This is my first post. I was a witness from 1971- 1976.Even though I was able to get out with no trouble (I moved to another town), I have always believed that it was the "truth". A few months ago, I started viewing jw sites on the internet. I now know that no way is this God's organization. I have been researching constantly for 6 months. I have a question that has stumped me. The witnesses will tell you that the early Christains, and King James changed the Bible. They removed Jehovah's name and changed it to Lord. Their own king linear translation shows Lord, not Jehovah. I asked a witness to explain why they didn't use the "correct" manuscript if in fact this one was wrong. He can only say that the early Christains "must" have removed the name, since it appears so many times in the old testament. I can get no other answer. Can this be true? If so, how do they justify blaming early Christains, and King James for changing the Bible? I have been on a "mission" to find the answer to this question. At this point, I believe the jw changed the name to Jehovah, and not the early christains.Does anybody have any information on this?
Need information please
by katybob 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
dungbeetle
From the book Reasoning From the Scriptures (1985, 1989) is this cult-originated drivel:
Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted..
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus' own attitude regarding his Father's name, Jesus' disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.-Compare John 17:6, 26.
_____________________________________________________________________There is no reason to believe that this reply actually asnwers the question it claims to answer.
Q: Did the first centruy Chrsitians use a personal name for God?
A: Well, they must have, surely...
<gag> <choke> <sputter>.
And one more thing, from this same Watchtower publication:
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote:....Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments." -Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.
So there you have the Watchtower's version.
And here is a link to a relevant freeminds page:
-
MacHislopp
Hello Katybob,
welcome on this board and thanks for your question.
The fastest way to get an "accurate " answer to your question,
with plenty of "proofs" would be to go the the "Freemind"
web link, shown on the bottom page. Then search for the
Greek scriptures - new testament - and God's name.
You'll find plenty of material.Greetings, J.C. MacHislopp
-
MacHislopp
Hello Katybob,
it's me again!
This is the web link:
http://home.europa.com/~lynnlund/itmidx2.htm
Have a nice and useful ...navigation time.
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
P.S. Hello Dungbeetle ...thanks for the quick quote.
-
dungbeetle
Great minds think alike Mac...
(((MacHislopp)))
-
Yerusalyim
Welcome to the Board kiddo.
THe JW's can not produce an ancient manuscript that contains the tetragramaton. I Suspect the early church followed the practice of the Jews of the time not to say the name of God, and if ya don't say it, you can get away with writing KYRIOS instead.
YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"] -
JosephMalik
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted..
Dungbeetle,
This is a good example where we should not believe everything we read even if the source is closer historically to the event in question. Looks real scholarly and impressive but? There is plenty of reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written. Why? Because Matthew used the expression “Kingdom of Heaven” where Luke who claimed accuracy in Gospel in identical texts used the expression “Kingdom of God.”
Matt. 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the <b>kingdom of heaven</b> is greater than he.
Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the <b>kingdom of God</b> is greater than he.
Also compare Matt. 19:14 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16. If Matthew a Levi would not even use the term God in such a phrase when quoting our Lord directly by what standard would we expect him to use the literal name of God when quoting from the Hebrew text? Jerome must have missed such facts. Sure, it is self evident that he followed Jewish practice of the time and avoided the term God as much as possible, but should anyone think that our Lord did that? Who then is wrong Matthew or Luke and Mark? There are many examples where the Apostles and disciples when quoting our Lord did not always quote exactly and sometimes paraphrased what He said in entire paragraphs. We should be aware of such facts as this does affect doctrine considerably in some cases such as when the Gentile Times begin and end.
Joseph -
Bang
If my Lord is Jesus, what's the argument? To christians in general it's not an issue, aside from the good reverence shown by using "Lord", as was the ancient custom and hopefully the future one also.
By making the argument, JWs have made scope for saying that others are the mislead evil and Jesus is not God, according to God - by a weight of numbers and times sighted thing, there's less times then that the Bible needs actual changes to suit their idea of God, so they can still use biblical scripture as their stated connection with the deity and maintain a following. I imagine that without the use of biblical scripture not many would stay in - they don't seem to use many other connectivities with God.
The name Jehovah is a construction using fill-in letters, and I wonder if it's no mistake that they have been handed this name as it has come more recently, from a Spanish monk I think. I'm so glad that they didn't use Yahweh, it sounds so nice. I've read that the hebrew meaning of 'hovah' is mischief."I AM" is the name that informs me and names.
So what is His true name in worship - Jehovah? or Father.Bang
