LV101 - "...it was a learned behavior..."
Kinda like "Praise Jesus"? 
The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name
by slimboyfat 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Vidiot
-
ILoveTTATT2
SBF... cool investigation. But I think you are missing the biggest point of it all. This very topic led me out of the witnesses... and turned me atheist.
Let's say JW's are right in this: The original NT had a form of the Divine Name in it, but later it was removed.
What does that say of the Bible?Well, it shows that there is absolutely no way that anyone should ever trust the Bible.
Let's say JW's are wrong in this (impossible to do as it stands because it implies denying a negative), the original NT never had any form of the Divine Name in it. The LXX having forms of the Divine Name was just a historical oddity, but all copies past the 3rd century didn't have any form of the Divine Name.
It also shows that there is absolutely no way that anyone should ever trust the Bible.
The evidence you have shown up to this moment is that the early LXX and the late LXX are different in a very important respect: the Divine Name was removed from all copies.
THIS ALONE should be a huge red flag.
The best complete or close to complete copies of the LXX are in the same book as 3 of the best and oldest complete copies of the NT.
The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus all contain a copy of the complete Bible in Greek, and are from the 4th/5th centuries...
So they contain a corrupt (according to you) copy of the LXX and a complete copy of the NT.
They were in most likelyhood made by the same people. So if there is a doubt as to the "purity" of 2/3 of the entire text of these Bibles... then why think that the NT text wasn't corrupted in some other way (this applies both to YHWH being there originally or some other way)?
You just threw away the belief in the entire NT, as the Great Uncial Codices (there are 4, but the last one doesn't have the LXX) are our best and earliest copies of the NT.
That's one major point... I will make another in another post. -
Ruby456
and in addition to ILOVETTATT2 above, assuming that early jewish Christians did use the divine name during the first and second century AD why did more emphasis come to be on Jesus during later centuries till Jehovah was dropped (assuming it was slowly dropped)?
edit: and why did Rutherford make the move he did to take on the divine name?
-
ILoveTTATT2
Another aspect that in 21 pages has been barely considered:
The J versions.
Let's suppose, again, that SBF is correct. The NT originally had a form of the Divine Name in it. There is ONE manuscript found, from the 1st or 2nd century, which has YHWH in Hebrew, or IAO... or something that clearly shows the Divine Name instead of KY...
Ok. Great. This would again imply that the Bible is corrupt in its entirety... For almost 2000 years the text of the NT has been based on a corrupt version where the Divine Name was removed in its entirety.
But there is more. Definitely this manuscript would allow the witnesses to put "Jehovah" ONLY IN THAT SPOT.
Suppose the manuscript found is of Matthew 22:43-44, and it actually reads like the NWT:(Matthew 22:43, 44) 43 He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?
Woah. That would be an AMAZING "vindication" of Jehovah's Witnesses. But... like I've said before... it would still keep me an atheist. The rest of the Bible has been shown to have been corrupted. But let's forget about that for a moment.
There would still be 236 places where all other manuscripts found (over 5000) say "Lord" or "God".
...
Now... let's change this scenario up a bit. They find a manuscript from the 3rd century that is from a different part of the NT and it reads like this:
(Acts 9:5) 5 He asked: “Who are you, Lord? And IAO/YHWH said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Now what? Instead of vindicating JW's, it would vindicate all other Christian religions. It would be DIRECT PROOF of the Trinity! (or at least that Jesus is Jehovah).
Well...
This is exactly how one of the J versions reads (J7 to be exact, J7 Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.)
Notice how the Hebrew version has YHWH and the Spanish (and in fact, the other 11 languages) have "Lord" in that verse.
As Paul repeatedly has told you, the presentation of this topic is EXTREMELY DISHONEST in WT literature.
The J versions are in their majority extremely trinitarian. They explicitly and in many places say that YHWH is Jesus.
But the witnesses have used the J versions selectively to end up with a very non-trinitarian Bible that, nonetheless, has "Jehovah" wherever they please. Particularly in places where it would diminish Jesus' divinity. -
Ruby456
Ilovettatt2, I think it is down to whether or not you consider the bible a source of divine authorship or of divine inspiration. If it's source is divine inspiration then a number of contradictory things could be enjoyed and felt to be truth that could not be supported by claims of divine authorship.
-
slimboyfat
Thanks ILoveTTATT2 for your thoughtful responses.
I wonder if you've read my response to Laika on page 9 on the subject of corruption of the text. One response to a corrupt text is to say it can't be inspired. But another possible possible response is to say that God has restored it in his due time. I'm not making a strong argument for this view. What I'm saying is that it's a possible way of looking at the situation for those who maintain both the divine name and the inspiration of the text.
It is not mentioned often enough in the debate, that the earliest NT copies contain nomina sacra KS and so on, not Kyrios in full. Yet most apparently believe Kyrios stood in the original. So in fact, when you think about it, both JWs and their opponents agree that the earliest NT manuscripts don't match the originals when it comes to Kyrios/YHWH/Iao. Where they differ is in whether KS replaced Kyrios or replaced YHWH or Iao. Something definitely happened between the production of the autographs and the earliest extant copies of the NT in relation to scribal treatment of Kyrios and other nomina sacra. The question is what happened and why. I think explantion that the divine name was removed (as it was from the LXX) is the best explanation.
And you are certainly correct about some of the J Bibles equating Jesus and Jehovah. They were produced by Trinitarians so it should be no surprise. That opens a can of worms for the WT because of how they present the issue. It doesn't affect the likelihood of the divine name in the NT. I'm certainly not here to defend every dubious statement the WT has ever made on this subject (including the use of J references).
-
ILoveTTATT2
Hi SBF, yes, I did read it. I dislike it because you are moving the goalposts.I wonder if you've read my response to Laika on page 9 on the subject of corruption of the text. One response to a corrupt text is to say it can't be inspired. But another possible possible response is to say that God has restored it in his due time. I'm not making a strong argument for this view. What I'm saying is that it's a possible way of looking at the situation for those who maintain both the divine name and the inspiration of the text.
Believers can move the goalposts all they like and it pisses me off. I like to work with what is in evidence, but I will indulge the believer's point of view for a moment.
If the believers' point of view is true, then my response would be "then God is an asshole."
He makes the text, then allows it to be corrupt, then chooses one group out of thousands of others and makes them say false prophecies, and interpret the Bible wrongly regarding blood, needlessly shortening thousands of people's lives... BUT... BUT He makes them pull "Jehovah" out of thin air and place it EXACTLY where it's supposed to go in the NT of the NWT... 237 places. Completely out of thin air, because He allowed all autographs to be lost and EVERY SINGLE COPY SINCE has had "Jehovah" removed and the copies with "Jehovah" have never been found.
And He expects you to believe that this group is the one and true religion, and condemns you to eternal nothingness/horribly painful death because you didn't believe in this one group.
Seriously dude? Seriously? -
ILoveTTATT2
I guess in a nutshell you are saying:
If the Witnesses are right about this topic, then God must be giving them their support.
Um... a broken clock is right twice a day. Remember, they mentioned 1914, a huge event happened in 1914, and for many that don't investigate further, that is enough to believe in the Witnesses. But you know better SBF. You know about 1925, 1975, 2000, the generation... etc...
Same thing with this. Maybe... just maybe... Witnesses are right in their "gut feeling" that "Jehovah" was in the original NT.
Proof would only need to be an old enough manuscript of the NT (preferably 3rd century or earlier) with "IAO" or the tetragramaton in Hebrew...
With one manuscript, that would be sufficient to turn all of this from conjecture to a distinct possibility that JW's are completely right about this topic.
But then... to justify all 237 spots, manuscripts with IAO on those spots would have to be found... and that's a tall order...
Or maybe... like almost everything the Witnesses have done, maybe they're right about "Jehovah" being originally in the NT... but every single location where they placed it is wrong...That would totally crush your hypothesis that they being right about the name being in the NT is proof of their blessing from God. It would be proof again that a broken clock is right twice a day... and they just got lucky.
-
slimboyfat
There's certainly scriptural support for the idea.
2 Thess 2:6-11 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way... That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie
There's a difference between Jehovah doing something and allowing something to happen. (At least in JW theology there is a distinction between the two) Don't forget Satan hates the name and works against it. JWs already teach that true Christianity was submerged in Christendom for around 1800 years. The suppression of the name is a logical corollary.
Obviously I don't think Jehovah approves of all modern JWs have done just as he didn't approve every king or action of ancient Israel. Or that being a JW is necessary for survival.
-
cofty
Don't forget Satan hates the name and works against it.
Total fucking insanity!