Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures?

by Spike Tassel 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  reniaa

  hi hint of line

  You must realise all of the hebrew scriptures didn't have vowels, that was how it was written, they did have ways if indicating the sounds but not with letters. they just allowed these hints to be lost in regards to God's name but the important thing is when Moses wrote in hebrew YHWH was exactly what he wrote. So vowel usage is just the icing on the cake and doesn't change that YHWH is exactly God's written personal name.

  Your assuming that 'taking name in in vain' means simply speaking it and the jews eventually fell for this wrong reasoning too but this isn't the truth at all, since 7000 times in the hebrew scriptures both for speaking, reading and singing disprove this. the Jewish superstition was something that came afterwards like their condemned oral laws by Jesus.

  There is absolutely no indication when looking at the hebrew scriptures that using god's name was in any way condemned, this is a later thing.

  And that is the point! assumptions based on our own reasonings against clear evidence of usage would be foolish.

  Jesus was often called a blasphemer so his using god's name could have been part of this, I personally go this way but both your and mine judgement are then speculation and so inadmissable as evidence. All we know is Jesus happily quoted and spoke hebrew scripture indicating no condemnation of using his Father's name.

  FACT - at the time of writing God's personal name was freely used and spoken

  Fact - Jews and then christians removed God's actual written name from the hebrew scriptures nearly 7000 times leaving no evidence it was ever there.

  If we are comparing wrongdoing 7000 times beats 237 everytime. but my own research on manuscripts throughout history lead me to think that while originally inspired the upkeep and purity of translations of God's word has been left to men to keep pure and original.

  Christendom is resistant to Jehovah beyond reason or logic and that for me is indicative of putting man-made doctrine before truth.

  Reniaa
• 

  HintOfLime

  assumptions based on our own reasonings against clear evidence

  Ah, well, that is why I really don't care for the bible, but rather I study and put to the test evolution. It has such marvelous evidence, and it's up to the test.

  FACT - at the time of writing God's personal name was freely used and spoken

  Fact - Jews and then christians removed God's actual written name from the hebrew scriptures nearly 7000 times leaving no evidence it was ever there.

  Uhh.. NOT FACT. Please provide supporting evidence.

  Christendom is resistant to Jehovah beyond reason or logic and that for me is indicative of putting man-made doctrine before truth.

  Ah, "truth". How can DNA evidence that we all decended from an ancestor shared with chimps... how can fossil evidence that we evolved... how can evidence that the earliest humans originated in africa... how can any of those facts hold up against "truth".

  JW's are resistant to established DNA, fossil, and radiologically confirmed facts... and that for me is indictive of putting mythical doctrine before truth.

  Explain to me how radio carbon dating across nearly a dozen different molecular compounds, is incorrect. And before you say 'the flood', tell me how being submerged underwater or exposed to a different level of solar radiation changes radioactive decay. You can't. You know why? Becuase you are ignorant.

  - Lime
• 

  reniaa

  hi hint of life

  Scientific fact changes from scientist to scientist, they used to say dinosaurs and mammals never lived together other than very small basic mammals until larger mammals were found with small dinosaurs eaten in their stomachs.

  Their history books have to be rewritten in that respect alone.

  I do not like to debate evolution I think it is ultimately unprovable because it is a faith on gathered evidence fitted into already preconcieved formula. So you already have the cognitive dissonance at work.

  Given the choice of two faiths I choose Jehovah.

  ATm they are all mad over Ervs until someone found anomilies and now they are trying to talk around the anomilies.

  I am no scientists but I do recognise Time used as a bandage to answer what they cannot discover or solve, things like species leaping which is impossible by any scientific examination today but they say well the changes can be small steps etc.

  I think eventually the greater depth of science will prove there is a God by disproving evolution as even a remote possibility but we are not at that time yet.

  Reniaa

  btw the evidense that YHWH was used 7000 times at the time of writting is proof enough of it's wide usage.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  to cabasilas: Since true Christians rely on both OT and NT as interdependent, then it follows that when Jesus spoke to Jehovah in prayer at John 17:6 that he had "made your name manifest", he was thus referring to the name of God that English-speaking Christians commonly call Jehovah, etc.
• 

  reniaa

  hi spike

  exactly, the only way to discount Jehovah is to deny hebrew scriptures as part of the bible. And you do find Jesus christians tend to avoid hebrew scriptures.

  Reniaa
• 

  jeeprube

  Scientific fact changes from scientist to scientist, they used to say dinosaurs and mammals never lived together other than very small basic mammals until larger mammals were found with small dinosaurs eaten in their stomachs.

  I do not like to debate evolution I think it is ultimately unprovable because it is a faith on gathered evidence fitted into already preconcieved formula. So you already have the cognitive dissonance at work.

  Your understanding of how science works is deplorable. Scientific fact does not change from scientist to scientist. What scientists regard as "fact" only changes when exhaustive and reproducible experimentation proves that it should.

  Evolution is not a "faith" nor is it even regarded as "fact" within the broad scientific community. It is merely the best explanation we currently have for what scientific facts have been gathered. To say that it is a "faith" is to reflect a true misunderstanding of how the scientific method actually works. No wonder the GB doesn't want its worshippers going to college.
• 

  donny

  I believe the divine name was in the OT and rendering it a Yahweh or Jehovah really is not the issue. The issue is; was the divine name used in the NT. As it stands now, the answer is no based on all of the scores of copies of ancient manuscripts of the NT that we have in our possesion. You don't see it the NT and you dont see it mentioned in the writings of the early church fathers and teh reason is simple, the name was not in use during that period which is why it is completely missing from the NT.

  To me it appears the folks of old began using Jehovah after the expulsion from the garden of Eden because a divide had been created between God and man. When Jesus reconciled mankind to God via his sacrifice, mankind became "the children of God" and now began calling him Father which denotes closeness.

  When you hear children address their parents by name, that denotes a distance or chasm exists between them, but when you hear father and even more so "daddy", that denotes a close bond between them. I believe those who follow God and who feel close to he/she/it should address him as father or mother whatever the case may be.

  For me, I find God often when playing Darl Side of the Moon in reverse.

  oobass abblas ashmob ynnod ladero mularoq
• 

  isaacaustin

  All available evidence shows the Tetragrammeton was never present in the NT. ALways interesting to ask a JW how they know they can trust the Bible. "Why, textual criticism has revealed that the Bible we now possess has remarkable, almost complete accuarcy to what was originally penned."

  How then could God's name have been removed? "Why, after the death of the apostles apostasy kicked in full swing. Scribes completely stamped Jehovah's name out of the NT"

  Two conflicting answers. If this is true what else has been removed? LW logic serves only to weaken ones trust in the Bible.

  One must also wonder why those nasty old apostates left the OT alone, and why after doing such a thorough job of stamping out Jehovah's name they left parts of it in Revelation- Hallellujah.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Just because the broad way has removed Jehovah's name when quoting from the OT, this doesn't mean that the narrow way is wrong by restoring Jehovah's name to its proper place.

  If someone is quoting from Joel 2:32, such as at Romans 10:13, it is most fitting that Jehovah's name appears, otherwise it is misquoted.

  You cannot have it both ways. If the name was "removed" then the NT was tampered with and it is not God's Word protected by God.
  Restoring requires proof that it was there to begin with. You fall into the trap that WTS has set. Why automatically assume that paraphrasing the OT must be an exact quote? If they didn't use the name, they didn't use it. If God "inspired" their paraphrase that didn't use the name, then leave it the way God wanted it.

  If God's ways are higher than man's ways, who the hell are you or anyone to decide what the "intent of the author" was? And remember that the real author, according to you, is God.
• 

  reniaa

  hi donni bit of personal reasoning but thats all it is, none of your conclusions are anything other than personal speculation. And bibliclly unsound just by refering to the lords prayer when Jesus says 'let your name be sanctified' you are seeing a reference that shows God's name is still loved by Jesus. and even if you allow that we say Father more (although the prolific use of Lord rather than father in the Nt would preclude this on that point alone, as the title 'Lord' is definately not as personal as father or Jehovah) It doesn't stop YHWH being his actual name and therefore not to be wiped out, just because I am my daughters mum it doesn't me being (my personal name) as well). nice try though :) reniaa