It is worth noting that it was specifically the rabbinical Jews who stopped pronouncing the divine name after the destruction of the second temple. The Karaites continued to use the divine name right up to the tenth century CE and even today. These were the Massoretes responsible for the writing of the Leningrad codex which is the primary basis for the Old Testament we now use.
Earnest
JoinedPosts by Earnest
-
44
A book on the pronunciation of God's Name
by Doug Mason ini am neither recommending nor rejecting the following book.
i am simply saying that i stumbled across it.
i have neither read it nor studied it.. search with: the name of god y.eh.ow.ah which is pronounced as it is written i eh ou ah its story gérard gertoux .
-
-
Earnest
-
15
The myth, lie that Christendom has hid Gods name, all of these Centuries.
by smiddy3 init has been well documented that jehovah`s witnesses have long claimed that christendom has hidden the name of god for centuries.. and that they alone have restored that name in the last century,.
making it known in all of the earth for a witness.. nothing could be further from the truth .. 1.justus martinus a 13th century spanish monk took the four hebrew letters of the tetragrammaton for gods name and added vowels to those consonants and came up with hebrew letters to english jhvh and the vowels he added e o a. which amounted to jehovah ,remember this was in the thirteenth century by a spanish catholic monk.. 2.this name persisted throughout the centuries to this day ,in many so of christendoms writings etc,etc.. 3.churches of christendoms religions throughout the world have the name jehovah in stone on them engraved since that 13th century .
4.in the 1970`s if i remember correctly their was an international convention held around the world in which the jw`s released a publication of the conventions and the churches of christendom to the delegates showing these churches many of which had the name jehovah engraved in stone on them.......centuries old churches.
-
-
Earnest
Regarding the avoidance of God's name within Christendom, it should be mentioned that a letter of June 29, 2008 was sent to Catholic bishops conferences around the world from the Vatican's top liturgical body, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, by an explicit "directive" of Pope Benedict XVI.
In this letter it concluded that the following directives are to be observed :
1) In liturgical celebrations, in songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton is neither to be used or pronounced.
2) For the translation of the Biblical text in modern languages, destined for the liturgical usage of the Church, what is already prescribed by n. 41 of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is to be followed; that is, the divine tetragrammaton is to be rendered by the equivalent of Adonai / Kyrios. "Lord", "Signore", "Seigneur", "Herr", "Senor", etc.
3) In translating, in the liturgical context, texts in which are present, one after the other, either the Hebrew term Adonai or the tetragrammaton YHWH, Adonai is to be translated "Lord" and the form "God" is to be used for the tetragrammaton YHWH, similar to what happens in the Greek translation of the Septuagint and in the Latin translation of the Vulgate.
Note 41 (c) of the Liturgiam authenticam says :
in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned "Septuagint" version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus [Lord], is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.
-
81
Evolution or Creation Poll
by Vanderhoven7 inevolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..
-
-
Earnest
I agree that was quote-mining, I was not previously familiar with that particular article although I was familiar with horizontal gene transfer and its implications.
The point I am making is not that the general principle of evolution is false, but that there is room for different views and that your insistence that it is your way or the highway is not compatible with the scientific method.
It is one thing to argue your case which you have done very thoroughly with your series on evolution, it is an altogether different thing to say that those who do not share your conclusions cannot be honest or objective.
-
81
Evolution or Creation Poll
by Vanderhoven7 inevolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..
-
-
Earnest
The principle that everything evolved from a single common ancestor is based on genetics, the vertical transmission of DNA from parent to offspring. However, in the journal Trends in Genetics it discusses the effects of horizontal gene transfer. In the abstract it says :
Simulations of genes and organismal lineages suggest that there was no single common ancestor that contained all the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history that traces back to an individual molecular cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms and at different times.
-
81
Evolution or Creation Poll
by Vanderhoven7 inevolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..
-
-
Earnest
cofty : Who has studied the scientific evidence for evolution - NOT from critical sources - and concluded that evolution is false who is not a theist?
That was not my assertion. My assertion was that there are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours. The fact that a person is a theist does not preclude him from being honest and objective.
-
81
Evolution or Creation Poll
by Vanderhoven7 inevolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..
-
-
Earnest
cofty : ...there is no comparison in intellectual rigour and honesty between creationists who reject evolution, despite admitting never having read a single science book in their entire lives, and [those] who have done the work and follow the evidence.
On that we agree, although we do not necessarily agree where the evidence leads.
However, what I was asserting was that not everyone who maintains all species evolved from a single cell are motivated by an honest, objective consideration of the facts. Many accept evolution because others do, not because they have investigated the matter for themselves.
My objection to your statement was that it was so sweeping, that everyone who did not accept all species evolved from a single cell had not done the work or followed the evidence. There are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours.
-
81
Evolution or Creation Poll
by Vanderhoven7 inevolution is how we got here.. demonstrate that you believe that all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years by tapping "like" below.. demonstrate that you believe in special creation by tapping "unlike" below..
-
-
Earnest
What I find most interesting about this poll is that almost 31% of those who have voted believe in "special creation". I would not have expected so high a number based on participation in the many threads on the subject of evolution.
I think the assertion that those who deny all species evolved from a single cell over/within 3.5 billion years are "not motivated by an honest and objective consideration of the facts" is far too sweeping. The same could be said of those who maintain all species evolved from a single cell and would be just as true.
It would be interesting to have polls on other matters so people can express their honest views without having to identify themselves and be subject to opprobrium.
-
6
Separate Identity vol 2
by vienne inthe afterword to volume 2, complete in rough draft is here https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ impressions?.
-
-
Earnest
I enjoyed the details regarding pyramidology and speculation around 1881. It is particularly useful to understand what was going on in the prophetic milieu of the time.
I appreciate this is a rough draft, but as an earnest pedant I hope these suggested corrections will assist:
Martin misrepresents Russell ... He puts ‘the faithful’ in quotes, but the phrase is lacking on the pages he sites [should be cites] as is the belief...
Holland believed that Christians should assist God in such fulfillments. His theology took maters [should be matters] beyond mere obedience to political action,...
In the hands of Millennilists [should be Millennialists], Age-to-Come believers, and Adventists, “present truth” always meant their end-times teachings.
This left some wiggle-room. [You might mean wiggle-room, but in the context I think you probably mean wriggle-room].
Verse seventeen says the living Saints will meet [omit] will be caught away in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Writers from The Restitution speculated on the supposed perihelion of planets, taking the mater [should be matter] seriously.
Published under two titles, the one noted by Barbour was Star Prophecies, or a View of Coming Disasters on the Earth from1881 [should be from 1881] to 1885,
As far as we can determin [should be determine], the Watch Tower message entered Australia in1881 [should be in 1881]...
Newspapers of the period note numerous lectures on the topic by clergymen, self-anointed [should this not be self-appointed ?] and real professors...
Watch Tower and Barbourite belief may seem strange from out [should be our] vantage point...
Though the Mother Shipton prophecy was an admitted contemporary fake, it panicked some in Brittan [should be Britain].
Some of this spilled onto Zion’s Watch Tower, though Russell expect [should be expected] other events and on a different basis.
In some respects we find Russell as [should be at] his most ‘unlovely’ with this failure.
-
18
Is this really what happens?
by Theonlyoneleft inhello guys,.
long time no see.
the other day i went out with my sister.
-
-
Earnest
Often when Witnesses meet others they don't know they might ask what congregation you are from. It's just a Witness way of asking where are you from? The Witness world can be quite small and there is a chance he might know someone in your congregation or circuit. That forms a basis for conversation, you immediately have something in common.
He could have been asking are you one of us or one of them, but quite possibly he just didn't want to go into Witness-speak without knowing whether you believed or not. However, if that was the motive for his question I think he should have asked you and not your sister, but some people have no etiquette.
-
16
New World Translation - Variants
by Wonderment innew world translation - variantstentative translations below.
you native language experts can probably do better than me.
if so, help yourself.. matthew 24.3, english edition: “what will be the sign of... the conclusion of the system of things?”french, 1987: “quel sera le signe de… la conclusion du système de choses” (...the system of things)french revised: “quel sera le signe de… la période finale du monde?” (…the final period of the world)german revised: “und den abschluss des weltsystems erkennen?” (the conclusion of the world system)spanish revised: “qué señal habrá... de la conclusión del sistema?” (…conclusion of the system)matthew 24.45, "the faithful and discreet slave":italian revised: “lo schiavo fedele e saggio” = “the faithful and wise slave”portuguese revised: “o escravo fiel e prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”spanish revised, “el esclavo fiel y prudente” = “the faithful and prudent slave”matthew 25.46,(english edition), “cutting-off” contrasted with “everlasting life” in the same verse.
-
-
Earnest
Further to the differences between the Westcott & Hort Greek text and the Nestle-Aland Greek text, I thought it might be of interest to the forum to get an idea of the type of differences that exist between these two texts.
For the uninitiated, when reference is made to Greek texts it refers to those manuscripts, papyri etc. which have been found in the deserts of Egypt, Judaea and elsewhere which are hand-written copies of the Greek New Testament, some of which go back to the second century.
In 1881 two scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort collated together the manuscripts and papyri then known to exist and on that basis they attempted to establish the wording of the New Testament which had the strongest manuscript support. They also developed various theories (known as textual criticism) to determine which manuscripts were more likely to reflect the originals most accurately. The text they produced is known as the Westcott & Hort Greek text and this was the text that was primarily used as the basis for the New World Translation.
Needless to say, since 1881 further manuscripts and papyri have been found, and the theories to determine which manuscripts should receive priority have been refined. In 1898 Eberhard Nestle produced a text based on the work of Westcott & Hort as well as other textual scholars. Nestle's text went through several editions and you can have a look at its history here. The most recent edition (28th) was produced in 2012 so it is of interest to know what has changed in the 130 years since Westcott & Hort produced their text.
Two scholars involved in textual criticism, Barbara Aland and Bart Ehrman, have both concluded there has been very little change. But what does that mean? There are about 550 differences between the two texts (Westcott & Hort and Nestle-Aland 28). I will refer to these texts as WH and NA28. While I could list all 550+ it would make this a rather lengthy post which will probably not be of interest to everyone. So what I have done is to check all the differences in Matthew and that will give a flavour of the type of differences elsewhere in the New Testament.
One difference between the two texts is where a word or words are omitted from one or the other of these texts. For example:
Matthew 6:8 reads "...for ["God" WH] your Father knows..."
In this instance the WH text reads "...for God your Father knows..." while the NA28 text reads "...for your Father knows...".
Another example is Matthew 8:7 which reads "["And" NA28] he said to him..."
So in this verse the WH text reads "He said to him..." while the NA28 text reads "And he said to him...".
Everything else in the text agrees apart from the difference shown. Hopefully you understand my methodology. The remaining verses in Matthew which differ in this way are:
8:9. "...a man ["placed" WH] under authority...".
9:32. '...brought him a dumb ["man" NA28] possessed...'
12:44. "...finds it unoccupied ["and" WH] swept and adorned."
13:11. "In reply he said ["to them" NA28]:"
13:45. "...like a travelling merchant ["man" NA28]..."
15:31. "...they saw the dumb speaking ["the maimed whole" NA28] and the lame walking..."
16:20. "Then he ["sternly" WH] charged..."
16:21. "...Jesus ["Christ" WH]..."
19:3. "...Is it lawful ["for a man" NA28] to divorce..."
20:8. "...pay ["them" NA28] the wages..."
20:15. "["Or" NA28] is it not lawful..."
20:21. "...one at ["your" NA28] right hand..." WH
21:28. "...two children. ["And" NA28] going up to the first..."
22:21. "They said ["to him" NA28]:..."
22:39. "["And" NA28] the second is like it..."
23:24. "Blind guides, ["which" NA28] strain out the gnat but swallow..."
23:38. "...Your house is abandoned to you ["desolate" NA28]."
25:42. "...["and" WH] I got thirsty..."
26:20. "...the twelve ["disciples" WH]."
27:16. "...prisoner called ["Jesus" NA28] Barabbas."
27:17. "...["Jesus" NA28] Barabbas or Jesus the so-called Christ?"
27:40. "...save yourself! If you are a son of God, ["and" NA28] come down..."Another type of difference is where there is a variation in the wording of a verse. For example Matthew 3:7 reads "...coming to the baptism..." in Westcott & Hort, but it reads "...coming to his baptism..." in NA28. It's a subtle change (although not all the changes are subtle), and it is often not entirely clear which wording is the more accurate. In my methodology I show this difference in this form:
3:7. "...coming to the baptism..." WH
3:7. "...coming to his baptism..." NA28Here are the remaining differences of this type in Matthew:
3:14. "But [he] tried to prevent..." WH
3:14. "But John tried to prevent..." NA28
7:13. "...because broad and spacious is the way..." WH
7:13. "...because broad is the gate and spacious the way..." NA28
7:14. "...because (hoti) narrow is the gate..." WH
7:14. "...since (ti) narrow is the gate..." NA28
8:23. "...a boat..." WH
8:23. "...the boat..." NA28
9:18. "...who had approached (proselthon)..." WH
9:18. "...who had come (elthon)..." NA28
12:22. "Then they brought (prosenegkan)..." WH
12:22. "Then was brought (prosenekhthe)..." NA28
13:28. "They (hoi) said to him..." WH
13:28. "The servants (hoi douloi) said to him..." NA28
13:44. "...sells what things (hosa) he has..." WH
13:44. "...sells all (panta hosa) he has..." NA28
15:30. "...people that were lame, maimed, blind, dumb..." WH
15:30. "...people that were lame, blind, maimed, dumb..." NA28
17:15. "...my son...is unwell (kakos ekhei) ...". WH
17:15. "...my son...is suffering badly (kakos paskhei) ..." NA28
18:14. "...my Father..." WH
18:14. "...your Father..." NA28
19:24. "...It is easier for a camel to enter (eiselthein) through a needle's eye than for a rich man into the kingdom". WH
19:24. "...It is easier for a camel to get (dielthein) through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter (eiselthein) into the kingdom". NA28
19:29. "...will receive many times more (pollaplasiona)..." WH
19:29. "...will receive a hundred times more (ekatontaplasiona)...". NA28
20:17. "Being now about to go up (Mellon de anabainein) to Jerusalem..." WH
20:17. "And going up (Kai anabainon) to Jerusalem...". NA28
20:30. "...Lord, have mercy on us..." WH
20:30. "...Have mercy on us, O Lord..." NA28
20:31. "...Lord, have mercy on us..." WH
20:31. "...Have mercy on us, O Lord..." NA28
21:29. "... 'I will, sir,' and did not go." WH
21:29. "... 'I will not,' but afterwards he repented, and went." NA28
21:30. "Approaching the second (deuteroi)..." WH
21:30. "Approaching the other one (heteroi)..." NA28
21:30. "... 'I will not.' Afterwards he repented and went." WH
21:30. "... 'I will, sir,' and did not go." NA28
21:31. "...They said: 'The latter.'..." WH
21:31. "...They said: 'The first.'..." NA28
22:10. "...the room for the wedding (numphon) was filled..." WH
22:10. "...the wedding festival (gamos) was filled..." NA28
24:24. "...great signs and wonders so to mislead (planasthai) if possible even the chosen ones." WH
24:24. "...great signs and wonders so they will mislead (planesai) if possible even the chosen ones". NA28
27:4. "...I betrayed righteous (dikaion) blood'..." WH
27:4. "...I betrayed innocent (athoos) blood'..." NA28
27:46. "...saying: 'Eloi eloi..." WH
27:46. "...saying: 'Eli eli..." NA28
27:64 "...that the disciples (hoi mathetai) may never come..." WH
27:64. "...that his disciples (hoi mathetai autou) may never come..." NA28I don't think I have missed any differences but would welcome any correction to this. I do find it astonishing that there are so few real differences between the two texts despite 130 years separating them.