by ILoveTTATT 23 Replies latest jw friends
The script is a formal 'book hand' - for official texts, not everyday, cursive writing ... such as a personal letter to the congregation purports to be.
Now, if he knew in advance that this letter would form part of the religious book of letters and stories (known as The Holy Bible), then bookhand is appropriate.
Can't see any anachronism, is it something else?
Do tell, do tell
Bennyjk nailed it!!
To understand WHY this is such a massive fail:
http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/jehovah-new-testament.php
And
http://www.tetragrammaton.org/harshrealities.html
Particularly this part:
A JW was arguing this:
http://jehovah.125mb.com/ (1) [italics added] Howard`s argument is simple: We find the Tetragrammaton in some form in all "LXX" fragments before the second century CE. In the manuscripts from the second century we find KS with a horizontal stroke above (nomina sacra). Thus the text has been changed. In the NT manuscripts from the second century we also find KS with a horizontal stroke. Such an abbreviation could not have been in the autographs, so the text of the NT has also been changed. Ana analogous with the case of the "LXX", the change in the NT was from the tetragrammaton to KS.
So essentially, To excuse themselves in adding "Jehovah" to the NT, the JW's say that the NT manuscripts are corrupt. How do they "know" that the NT manuscripts are corrupt? Because of the "Nomina Sacra", or the abreviations. The picture in the Bible Stories book SUPPOSEDLY shows Paul and a scribe writing his letters. This, the Nomina Sacra, are supposedly not started until the late 2nd Century, and the picture shows it being written like that IN THE ORIGINALS!!
MASSIVE FAIL!!! The artist who drew this probably has no clue of the implications of his drawing...
ILTTATT
Got your point...details, but so important. I haven't actually gone through all this, I think the last time that I have open a Bible it was, 10 years ago!!! I got rid of NWT, cause is the worst translation you can get your hands on. Specially when you are Greek, and you see how they altered the meaning of the words in order to support their theology...
You know, you just reminded me of an idea I just had: Get the KIT (Interlinear Greek) and compare the Greek to the NWT in Greek!!
Yeah I really wonder how on Earth they can get Greek JW's? When it's so obvious... admitedly Koine greek is different than modern but not so much that Ego Eimi is "I have been"!
Well spotted, but it's a book for children, and how many JW Adults, even the rare few who have and apply any powers of critical thinking and independent thinking against their own beliefs, would even notice this in a hundred years? And considering that the scholar Howard does make speculations that tend to support the Watchtower's position, overall I would hardly put this in the category of MASSIVE fail.
Even the author of that tetragrammaton website acknowledges that it can be verified the tetragrammaton was used in the first century Christian community and the NT writers would have been familiar with it, but he then explains perfectly how using that to justify inclusion of the divine name in 237 places in the NWT only leads to terrible logic and harsh theological realities for the JW's, which he sums up as follows:
My closing comment to the reader who sent the material above is simply this: proofs that the Tetragrammaton was used during the first two hundred years of the Common Era has little bearing on its proper place in the Christian Scriptures. In fact, it can be easily verified that the Tetragrammaton was used in Hebrew and occult religious writings during that time period. The only evidence that would be conclusive in showing where the divine name should be included in the Christian Scriptures would be ancient Greek Christian Scripture manuscripts showing the exact location of the Tetragrammaton in specific verses.
Without that evidence, you have introduced the dilemma for yourself which would show that:
the New World Translation is unreliable because you must appeal to a higher authority than the best available Greek manuscripts in order to insert the word "Jehovah"
if all Tetragrammaton references in Hebrew versions were used, then Jesus would clearly be identified as Jehovah
according to your claims, your translation is based on unreliable manuscripts
your committee selected only 237 of a possible 307 Tetragrammaton references, and—by selecting some Tetragrammaton references and rejecting others—that your own New World Translation is just as biased as any "Trinitarian" Bible translation.
Every group runs a similar risk when using a specialized argument to defend a treasured position. Because everyone within that group agrees with the logic of their own argument, few take the time to evaluate the faulty implications of their own argument. On the other hand, that same argument which seems so logical to those "inside" may present realities arguing even more strongly against that same position to an observer on the outside. I am afraid that your argument that the Tetragrammaton was used in the first two centuries of the Common Era may present just that kind of dilemma for you in the five areas I have listed above.
It's interesting that the Watchtower Society's most recent defense of it's inclusion of the divine name in the NT, I recall makes no reference to the J Hebrew Versions to support the 237 inclusions, these having been thoroughly debunked by now as totally unjustifiable support for the Watchtower's spurious inclusions. Perhaps the Watchtower has now tacitly acknowledged this by going silent on the J versions due to the harsh dilemma created by cherry-picking from those versions, as the tetragrammaton.org author explains below?:
Reality #4
You have introduced a fourth reality which would be quite embarrassing to you as ones of Jehovah's Witnesses. Realizing that there are a large number of Tetragrammaton passages in Hebrew versions, you must permit an editorial committee to select which of the total 307 references you will use in your Bible. How then does this committee choose the 237 occurrences of Jehovah used in the New World Translation Christian Scriptures? What if there were actually 238 allowable Tetragrammaton references since both Romans 14:11 ( For it is written: "'As I live,' says Jehovah, 'to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.'" ) and Philippians 2:10-11 ( So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord [it could read "Jehovah"] to the glory of God the Father. ) use the words of Isaiah 45:21-24? Or should it be 239 occurrences of Jehovah because some Hebrew versions use the Tetragrammaton at Acts 26:14-15 ( But I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' [it says "Jehovah" in at least one Hebrew version] And the Lord [it says "Jehovah" in at least one Hebrew version] said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. )? On the other hand, maybe it should it be 240 occurrences of Jehovah because other Hebrew versions use the Tetragrammaton at 1 Peter 3:15 ( But sanctify the Christ as Lord [it says "Jehovah" in some Hebrew versions] in YOUR hearts. )? No, you have allowed this committee to select only 237 possibilities in order to prevent the problems you would encounter if any of these additional verses were translated with the name "Jehovah."
It must be obvious that had another committee for a "Trinitarian" New Testament translation used all 307 Hebrew version Tetragrammaton references, they could produce a translation which conclusively proved that Jesus was Jehovah...."
It's pretty clear from, eg, Philippians 2:10-11, that Paul probably chose to use the word Kyrios to deliberately create a God-like equivocation of Jesus with the OT God of the Jews in the minds of his pagan readers. This is an example of Paul becaming all things to all men in order to save some (1 Cor 9:19). In other words, he engaged in a form of pious fraud to gain as many converts as possible. (Paul did not even consult with the apostles in Jerusalem until after 3 years into his ministry.) Paul's theological agenda was to bring converts in from the heathen nations, and if it meant embellishing Jesus to make him more palatable to the pre-existing mythological beliefs of the pagans, then so be it.
Those god myth believing pagans in the Roman empire who believed in the dying and returning archetypal God like Dionysus and Mithras would not believe in anything less than a similar divine God-like being who died and was resurrected. An itinerant Jewish Messiah who was just a man that came back to life just didn't cut it for the pagans, Jesus needed to be on an equal status with God himself. Nor would seeing Jewish letters of the tetragrammaton have meant anything to Paul's heathen converts in his letters, hence he deliberately used Kyrios instead of the tetragrammaton or any variation thereof, to create in his pagan readers mind the association of Jesus with the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Doesn't necessarily mean Paul believed Jehovah was Jesus at all, Paul just did this to intentionally make the Jesus account appealing and readable to his heathen myth-God believing audiences and congregations of non-Jewish converts.
....Very simply, if the original writers understood Jesus to be fully identified as having the prerogatives and attributes of Jehovah, they could have conveyed that idea clearly to their readers by using the Septuagint word Kurios (Lord) for both Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus as Lord of the Christian Scriptures. Had the original writers used this one word to alternately identify both Jehovah and Jesus, it would have conveyed a very strong message to the first century readers."
