As one of my associates used to often say, "I smell a rat".
You don't have to tell me to lay off the newcomes, jgnat. I'm not going to say another word on the subject.
But something just isn't right here.
Thinking of becoming a Witness again and my reasons for doing so :(
by reniaa 383 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Earnest
I would like to ask leolaia about why Jahweh was took out of the bible and are JW's correct in it missing in 7000 places etc (she certainly knows a lot on ancient scripts)
I am sure leo can answer this question far better than I, but as it seems to have slipped her notice I trust I may offer my tuppence worth.
In the introduction to the New World translation it says that they have restored the commonly accepted English form of God's name " 6,973 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures". Without quibbling whether it is exactly 6,973 times it is certainly true that the tetragrammaton occurs almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and JWs are certainly correct in showing this.
You are probably aware that when Jews read the OT aloud and they come across the tetragrammaton, they do not pronounce God's name but replace it with the Hebrew equivalent of 'Lord' or 'God' instead, depending on the vowel pointings (which were only added at a much later date, about 700 CE). The reason is that the conservative or pharisaic Jews decided about the time of Jesus that in order to observe the commandment not to take God's name in vain it would be better that they never pronounce it. There is some evidence that not all Jews observed this but after the destruction of the temple in 70 the the rabbinical element of Judaism prevailed and were responsible for the Talmud and beliefs of the majority of Jews to this day. When Tyndale translated the Bible into English in most cases he translated the tetragrammaton with 'LORD' although he did use 'Jehovah' at Exodus 6:3 and explained in his book, 'Doctrinal Treatises' :
IEHOVAH is God's name; neither is any creature so called; and it is as much to say as, One that is of himself, and dependeth of nothing. Moreover, as oft as thou seeist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing), it is in Hebrew Iehovah, Thou that art; or, He that is.
Tyndale's translation was largely relied on when the Authorised Version of the bible was produced on the authority of King James and most subsequent English translations followed that lead. I am uncertain why Tyndale translated it this way but he would certainly have been aware of the Jewish custom not to pronounce the name and may have been assisted in his translation of the Hebrew by a Jew so this may have influenced him. In addition, the tetragrammaton was replaced with the Latin equivalent of 'Lord' in the Vulgate (which was the 'accepted' translation of the Catholic Church) and by the Greek equivalent of 'Lord' in the existing copies of the Septuagint in Tyndale's time.
I have not touched on whether JWs are correct to use Jehovah in the NT. There are no existing manuscripts of the NT which have the tetragrammaton or the Greek equivalent of God's name, so in a literal translation I think they are mistaken for doing so. They are doing exactly as Tyndale did in replacing the tetragrammaton with LORD in the OT, i.e. translating as they think it would have been read in Jesus' time rather than translating just what the text says. If you want a fuller discussion of this I have found this website to be quite well documented although I am not persuaded by all their conclusions.
Earnest
-
reniaa
Thankyou jgnat :) its an interesting faith had me thinking about the not needing church thing, they are small :) but they seem to follow the be kind and loving to all line :) which is appealing.
acck berylblue I guess you'll just have to learn not to be so suspicious! I may have jump in feet first but I'm not posting any more personal topics/threads until I've learned more on this forum and only post on a couple of others topics that interest me.....very untroll-like.
-
real one
In defence of the witnesses any religion wanting to go back to a grass roots literalist view of the bible would have to change a massive amount from modern christianity. But not so much in their defence I think they are too strict which reflects a more old testament style than jesus's words style (although I'm still exploring how christian church was in Paul's time when they had to put into practise what jesus tought, making their own decisions on circumcism etc on principles rather than anything jesus said on the subject because he didn't lol)
when i mentioned change concerning the jw i meant downright flip flops and lies...one day you should worship Jesus the next day you should not...one day you celebrate christmas the next day you should not....one day you cant get a blood transfusion but if you live in Bulivia you can get one....i could go on and on but why you have obviously made up your mind you need them so I look at it like when Moses went to get the Ten Commandments, people started listening to men and forgot about God...yes they worshipped but it was clearly not Jehovah God
-
Pickled
That's interesting that the "be kind and loving to all" notion is a "line" to you. Now those are the true words of disdain from a genuine JW. It is usually said with an arrogant grimace. After all, there is no greater act of love than shaming an individual and abandoning them in an effort to get them to see that they should have never doubted the lies in pursuit of "the truth." Which brings us back to the endeavor to understand the nature of God himself, the one who the JW claim calls Himself "love." It also parallels the definition that the JW claim sets them apart from all the other religions; that "love" they have for one another. Interesting notion of love that almost one million people in 5 years decided they would rather live without.
It is one thing to solicit the thoughts of others, and completely another to search for the mind of God. The site you chose to ask your question is interesting. You're asking the people on this forum if you should place all of your faith once again in the WTBTS, and could they please tell you all of their reasons why they think you should or should not. You especially want to have discussions about crosses, literal flooding, and feelings of close friendship that seems to exist nowhere else but inside of a Kingdom Hall. It seems that you need to be intellectually engaged and would like nothing better than for as many people as possible to dive in with debates, research, opinions, and evidence that disproves every one of the basic and key doctrines of the JW that you have included so far; points they happened to become well versed in their first year of becoming a JW. Points that you are still debating as a 3rd generation JW. It seems you have a tremendous need to find out for yourself. Nothing wrong with that at all.
There is an obvious quality among many of the people in this forum that you have completely overlooked. The fact that you have, I personally think would actually make you shine as the ideal Witness. That quality is Pain. What they experienced at the hands of that “warm hearted” religion was, above all, painful. It left them bruised. It hurt.
When lying is incorporated as a tool for obtaining “the truth,” that contradiction put into practice can become quite painful. Yes, even intellectually painful. I think what you are looking for is a professor who will continue his lecture even while your hair is on fire.
If you consider yourself an independent and highly intellectual thinker then you will need to drastically change some things about your basic identity before you head back to the Hall. You said that you have been to other sites and have debated and discussed ideas and theories. You either need that or you simply enjoy it, and either of those reasons is perfectly fine. I love discussing ideas too. Very, very much. I need that. I need to let my mind go and explore. I need to know that I have exhausted all avenues and have considered all sides. I don’t trust anything less than that. It’s comforting to me to exercise my reasoning abilities and to apply logic to a question.
That’s one of the main reasons why I decided to not become a Witness. -
real one
The Witness Goes Out on you tube! watch it, parts 1-5
-
Leolaia
Earnest....I would also clarify that the substitution of the name YHWH with "Lord", "God", "Name", etc. was not just a rabbinical or Pharisee thing but was a much older practice in Judaism, found among the (Hellenistic) Jews of Alexandria as well. I refer, of course, to the (Old Greek) Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, which systematically replaces yhwh with kurios "Lord". This translation began to be produced in Egypt in the third century BC. Since there are some Palestinian MSS from the first century BC that do have the tetragrammaton replacing kurios, and since these are among the oldest extant MSS we have, the Society argues that yhwh must have been original to the LXX. But in fact, that is not our earliest evidence of the LXX. Still older witnesses to the text, such as the citation of Exodus 9:3 LXX in Aristobulus (second century BC) and the citation of Deuteronomy 7:18-19 in the Letter of Aristeas (second century BC), demonstrate that the LXX originally lacked the tetragrammaton in these passages. Other writings from the same Alexandrian provenance as the LXX show the same pattern of substitution by using kurios as the usual term for God, cf. Wisdom 4:17-18, 9:13 (first century BC), 2 Maccabees 2:8, 3:33, etc. (first century BC), Joseph and Asenath 6:2-7, 12:1-13:15, 21:10-21, etc. The same is the case with the use of onoma "Name" in Sirach 23:10 and Wisdom 14:21. Even more striking is the use of kurios in Philo of Alexandria (first century AD), who not only incorporates it in his OT quotations from the LXX but also explicitly comments on the use of this word, cf. De Abrahamo 121 (which utilizes Exodus 3:14-15 LXX, where Philo notes: hierais graphais kuriói onomati ho ón ), De Plantatione 85-86 (which utilizes Genesis 21:33 LXX, and Philo notes: to onoma kuriou theos aiónios), and De Plantation 89-90 (where the author utilizes Genesis 28:21 LXX).
Indeed, internal evidence from the translation itself indicates that the tetragrammaton was probably not original to the LXX. The commandment in Leviticus 24:16 LXX explicitly forbids the "naming" of the name of God, and the substitution of kurios in this very text is a logical consequence of this:
MT: "He that curses (nqb) the name of Yahweh (yhwh), he shall surely be put to death".
LXX: "But he that names (onomazón) the name of the Lord (kuriou), let him die the death".
4QLXXLev b (which is an exemplar of the OG and is not representative of the kaige revision) has the oral form Iaó in Leviticus but it is improbable that this is original since this would have done exactly what Leviticus 24:16 LXX prohibited -- it would have named the name of the Lord. On paleographic grounds, the use of Iaó in this text is also thought to represent a secondary addition to the manuscript itself.
Internal evidence also shows that yhwh was already missing in the copies of the LXX used by the writers of the NT, particularly Paul. It was this substitution with kurios that facilitated the frequent application of OT verses to Jesus that originally referred to yhwh. The NWT's interpolation of "Jehovah" in these passages is not only unwarranted, but it completely obscures the rhetorical points made by the author (unless of course the reader of the NWT understands that Jesus is Jehovah). These instances of OT allusion and citation in the Pauline letters is quite decisive that kurios was original to Paul and not a form of yhwh:
Romans 10:9-13: "That if you confess (homologésés) with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord (kurios),' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (sóthésé). For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess (homologeiti) for salvation (sótérian). As the Scripture says, 'Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame'. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile -- he is the same Lord (kurios) of all (pantón) and richly blesses all (pantas) who call (epikaloumenos) on him for (gar, indicating a logical relation), 'Everyone (pas) who calls (epikalesétai) on the name of the Lord (kuriou) will be saved (sóthésetai)".
Altered text: "That if you confess (homologésés) with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord (kurios),' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (sóthésé). For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess (homologeiti) for salvation (sótérian). As the Scripture says, 'Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame'. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile -- he is the same Lord (kurios) of all (pantón) and richly blesses all (pantas) who call (epikaloumenos) on him for (gar, indicating a logical relation), 'Everyone (pas) who calls (epikalesétai) on the name of Jehovah will be saved (sóthésetai)".
Here Paul uses Joel 2:32 LXX as a prooftext supporting his argument that the confession of Jesus as Lord brings salvation. Notice the use of gar to connect the OT intertext to his argument which in the previous sentence he referred to Jesus as the same "Lord" (kurios) of all (pantón) and who blesses all (pantas) who call (epikaloumenos) on him. This uses the original language of intertext (i.e. the words pas, epikalesétai, and understanding sóthésetai as a form of blessing) in his own argument, which supports his main assertion that if you confess that Jesus is Lord (kurios), you will be saved (sóthésé). This latter word also reflects the use of Joel 2:32 LXX. Throughout kurios is the central word, for it is part of the declaration that brings salvation according to the scripture. Unless Jesus is understood as "Jehovah", the argument would make no sense if this name is interpolated in the scriptural citation.
Romans 14:8-11: "If we live (zómen), we live (zómen) to the Lord (kurió); and if we die (apothnéskómen), we die (apothnéskómen) to the Lord (kurió). So, whether we live or die (zómen te apothnéskómen), we belong to the Lord (kuriou). For this very reason (eis touto, indicating the logical relation), Christ died (apethanen) and returned to life (ezésen) so that he might be the Lord (kurieusé, notice that this is a verb) of both the dead and the living (i.e. everyone). You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all (pantes) stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live (zó),' says the Lord (kurios), 'every (pan) knee will bow before me; every (pasa) tongue will confess to God' ".
Altered text: "If we live (zómen), we live (zómen) to Jehovah; and if we die (apothnéskómen), we die (apothnéskómen) to Jehovah. So, whether we live or die (zómen te apothnéskómen), we belong to the Jehovah. For this very reason (eis touto, indicating the logical relation), Christ died (apethanen) and returned to life (ezésen) so that he might be the Lord (kurieusé, notice that this is a verb) of both the dead and the living (i.e. everyone). You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all (pantes) stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 'As surely as I live (zó),' says Jehovah, 'every (pan) knee will bow before me; every (pasa) tongue will confess to God' ".
Here Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 LXX in support of his argument that Christ (who died and returned to life) is the Lord over both the living and the dead. Interpolating "Jehovah" here breaks the connection between Christ's lordship over the "living and dead" and the lordship of the "Lord" (kurios) over "every knee and every tongue", as well as obscuring the connection between Christ "coming to life" in order to become Lord (kurieuó) and Christians who "live for the Lord" (cf. the same verb zó in the quotation in which kurios declares that he "lives"). The verbal kurieuó "to be Lord" is a clear proof of the originality of kurios here. The interpolation of "Jehovah" in the NWT in the places indicated here thus obscures the sense of the text.
1 Corinthians 1:28-31: "He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast (mékaukhésétai) before God. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus (en Khristó Iésou), who has become for us wisdom (sophia) from God, that is, righteousness (dikaiosuné), holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts (ho kaukhómenos) boast (kaukhasthó) in the Lord (en kurió)' ".
Altered text: "He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast (mékaukhésétai) before God. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus (en Khristó Iésou), who has become for us wisdom (sophia) from God, that is, our righteousness (dikaiosuné), holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts (ho kaukhómenos) boast (kaukhasthó) in Jehovah' ".
This is another instance in which Paul uses the language of an intertext in his argument. He paraphrases Jeremiah 9:23-24 LXX which supplies additional language used in his argument: "The Lord (kurios) says this, 'Let not the wise man boast (mé kaukhausthó) in his wisdom (en té sophia autou), and let not the strong man boast in his strength (en té iskhui autou), and let not the rich man boast in his wealth (en to ploutó autou), but let him who boasts (ho kaukhómenos) boast (kaukhasthó) in this (en toutó), the understanding and knowing that I am the Lord (egó eimi kurios) that exercise mercy, judgment, and righteousness (dikaiosunén) upon the earth, for in these things is my pleasure' ". What is relevant here is that being en kurio "in the Lord" is what may be boasted about and the antecedent for this in the argument is Paul's statement that you are "in Christ Jesus" (en Khristó Iésou), who is the focus of the preceding sentence (notice, for instance, that in Jeremiah one must not boast in one's wisdom, whereas Christians may boast "in Christ Jesus" and he is their "wisdom"). The thread of the argument is broken when Jehovah is interpolated here, unless it is understood that Jehovah and Christ Jesus are the same thing.
1 Corinthians 2:15-16: "A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value is not to be judged by other men. For (gar, indicating the logical relation), 'Who can know (tis egnó) the mind of the Lord (noun kuriou), so who can teach him?' But we have the mind of Christ (noun Khristou)".
Altered text: "A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value is not to be judged by other men. For (gar, indicating the logical relation), 'Who can know (tis egnó) the mind of Jehovah, so who can teach him?' But we have the mind of Christ (noun Khristou)".
Here Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13 LXX (tis egnó noun kuriou), applying the language in a way that indicates that he regarded the "mind of the Lord" as the "mind of Christ". The disjunct emphasizes not the contrast between the mind of Christ and the mind of the Lord (which for him are the same) but between needing to be TAUGHT the mind of the Lord and HAVING the mind of the Lord. That is his overall point in the chapter, that one has the "hidden wisdom of God" not by philosophy (which is taught) but by having the "spirit of God" which itself instructs (cf. 2:7, 11-12). The insertion of "Jehovah" here obscures the point being made, unless again it is understood that Jesus Christ is Jehovah.
Colossians 3:22-24: "Slaves, obey your earthly lords (kuriois) in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and fearing the Lord (phoboumenoi ton kurion). Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord (ergazesthe hós tó kurió), not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord (apo kuriou) as a reward. It is the Lord Christ (tó kurió Khristó) you are serving (douleuete)".
Altered text: "Slaves, obey your earthly lords (kuriois) in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and fearing Jehovah. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for Jehovah, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from Jehovah as a reward. It is the Lord Christ (tó kurió Khristó) you are serving (douleuete)".
Here Paul is echoing the admonition in 2 Samuel 12:14 LXX: "You should fear the Lord (phobéthéte ton kurion) and serve him (douleuséte autó)" (with parallels in Deuteronomy 6:13, Joshua 24:14, and other texts). Recognizing the biblical allusion in the text, the NWT replaces kurios with "Jehovah" throughout this passage except for tó kurió Khristó "Lord Christ" where obviously the reference is to Christ. But in fact that allusion would extend there as well since the verb douleuete "you shall be serving" is allusive as well. Interestingly, the NWT uses the word "Master" here for kurios instead of the usual "Lord" (which occurs a few verses earlier in v. 20), presumably because of the theme of slavery. Moreover, the admonition to slave for the Lord Christ in v. 24 is obviously connected with the admonition to "work for the Lord ... with all your heart" in the preceding verse; there is no reason to expect a switch in reference here. Finally, the originality of kurios in this passage in indicated by the earthly kuriois that are intended to contrast with the heavenly kurios that all Christians are supposed to serve.
Several other examples come to mind. In 2 Corinthians 3-4, Paul uses the example of Moses's shining face which had to be veiled to contrast the difference between freedom in Christ and the Law, such that the veil is over the minds of those who read the Law whereas it is lifted for those who are in Christ (3:14). Paul goes on to say that "with our unveiled faces we reflect like mirrors the brightness of the Lord (kuriou), all growing brighter and brighter as we are turned into the image that we reflect, this is the work of the Lord (kurios) who is Spirit" (3:18). The NWT inserts "Jehovah" in both places here. But Paul clearly has Christ in mind, for he goes on to refer to the veil over the minds of unbelievers who cannot "see the light shed by the good news of the glory of Christ" which is "the glory on the face of Christ" (4:4, 6). The "glory on the face of Christ" (prosópó Khristó) is the clear parallel to the brightness on the "face of Moses" (prosópon Móuseós) in 3:7. An even clearer example of arbitrariness is the references to the "cup of the Lord" (potérion kuriou) in 1 Corinthians 10:21 and 11:27. Both occur in discussions of the Eucharist (cf. 10:16-17, 11:23-26) and have in mind the cup of wine representing Christ's blood. Yet the NWT in the first passage has "cup of Jehovah" while in the second has "cup of the Lord", when they clearly refer to the same thing. The Society apparently replaces kurios with "Jehovah" in the first instance because v. 22 (é parazéloumen ton kurion "Or are we inciting the Lord to jealousy") directly follows which paraphrases Deuteronomy 32:21 LXX: "They have incited me to jealousy (autoi parezélósan me, cf. v. 19 which says that kurios ezélóse "the Lord was jealous") with that which is not God". So because 1 Corinthians 10:22 has a biblical allusion, the NWT uses "Jehovah" there and extends the name backward into v. 21, hence "cup of Jehovah". Yet they cannot be consistent and have "cup of Jehovah" in the next chapter because not only is there no intertext there, but the same verse refers to "body and blood of the Lord" and the previous verse refers to "the death of the Lord," both clearly having Christ in view. Of course, Christ is also in view in the parallel in ch. 10 for the "cup of the Lord" in 10:21 has as its antecendent the "cup of blessing" that bears "the blood of Christ" (10:16). This perfectly illustrates how inserting "Jehovah" in the NT creates all sorts of problems in the text.
The central issue in this discussion however should always be the fact that no textual authority exists for "Jehovah" or the tetragrammaton itself in the NT, and thus the NWT not only departs from all the textual witnesses in its interpolation of "Jehovah" in the NT but it also did so on an arbitrary basis. Yes, it is indeed possible than in some cases, the actual copy of the LXX used by an author of an NT book may have had the tetragrammaton in it, but this possibility should not be used as a basis for translation. There is zero attestation of the tetragrammaton or variant thereof in any NT manuscript, regardless of date. Every instance of "Jehovah" in the NWT-NT contradicts 100% of the extant Greek witnesses of the text in question. The Hebrew "J versions" are not witnesses of a text that originally had YHWH since all of these (like the NWT) are based on the same manuscripts that had "Lord" instead of the name. The way the Society cites these "J versions" in the critical apparatus of the NWT Reference Edition alongside legitimate textual witnesses imho is disingenuous, but that is a separate matter. What I would like to point out is that BECAUSE we have no textual witnesses of the original use of the tetragrammaton in the NT, its insertion in the NT is necessarily done on an ad hoc arbitrary basis. Did all books utilize a form of the LXX that had the divine name, or only some of them? The Society assumes that the name appeared in the version of the LXX used by MOST writers of the NT (as the name is subsequently interpolated in 20 out of the 27 books of the NT), yet the internal evidence from Paul indicates at least that he knew and used kurios. Do you insert "Jehovah" only in direct quotations from the OT, or do you also do it in looser allusions? How about discussion in the immediate context of the quotation? How about in cases where no allusion to the OT exists at all? There are examples of each of these in the NWT. Even if the name did originally appear in the autographs of the NT, it is impossible to tell precisely which instances of kurios are really examples of YHWH and which originally belonged to the text. And I believe the above examples show that once you begin to insert "Jehovah" where you think it ought to be, you potentially create new problems with the text.
-
watson
Leo, I love it when you do that!
-
Leolaia
Oh yeah, I forgot one more thing....The LXX rendering of Leviticus 24:16 is alluded to in these passages from Philo and Josephus who, if it must be recalled, were not rabbinical Jews but were especially Hellenized:
"After these things the architect of the tabernacle next prepared a sacred dress for him who was to be appointed high priest, having in its embroidery a most exceedingly beautiful and admirable work....and a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having four names engraved on it which may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and their tongues purified by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatever.... for none of the disciples of Moses would ever become accustomed of treating the name of God with disrespect, for that name is always most deserving to obtain the victory, and is especially worthy of love. But if any one were, not only blaspheme against the Lord of gods and men, but were even to dare to utter his name unseasonably, he must endure the punishment of death" (Philo, Vita Mosis 2.109, 114, 205-206).
"Since Moses had seen and heard these wonders that demonstrated the truth of God's promises, he had no luxury of disbelieving them. He sought to have God's power when he would be in Egypt and sought to learn the knowledge of his own name, and as a result he heard and saw him and God told him his name, so that when he offerred sacrifice he might invoke him by his name in his oblations. So God disclosed his holy name, which had never been discovered by men before, concerning which it is unlawful for me to say anything more" (Josephus, Antiquities 2.275-276).
-
watson
Can I carry your books?