What other ancient Greek Manuscripts contained the divine name?

by yaddayadda 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DATA-DOG

  So what does all this really mean? The WT CD does not include any way to read these references, so you must trust the WTBTS.

  Romans 10:13 Ky; J7,8,10,13-18,22-24 The italicized portion in not available in the CD Library. The oldest copies of the LXX contain kurious . The NWT appendix confirms it. So why add " Jehovah " in this instance, but not at 1 Cor 12:3 as Vanderhoven 7 has stated? I believe Vanderhoven 7, although I have not seen the evidence myself yet. How in the world is a rank and file JW able to make any sense of this? It that the WTBTS's scheme?

  I am also very interested in this:

  "The earliest "J" is J2, published in 1385, which is cited 16 times. The most popular is J7, cited 181 times. Despite its published antipathy against the Erasmus TR text, the WTS has carefully avoided to reveal that all the "J" references are quotations of this text. Evidently we must be made to understand that a text in its Greek original is faulty, but becomes pristine in a Hebrew translation!! [The WT society often reminds us that the TR is "faulty" "defective" etc. this is primarily because of what is termed "the Johannine Gloss of 1Jo 5:7,8 Se for instance the "Reasoning" book pg 423] "

  So the WTBTS is using information from writings that they say are faulty, to support their translation? Now I have to read about this Erasmus guy too?! My head might blow up! LOL! This is a great topic. I am glad it was resurrected. This is one reason why this site is so great!
• 

  ILoveTTATT

  Data Dog:

  Great resources on the following websites/books:

  jwfacts.com

  Jason BeDuhn - Truth in Translation - Appendix

  This book provides an excellent explanation of why the WT is wrong.

  (This book generally agrees with the NWT in their renderings, but makes this scathing remark:

  the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament, as the NWT does two-hundred-thirty-seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text. (p. 169)

  www.tetragrammaton.org (written by a non-JW, examines in mind-boggling depth if the Tetragrammaton ever appeared in the NT)

  Just FYI, THIS was what led me to TTATT... I was unsure of what to believe, so I was a lurker, but this changed me from being a doubter to completely 100% never again believing the JW's...for most people, messing with the Bible is a deal-breaker!!

  Data Dog, also, it is the way they write their theory that makes it so hard for the average JW to never understand! Here's the theory, in short:

  The LXX (Septuagint) is a GREEK TRANSLATION of the HEBREW SCRIPTURES. It was made around the 3rd century BCE. The original was lost, and fragments have been found that date to the 2nd century BCE. One of the fragments has the Greek, and then all of a sudden, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. This fragment, since it is from the 2nd century BCE, would lend weight to the THEORY that the Tetragrammaton was originally in the Septuagint, and then removed.

  The WT says that, since it happened to the Septuagint, it COULD HAVE happened to the NT. However, there are over 5000 manuscripts, and NONE of them have the Tetragrammaton.

  PM me if you want more explanation... but, after many months of deep study, it is clear to me that the WT is plainly and simply WRONG.

  ILTTATT
• 

  Comatose

  This info blew my wife's mind. It's hard to believe that no JWs no this. How can these secrets stay hidden?
• 

  ILoveTTATT

  Comatose:

  I made a study as to why it is hidden:

  The information is just spread out in so many places!

  The "we believe in the Bible because of so many manuscripts" part is on books such as the "All Scripture is Inspired" book, and the Awakes.

  The "we believe all NT texts are corrupted because none of them use the name "Jehovah"" is in the Insight book and a couple of Watchtowers, plus appendix 1D in the RB8 (The big Bible), and the Kingdom Interlinear (1969 edition)...

  Technically, everything is in our own faces, but very spread apart... very few (if anyone) can ever connect the dots. Thanks to Paul and JWfacts.com, I was able to connect the dots and confirm all of this info.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  "the abbreviation is for the NWT on the WT cd."

  Thank you Somebody. So it is a NWT footnote or explanitory note justifying their limited "scholarly" inclusion of the divine name.

  *** Rbi8 pp. 1564-1565 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures ***

  To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words Ky´ri·os and The·os´ we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky´ri·os and The·os´ and the personality with which to clothe them.

  To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background.
• 

  atrapado

  From Jason BeDuhn - Truth in Translation - Appendix

  I don't have the book with me to share the texts. He thinks the rule to insert Jehovah where the OT is cited and has the YHWH could be an acceptable translation. However he points out a few texts where the WT ignores the rule and inserts "Lord" instead of Jehovah. The reason if Jehovah was used in those texts they would say Jehovah is Jesus which doesn't not agree with their doctrine. Hence it shows their bias. They pick and chose according to their doctrine.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Datadog and ILTTATH, Thanks for the keeper info
• 

  mP

  SOP:

  There are no complete greek manuscripts from the 1st century at all. Most are fragments that hold but a few words or lines.
• 

  Wonderment

  adamah said:

  More disturbing is the deliberate mistranslation of words and phrases from the Hebrew Torah which significantly change the meaning of the Biblical accounts, in order to remove certain pesky details, eg their ignoring the Hebrew phrase (le haskil, 'to make one wise') from Genesis 3:6 (which is found in both the Masoretic and Samaritan Torah), which explains WHY Eve desired to eat the fruit.

  The NWT is the only modern translation to 'cherry-pick' from the Septuagint (Hebrew to Greek) or Vulgate (Greek to Latin) specifically for this verse, probably because they wanted to ignore the element which explained Eve's motivation for eating the fruit : Eve wanted to be wise!

  The NWT is not the only modern translation to render Gen. 3:6 as it did.

  Check:

  The Five Books of Moses; The Bible in Living English; Moffatt's Bible Translation; Lamsa's Translation; The Clear Word; Biblia Peshitta; The New English Bible.

  It is not unusual for Bible translators to cherry-pick from the Septuagint and the Vulgate throughout the Old Testament, not only in Gen. 3:6.