I don't see no happy face.
Forgot to mention, you'll only get the icons if you're using Internet Explorer.
Jehovah's Witness here.
by nimzo 177 Replies latest jw friends
-
brinjen
-
AuldSoul
Nimzo,
The NWT committee replaced kyrios ("Lord") with "Jehovah" twice in Revelation chapter 22. Revelation 22 does not quote the OT. Revelation 22 also includes the warning against adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll.
Inserting a name for which there is no translational authority (i.e., no Greek text to support the rendering) and removing the word "Lord" from these places leaves them open to receive the consequences for both adding to and taking away from the words of the scroll.
237 times, the name "Jehovah" replaces either the title "Lord" or the title "God". Another notable place where there is no OT quote when this is done is at the stoning of Stephen. Stephen prayed to Jesus, unquestionably calling him "Lord", and yet the NWT translators insert the name Jehovah in the place of this word even though Stephen's prayer that Jesus receive his spirit makes it plain which "Lord" he was referring to.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
AK - Jeff
Aside from the Ad Hominem attack that begun this thread topic - perhaps you are sincere? I believed, heart and soul, the doctrines and teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses for my first 48 years of life. I can quote your NWT backwards and forwards, I pioneered for far too many years, I served in 'appointed' capacity for most of my adult life.
I began my exit for one simple reason; Jehovah's Witnesses do not know the Bible's form of Love. Later I became aware of other doctrinal issues and issues of integrity that cemented my initial belief that Jw's do not have the Truth. So far you have put forth no premise of which we could 'quote' anything.
The Trinity is unprovable, as is the Non-Trinitarian view. It has been debated in theological circles for centuries. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses have no grounds on which to support their premise, and even had to borrow support from Johannes Greber's translation of John 1:1. Even though Greber was well known by them at the time to be the husband of a spirit medium, and himself claimed that spiritism directed his translation. Finally, after decades of criticism [from us apostates it seems] they recanted that reference. Too late. Their doctrine was already built upon the sand and was washing away.
If you would like to debate a specific 'quote' or doctrine, I am sure we could find many willing to do so, one on one, or openly. You have a PM that includes my email should you like to do so privately.
Jeff
-
AuldSoul
What MSS are you referring to? I am not aware of any extant texts of the New Testament where the Tetragram appears.
-
eclipse
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/133252/1.ashx
in regards to insertion of Tetragmaton into the Greek Scriptures. The word I was looking for, was Kyrios.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/136544/1.ashx
Just to start you off with.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/133252/2372031/post.ashx#2372031 - On The ''removal'' of YHWH from the greek.
-
AK - Jeff
The proof we have today is the oldest manuscripts of the book of Matthew, where the Tetragrammaton is used.
Please support this argument with evidence.
Jeff
-
nimzo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry for my stupid quote! Anyways, here it goes! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nimzo, Why do Jehovah's Witnesses deny so much that the Bible plainly teaches? For instance: Jesus is the mediator for all mankind, yet Jehovah's Witnesses teach that he is only the mediator for 144,000. For instance: Jesus said his disciples would be persecuted for his name's sake, yet Jehovah's Witnesses have never been persecuted for the sake of Jesus' name. Ever. For instance: Every Christian has a responsibility to use their own powers of discernment and to reach their own conclusions in order to mature spiritually, yet Jehovah's Witnesses claim that a "mature christian" will not "harbor private ideas" about Bible understanding. (Hebrews 5:11-6:3) And you stand at the sidelines of spirituality asking after the nature of God, as if the nature of God is more important than a relationship. You have a King, High Priest, ransomer, redeemer, savior, and yoke-bearer with whom you are doctrinally forbidden to speak. Exactly what kind of personal relationship can you possibly have with Jesus, given that you can't speak to him? Respectfully, AuldSoul -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, ignore the the teachings? Wow, thats funny! False Christians deny most of the Bibles teachings! HAHAH! Mediator - Show me a scripture where that says he is a mediator for all mankind. Persecution - False. The Jehovah's Witnesses have always persecuted for his name sake because they are the only ones doing his will. Who else is doing the Will of the Father and of Jesus Christ? Theres many things that goes with this, but this is just a few. "Exactly what kind of personal relationship can you possibly have with Jesus, given that you can't speak to him?" What Kind of question is this? How can you have a relationship with God, when you don't recognize the father? Jesus led is to the Father, he didn't lead us to himself. We always have a relationship with God and with Jesus Christ to what we pray about and to who we pray through.
-
eclipse
Show me a scripture where that says he is a mediator for all mankind.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/129166/1.ashx
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/135331/2412656/post.ashx#2412656
-
nimzo
eclipse I know all about it, so you're just wasting your time quoting someone else post. AuldSoul I already heard this many times, so you don't even have to bother. What you're not getting is that why was didn't the Tetragrammaton appear in the New Testament when the Old Testament was quoted? Also have a look below. "Matthew, that is also Levi, that became an apostle after having been a tax collector, was the first to write a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those who where circumcised that had believed. It's not know with enough certainly who had then translated it in Greek. However the Hebrew one it self is preserved till this day in the Library at Cesarea, that the martyr Pamphilus collected so accurately. The Nazarenes of the Syrian city of Berea that use this copy have also allowed me to copy it". From the Latin text edited by E.C.Richardson, published in the series Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschicte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol.14, Lipsia, 1986, pp.8,9. In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ????; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen’s Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”
-
AK - Jeff
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.
Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. (See App 1C §1.) As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, Jehovah. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."
Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in JournalofBiblicalLiterature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, ???? (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate
? [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.New World Translation Reference Bible Page 1564
The highlighted areas are all pure assertions - no facts support what is said. This is the method used throughout WT literature to 'convince' people of 'facts' that are not supported by real research.
Jeff