The New World Translation Dirty Dozen...lurkers will love it!........ (page 4)

Leolaia

The Society counts the abbreviation for ha-Shem as an instance of the tetragrammaton (I'm not sure why since it is a surrogate in the same way that kurios is), justifying the rendering of kurios as "Jehovah". That is what is used in Shem-Tob Matthew, which is reckoned as J 2 .

Notice that the KIT misrepresents the facts on Shem-Tob:

"The Shem Tob version of Matthew was made about A.D. 1385. When coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared, the translators into Hebrew had no other recourse than to render ky'rios or theos' back into its original Tetragrammaton form . Thus in that early Shem Tob version of Matthew the Tetragrammaton occurs 16 times" (p. 18).

I guess they thought that h' was an abbreviation for yhwh and not ha-Shem. This statement is missing from the 1985 edition of the KIT and a QFR in the 15 August 1997 Watchtower (p. 30) admits that the tetragrammaton is not found in Shem-Tob. But despite this, they continue to claim that Shem-Tob provides "support for employing the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures".

possible-san

Narkissos,

I saw your post and got the impressions that "you are a person who does not thank."

I think that it is more important than knowledge.
From now on, nobody may not need to teach you a link.

If there are any of your opinions about this, I will listen to it.

possible
http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/

Narkissos

Thank you possible-san.

slimboyfat

The Society counts the abbreviation for ha-Shem as an instance of the tetragrammaton (I'm not sure why since it is a surrogate in the same way that kurios is), justifying the rendering of kurios as "Jehovah".

Well you should know why. It is because the extant document was copied by a Jew from an earlier manuscript and Howard has made the argument that while the copyist wrote ha-Shem (perhaps because he felt it defiled the divine name to let it stand in a Christian document) the tetragram likely appeared in the copy he was using. Clearly the Watchtower writer made a mistake in the KIT but they explained the situation better in the later QFR.

I would really like to respond to your earlier message but I am not feeling well at the moment. I am sorry about that, but it was interesting reading anyway.

slimboyfat

I saw your post and got the impressions that "you are a person who does not thank."

I think that it is more important than knowledge.
From now on, nobody may not need to teach you a link.

If there are any of your opinions about this, I will listen to it.

I have never known Narkissos to be inconsiderate or unkind. I think it is just a misunderstanding.

quietlyleaving

slim i hope you feel better soon. Narkissos is a very kind gentleman and I'm glad he has a sense of humour

possible-san

slimboyfat,

Since he thanked to me, I do not want to say to you now.
In the future, he will thank to other persons.

If he has said "the word of appreciation" spontaneously even if I do not exert coercion, I think that I was probably gladder.
People do not only get impression by whether the person has knowledge.

possible
http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/

possible-san

It has written on the book "Insight" (published in 1988) as follows.

*** it-2 p. 10 Jehovah ***
But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ’E′ven bo′chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.

This explanation is not correct, either.

possible

The New World Translation Dirty Dozen...lurkers will love it!........

Share this