No form of the divine name appears in the New Testament in the original Greek. In the NWT it's there several hundred times where the original text had Kyrios (properly translated lord). What gives the translators of the NWT the right to make those changes?
*REASON* itself gives them the right! Being that it's an indisputable fact that God does have a personal name (made so very prominent in the Hebrew Scriptures), and for that name then to be conspicuously absent from the Greek Scriptures gives "reason" to know that the Greek Text needs reworking, particularly in those cases where there is a direct quotation from the Hebrew in which the Tetragrammaton appears. This is what the NWT committee faithfully did, with my appreciation. We should expect no less out of ANY translator, wouldn't you say?
...and for that name then to be conspicuously absent from the Greek Scriptures gives "reason" to know that the Greek Text needs reworking...,
And yet, the WTBS maintains that God ensured that the scriptures were faithfully maintained and allways exactly what they were supposed to be... and that the writers were inspired of God to write them to begin with... yet the WTBS has the audacitiy to question the original writers and translaters while making these statemtents....
You also did not address my questions..... not that i am really concerned with your answers.
Translators are irresponsible when they replace the Tetragrammaton with another word ("LORD") that veils the fact that God has a personal name.
So is it also true that translators are just as irresponsible when they replace the Tetragrammaton with any name that may/may not be God's personal name?
I touched on this a little earlier, when I referred to You Know's post which provided good reason to be content that the name "Jehovah" contains the correct vowels.
Is it just as irresponsible when the translators insert bracketed words "[other]" that do not appear in the original text, and only serve to change the original intended meaning of a passage?
You do understand, do you not, that the use of brackets themselves are an admission that the word enclosed has been added to complete the sense of a passage, as the translator understands the passage? Where is the dishonesty in that?
It needs reworking? But isn't it the inspired word of God? How can it need reworking, and what gives anyone the right to rework it and call himself a translator? The earliest extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain any form of the divine name. None of them! Anywhere! Surely if God had wanted it there, it would be there.
You do understand, do you not, that the use of brackets themselves are an admission that the word enclosed has been added to complete the sense of a passage, as the translator understands the passage? Where is the dishonesty in that?
Actually, many translators would use footnotes in that case, so as to preserve the original text. The "dishonesty" occurs when there is no justification for the words other than the translaters INTERPETATION of a specific passage. This is where translation and interpetation differ. In the case of the WTBS and the NWT, it is has been clearly shown that the translators BIAS (torward a specific theology) was in full force when adding these additional words, thereby intentionally changing the meanings of the texts. The Dishonesty comes later, when it becomes evident that NO TRANSLATION can be "trusted" to be accurate.
(Note: I am not saying that the NWT is the only translation guilty of this, it just happens to be the topic at hand.)
You're what is called "a hopeless case".
The same statement applies to you. The difference is my faith does not depend on the Bible or any "earthly organization" for support. In fact, my faith exists despite the best efforts of others, like you, to trounce it.
PS, Friday, noticed I remembered to say they "Sanctify his name."
For a while there, they were confused and thought they had to "Vindicate" his name.
Now, of course, the God whose name they don't know has informed them it is not necessary for them to VINDICATE his name (he will do that himself, apparently) All they need to do is SANCTIFY his name.
Putting LORD in place of the tetragramatton does not change the meaning of the text.
That statement of yours has got to take 1st place in a contest of stupidest things said. "LORD" is a title for God, not his name. "LORD" speaks of what he is, not who he is.
We all know which deity the bible is referring to when it uses the term [LORD].
See above.
And to top it off, in every bible translation I have read, the translators always make it clear that the term LORD is a substitute for the Tetragramatton, which could be pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah, but which pronounciation is not truly known (hence the reason for the term LORD).
Don't you think that they could just as easily have left the Tetragrammaton in (just leaving it untranslated) instead of mistranslating it as "LORD", thereby making it clear to the reader that the 4 untranslated letters represent God's name in Hebrew? Instead you give them a pat on the back for going at it in an illogical way.
