know, Barryrob, you really make some dumb comments. Neither will the word "Allah." Does that make it right?

"Allah" just means God like "Elohim" (Heb.) means God just that it is in Arabic just like "theos" is God in Greek and "deus" in Latin; also all are just TITLES etc. etc. which is totaly differant from a Personal NAME like "Jehovah"!
Barryrob

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 12:02 AM

\

Matthew 6:9
"‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.
Thus Jesus as a Jews showed his true follower what to do.

Then why did Jesus not use "Jehovah" there instead of "FATHER?"

So as the following shows "Lord" is a MAN MADE illegal substitute for the proper personal Name of the Father:-

'Vine's Expository Dictionary' p.376 says:-
"LORD, LORDSHIP kurios ... properly an adjective signifying having power or authority is used as a noun, variously translated in the N.T. Lord, master, Master, owner, Sir, a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the N.T., save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an owner, as in Lu 19 :33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt 12:8 ... (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father Matt 21:30, a husband 1 Pet 3:6, a master Matt 13:27, Lu 13:8, a ruler Matt 27:63 an angel Acts 10:4, Rev 7:14. (f) As a title of courtesy, addressed to a stranger, ... from the outset of his ministry, this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus alike by the people ... and by his disciples ... (g) Kurios in the Sept[uagint] (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, O.T.) and N.T. representative of Heb[brew], Jehovah ("LORD* in English versions") See Matt 4:7; James 5:11 e.g. of Adon, Lord Matt 22:44, and Adony, Lord 1:22, it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet 1:25
"thus the usage of the word in the N.T. follows two main lines : one -- a -- f, customary and general, the other, g, peculiar to the Jews*, and drawn from the Greek translation of the O.T."
*Jesus was a Jew

So as "Lord" is "representative of Heb[brew], Jehovah" in the "N.T." it show once again the the NWT is right and you are still not supported in your points!
Barryrob

So once again, you are saying that Paul and the Apostles were the ones who were wrong since they used kurios instead of Jehovah. All you do is repeat yourself. The men who wrote the bible were not wrong. The NWT is the ones who are wrong because they are adding words to God's word.

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.The NWT translators and the Watchtower are liars.
See post #104.

barryrob

March 2nd 2005, 05:16 AM

\
Then why did Jesus not use "Jehovah" there instead of "FATHER?"

So once again, you are saying that Paul and the Apostles were the ones who were wrong since they used kurios instead of Jehovah. All you do is repeat yourself. The men who wrote the bible were not wrong. The NWT is the ones who are wrong because they are adding words to God's word.

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.The NWT translators and the Watchtower are liars.

See post #104.

Where the phrase "in the name of The LORD" appears in the King James Version of the Bible.

O.T.
Duet 18:5; 18:7; 18:22; 21:5

1 Sam 17:45; 20:42

2 Sam 6:18

1 Kings 18:32; 22:16

2 Kings 2:24

1 Chron 16:2; 21:19

2 Chron 18:15; 33:18

Ps 118:10; 118:11; 118:12; 118:26; 124:8; 129:8;

Isa 50:10

Jer 11:21; 26:9; 26:16; 26:20; 44:16

Mic 4:5

Zep 3:12

Zec 13:3

So according to you the name of the “Lord” is Lord, that makes as much sense as saying the name of the Man is Man or the name of the Woman is Woman or the name of the God is God. Example; The NAME of The Man I am writing now is John! The Name of The God Jesus prayed to in John Ch. 17 is Jehovah, the name Jesus read in the Hebrew Bible scrolls he used in the synagogues he went to. No John as it -Lord- is defined thus:-

“lord —n. 1 master or ruler. 2 hist. feudal superior, esp. of a manor. 3 peer of the realm or person with the title Lord. 4 (Lord) (often prec. by the) God or Christ. 5 (Lord) a prefixed as the designation of a marquis, earl, viscount, or baron, or (to the Christian name) of the younger son of a duke or marquis. b (the Lords) = *House of Lords. —int. (Lord, good Lord, etc.) expressing surprise, dismay, etc. lord it over domineer. [Old English, = bread-keeper: related to *loaf1, *ward].”-Oxford Dic.

Usage of “Lord” = A Title, Not a Name!

So you are saying the when Jesus, Paul etc. read “YHWH” in their copies of the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T.) and of the LXX with God Personal Name in them (e.g”.PIPI” or IAW) prier to it being removed, they would say or write “adoni”? That would not make sense as no vowels are written in the Hebrew Bible (O.T.) as it is only penned in constantans and all vowels are a series of dots and dashes in and about the letters and as is said the vowels of “adoni” where added to “YHWH” so John you still have unsupported points.

The word of God is flawless that it the very first document penned by the men themselves. Today we only have various versions and copies of what they wrote and many “flaws” via poor coping, interpolations, misspellings, illegal substitutions, etc. etc. through the ages. As with the LXX when Gods Personal Name written in Hebrew characters –“YHWH” or “PIPI”- in amongst the Greek text by unscrupulous non God fearing scribes. So as God name was deliberately removed by unfaithful scribes faithful men would not copy them. Paul etc. where faithful men so when they saw God’s Personal name they would use it as God had it put there so no one can remove it. So today faithful men put in back where it belongs by Divine Right and by the authority of Jesus word at John Ch. 17. I do repeat my self some times because it the truth unlike what you claim to be right which is if fact following the traditions of the scribes in Jesus’ day (and before) and we all know what and we all know what he thought of them!

No sorry you teaching is inconstant with the Hebrew Texts that Jesus, Paul etc. read and taught from!

Psalm 113:1-3
"Praise Jah (Heb. vh), YOU people! Offer praise,
O YOU servants of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh),
Praise the name of Jehovah (Heb. vuvh).
May Jehovah’s (Heb. vuvh) name become blessed
From now on and to time indefinite ("evermore" K.J.V.).
From the rising of the sun until its setting Jehovah’s (Heb. vuvh) name is to be praised."

As God himself say for "evermore"!

Barryrob

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 10:45 AM

barryrob

March 2nd 2005, 12:17 PM

See post 104 and stop trying to side track the thread.

Unless you can show me that the originals had Jehovah written in them, then nothing you say means a thing. It all boils down to the fact that the NWT translators were lying when they arbitrarily inserted Jehovah in the text when the original authors, as far as ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOWS uses the word kurios. They changed the bible and added in words that were not in the original. All of your arguing about what God's name means and that Lord is a title and not a name just proves my point further. The authors of the NT did not use God's name, but his title and the NWT translators added in what they thought his name is in the place of the word kurios. They tampered with the bible. They added words to the bible. They changed scripture to something it did not say in the first place.

They are LIARS and DECEIVERS. I have shown it to be so in several posts in this thread.

Again - See Post #104

We will never agree, as I view what God said in the O.T. and not you or who teach as you do as the only authority:-

Exo 3:15

(ASV) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

(Darby) And God said moreover to Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

(HCSB) God also said to Moses, "Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

(HOT)ויאמר עוד אלהים אל־משׁה כה־תאמר אל־בני ישׂראל יהוה אלהי אבתיכם אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב שׁלחני אליכם זה־שׁמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדר דר׃

(WEB) God said moreover to Moses, "You shall tell the children of Israel this, 'Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.

(YLT) And God saith again unto Moses, `Thus dost thou say unto the sons of Israel, Jehovah, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name--to the age, and this My memorial, to generation--generation.

The above is taken from e-Sword.

So as God say His Name, as opposed to "Lord," is to last and be used "forever," then I will stay with what He says and reject what you say you disagree with Almighty God!

See post #5

Barryrob

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 12:21 PM

barryrob

March 2nd 2005, 12:31 PM

I am glad you discovered e-sword. Perhaps you notice that the NWT is not available for it?

None of your quotes address the problem of changing Lord to Jehovah in the NWT NT. and none of your translations above uses Jehovah in the New Testament.

Wonder why?

See post 104

Because we follow God's word and not the traditions (e.g. removing God's Name out of the Bible) of faithless Scribes condemed by Jesus who said He would (and did and does) make God's "Name Manifest" see John Ch. 17 thus setting the pattern fro his true followers.

see post 5

Barryrob

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 12:48 PM

Because we follow God's word and not the traditions (e.g. removing God's Name out of the Bible) of faithless Scribes condemed by Jesus who said He would (and did and does) make God's "Name Manifest" see John Ch. 17 thus setting the pattern fro his true followers.

see post 5

Barryrob

Again, you are saying the authors of the bible were faithless scribes? shame on you.

See post 104

barryrob

March 2nd 2005, 02:06 PM

Again, you are saying the authors of the bible were faithless scribes? shame on you.

See post 104
You seem not to be able to grasp the author is God and men copy it. Some times make mistakes in copying and sometime deliberately change texts, other wise why have critical notes in the GNT 3rd Ed. Or The N & A 27th Ed. Below the main Greek Text?

Barryrob

barryrob

March 2nd 2005, 02:58 PM

Christians have no problem with addressing God as Father or Lord - but if we were to be legalistic about it, ofcourse we would have to pronounce it in the Hebraic manner, "Yah-weh," not as "Jehovah," which is the false transliteration.

Then you have made anpther problem for yourself, to whit:-

Let apply what you say for example to the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus’ family and friends addressed him in day-to-day conversation while he was growing up in Nazareth? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something like Yeshua (or Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus. The accounts of his life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve that original Hebrew pronunciation. Rather, they rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sous´. Today, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soos´). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zoo´). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yay´soos).

So must we stop using the name of Jesus because most of us, or even all of us, do not really know its original pronunciation? The same could be made regarding all the names we read in the Bible. We pronounce them in our own language and do not try to imitate the original pronunciation. Thus we say “Jeremiah,” not Yir·meya´hu. Similarly we say Isaiah, although in his own day this prophet likely was known as Yesha`·ya´hu. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them.

barryrob

Krusader

March 2nd 2005, 03:03 PM

Then you have made anpther problem for yourself, to whit:-

Let apply what you say for example to the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus’ family and friends addressed him in day-to-day conversation while he was growing up in Nazareth? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something like Yeshua (or Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus. The accounts of his life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve that original Hebrew pronunciation. Rather, they rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sous´. Today, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soos´). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zoo´). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yay´soos).

So must we stop using the name of Jesus because most of us, or even all of us, do not really know its original pronunciation? The same could be made regarding all the names we read in the Bible. We pronounce them in our own language and do not try to imitate the original pronunciation. Thus we say “Jeremiah,” not Yir·meya´hu. Similarly we say Isaiah, although in his own day this prophet likely was known as Yesha`·ya´hu. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them.

barryrob

Not at all, Barryrob, because it is the Jehovah's Witnesses that have the legalistic obligation to call God by the false transliteration of "Jehovah." I'm not a legalist, being under grace, so I address God as Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit - which you cannot do.

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 03:04 PM

You seem not to be able to grasp the author is God and men copy it. Some times make mistakes in copying and sometime deliberately change texts, other wise why have critical notes in the GNT 3rd Ed. Or The N & A 27th Ed. Below the main Greek Text?

Barryrob

God did not dictate the bible to the authors word for word. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write what they did, but it was their words. And those words did not include putting Jehovah in the NT. Copiers could and have made errors in copying, but if you knew anything about textual criticism you would know that by comparing the various thousands of manuscripts we can reconstuct the original words with about 99% accuracy. That means that the originals never had Jehovah in them. NEVER. If they did, then we would have some copies that had Jehovah where Kurios is. But we don't

You can speculate all you want but without evidence there is no case for the originals having the word Jehovah in them. And wishing wont make it so.

And if you are saying that the original writers (John, Paul, etc) wrote down kurios instead of what God wanted them to write then you are calling them faithless scribes and if you truly beleive that then you can't trust any part of the bible, even the parts the NWT did not change, because how can you be sure Paul and the others where not faithful to all the rest of their writings.

You are digging your hole deeper and deeper.

MuggleOrSquib

March 2nd 2005, 03:55 PM

Barry,

In my last post, I pointed out a problem with calling God 'Jehovah'--it can lead to a misunderstanding of the name. In Aramaic, 'yehowa' means 'The Giver', from YHB 'to give'. The Church of the East has maintained a tradition that the Name is pronounced 'Yahwa', which fits the etymology --'Causative' form of HYH/HWH meaning 'He causes to be'.
If you need me to, I can give you the info from Bar Bahlul's dictionary--there is a copy at UCLA, which is not TERRIBLY far from me.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 04:02 PM

barryrob

March 2nd 2005, 04:33 PM

Barryrob, Christians do not have a problem with saying Jehovah or Jesus, even if they should be pronounced yaweh and yeshua. Like Crusader said, we are not legalistic about it. But you JWs say that any true organization of God would use his personal name. We are just pointing out that you are NOT using God's personal name, but a corruption of it. If you truly think a TRUE organization of God would use his personal name, then you should want to use the most accurate version as you could. Jehovah is clearly NOT the most accurate rendering as we have pointed out in this and other threads.

This:-

"We are just pointing out that you are NOT using God's personal name, but a corruption of it"

can be applied to any rendering of the divine name even all the ones you and Crusader, me or anyone comes up with, as NO ONE knows exactly how it was pronounced by God faithful servants from Abel to Jesus.

So a J. P. Green Sr. said:-

"The only personal nams of God the belongs to Him alons was rendered either Jehovah or in its shortened form, Jah. We preferred the Transliteration JHWH (thus Jehovah) over YHWH (or Yahweh) because this is established English usage for Bible name beggining with this letter (e.g., Jacob and Joseph)."-'The Interliner Bible' Hebrew-Greek-English perface

So here we simple see a preference because of language. As I have show in other languages it has a differing sound and spelling due to that language and it's linguistic roots. So in English it a case of a common spelling not absolute accuracy as no one knows, so Yahweh cannot be any more correct then Jehovah, it maybe close to how a Jew might say it today, but who can say as no one truly knows.

Barryrob

Krusader

March 2nd 2005, 04:47 PM

Sparko

March 2nd 2005, 05:16 PM

This:-

"We are just pointing out that you are NOT using God's personal name, but a corruption of it"

can be applied to any rendering of the divine name even all the ones you and Crusader, me or anyone comes up with, as NO ONE knows exactly how it was pronounced by God faithful servants from Abel to Jesus.

So a J. P. Green Sr. said:-

"The only personal nams of God the belongs to Him alons was rendered either Jehovah or in its shortened form, Jah. We preferred the Transliteration JHWH (thus Jehovah) over YHWH (or Yahweh) because this is established English usage for Bible name beggining with this letter (e.g., Jacob and Joseph)."-'The Interliner Bible' Hebrew-Greek-English perface

So here we simple see a preference because of language. As I have show in other languages it has a differing sound and spelling due to that language and it's linguistic roots. So in English it a case of a common spelling not absolute accuracy as no one knows, so Yahweh cannot be any more correct then Jehovah, it maybe close to how a Jew might say it today, but who can say as no one truly knows.

Barryrob

You know barryrob, I get tired of having to repeat myself every other post with you.

Let me try one more time.

1. We indeed do not know the proper way to pronounce YHWH

2. However, we do know how "Jehovah" came to be. It was a combination of YHWH and Adonai, and the use of the english "J" instead of the original "Y".

3. Therefore we DO know that YHWH is NOT pronounced "Jehovah"

Again, we may not know how to say YHWH, but we do know how NOT to say it. It is not pronounced "Fred" - it is not pronouned "Rumplestilskin" and it is NOT pronounced "Jehovah"

4. Christians are not so concerned about this because we are not legalistic. We call God, "Father" which is more intimate than using a personal name. Do you call your dad by his first name, or do you call him "Father" or "Dad" or "Poppa?"

5. But as JW's, you condemn us for not associating ourselves with God' personal name and pat yourselves on the back for doing so.

6. Therefore if it is so important to you, then why do you allow yourselves to use a version of God's personal name that IS NOT CORRECT??

The irony is so obvious to all of us but you.

Sorry for the big huge type. I was not yelling, just wanted to make sure you could read it in case your glasses need changing or you need them in the first place, because you seem to not be able to read what we posted dozens of times before. :wink: