Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Too bad you can't give a meaningful answer to 99% of my argument.
My initial argument acknowledges that Shaw demonstrates the wider historical use of ΙΑΩ in onomastica, Jewish texts, and magical papyri. However, this does not automatically equate to widespread liturgical usage, especially within canonical contexts like the LXX. Shaw’s emphasis on diversity and localized practices supports the idea that ΙΑΩ was one of many renderings in circulation, but not necessarily dominant in formal Jewish liturgical or scriptural contexts. Shaw himself writes that the evidence for ΙΑΩ is diverse and scattered, often appearing in contexts like personal names, magical texts, and marginal Jewish traditions, which does not refute the centrality of κύριος in mainstream Jewish liturgical practice.
Shaw acknowledges that ΙΑΩ reflects an attempt to transliterate the divine name phonetically into Greek. However, the Septuagint translators prioritized theological and functional equivalence over phonetic representation, resulting in κύριος as the respectful substitution. This aligns with the established Jewish practice of using "Adonai" in oral recitation of the Tetragrammaton. Shaw’s work does not negate the overwhelming manuscript evidence showing κύριος as the dominant rendering in extant Septuagint texts, especially those preserved and transmitted by Jewish and early Christian communities.
Shaw critiques Pietersma's position that κύριος was uniformly original to the Septuagint but does not provide definitive evidence that ΙΑΩ was the primary rendering. Instead, Shaw highlights the diversity of practices and manuscript traditions, suggesting that various forms (including ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH, and κύριος) coexisted in different regions or communities. My argument that manuscripts containing ΙΑΩ (e.g., 4Q120) likely reflect localized or revisionist traditions rather than the original LXX rendering aligns with Shaw’s acknowledgment of regional diversity.
Shaw emphasizes that ΙΑΩ had a “widespread” non-mystical use in certain contexts but does not argue that it was widely accepted in formal Jewish worship or canonical scripture readings. The theological reverence for the divine name likely influenced the choice of κύριος as a liturgical substitute, consistent with Philo of Alexandria’s writings and the broader Jewish tradition of avoiding the Tetragrammaton’s pronunciation.
While Shaw critiques oversimplifications in traditional scholarship, he ultimately concedes that the historical reconstruction of the LXX’s original form is complex and inconclusive. However, the overwhelming dominance of κύριος in early Christian LXX manuscripts and citations in the New Testament suggests its primacy in liturgical and scriptural use.
My argument is not that ΙΑΩ was unknown or marginal, but that its specific appearance in texts like magical amulets, niche Jewish traditions, or non-canonical settings does not establish it as the dominant rendering in the Septuagint’s liturgical context. Shaw’s work supports the idea of textual diversity but does not provide evidence that overturns the widespread use of κύριος in Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions.
Your objection may stem from conflating Shaw’s demonstration of ΙΑΩ’s broader historical use with a claim of its dominance in the Septuagint. Shaw’s work, while valuable for understanding diversity, does not contradict my point that κύριος remained the standard rendering in Jewish and Christian liturgical texts.

@Earnest
Claim: Emanuel Tov, alongside Stegemann and Skehan, views ΙΑΩ as reflecting the earliest stage of the LXX translation, not a later revision.
Emanuel Tov does indeed assert that ΙΑΩ may represent an early transliteration of YHWH in some texts, but this does not establish it as the universal or original practice of the LXX translators. Several critical points weaken this claim. The presence of ΙΑΩ in 4Q120 reflects a localized or sectarian variant, not a uniform or universal translational strategy. Anneli Aejmelaeus has argued that early LXX translations, particularly those predating the Kaige recension, displayed considerable diversity in translation strategies. This diversity includes ΙΑΩ as a phonetic transliteration but does not negate κύριος as the more systematic and widespread practice.
The use of ΙΑΩ appears primarily in fragments with sectarian characteristics, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4Q120). These communities often sought to preserve the sacredness of the divine name, diverging from mainstream Hellenistic Jewish communities that adhered to oral substitution (Adonai → Kyrios). As Tov and others point out, later revisions or corrections inserted ΙΑΩ or the Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek texts for liturgical or theological reasons.
Christian LXX manuscripts, which represent the dominant textual tradition, overwhelmingly use κύριος. This strongly suggests that κύριος was the standard rendering in the original translations, even if exceptions like ΙΑΩ existed in sectarian or regional contexts. The predominance of κύριος in manuscripts used by both Jews and Christians further supports its originality as the default rendering of YHWH in Greek.
Claim: There is no evidence of a transition from YHWH/ΙΑΩ to κύριος in NT manuscripts. The absence of transitional evidence undermines the idea of κύριος replacing the Tetragrammaton.
The NT manuscripts we possess (dating to the 2nd century CE and later) consistently use κύριος or θεός. This uniformity is not evidence of a sudden replacement but rather reflects the established textual tradition that early Christians inherited from the LXX. If YHWH/ΙΑΩ had been used in NT texts, some transitional evidence should exist, such as manuscripts with mixed usage. However, no such manuscripts have been discovered, undermining the claim that a systematic replacement occurred.
The introduction of nomina sacra (e.g., KY for κύριος) in early Christian manuscripts aligns with broader scribal practices of reverence but does not imply that κύριος was absent before this development. The absence of transitional evidence for KY (κύριος) mirrors the broader absence of transitional evidence for any competing terms like ΙΑΩ. This further supports the argument that κύριος was the dominant rendering in pre-Christian LXX manuscripts.
The claim that the NT’s use of κύριος arose to distance Christianity from Judaism is speculative and unsupported by textual or historical evidence. Early Christians explicitly identified Jesus with the κύριος of the LXX (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23), suggesting continuity rather than a departure from Jewish tradition. The universal use of κύριος in Christian LXX manuscripts cannot be dismissed as a mere "Christian innovation." Several historical and theological factors support its originality. The choice of κύριος in the LXX aligns with the theological goal of portraying God as the sovereign ruler of all creation (ho Kyrios tēs oikoumenēs). This universalist emphasis is a hallmark of the LXX and is absent from transliterations like ΙΑΩ, which lack such theological nuance. Early Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture. Their use of κύριος reflects continuity with Jewish tradition rather than a departure from it. The association of κύριος with both God (YHWH) and Jesus in the NT highlights its centrality in early Christian theology and its roots in the LXX.
The theological hostility displayed by Jehovah’s Witnesses in accusing early Christianity of deliberately “corrupting” Scripture by substituting the Tetragrammaton with κύριος or abbreviating sacred names (nomina sacra) is both historically unfounded and theologically unwarranted. Their willingness to portray Judaism as a more faithful preserver of the Scriptures while suspecting proto-orthodox Christianity of all forms of malice reflects a deeply flawed understanding of textual history and early Christian scribal practices. Far from being a malicious attempt to hide or distort theological truths, the use of nomina sacra was motivated by reverence for sacred names and reflects early Christian scribal practices rooted in Jewish traditions.
The nomina sacra were abbreviations of divine titles and names in early Christian manuscripts, such as κυριος (Lord), θεος (God), Ιησους (Jesus), and Χριστος (Christ). These abbreviations were marked with a horizontal line above the letters to signify their sacred nature. Far from being a clandestine effort to suppress theological truths or obscure the divine name, the nomina sacra were a deliberate act of reverence.
As Bruce Metzger highlights, the nomina sacra were not invented to save space but were intended to express respect and veneration for divine names. The unique formatting—using generous spacing and overlines—emphasized their sacred significance. The systematic application of nomina sacra to sacred terms alone (e.g., distinguishing "spirit" from "Spirit") demonstrates that this was an exegetical decision made with theological precision.
The Jewish oral tradition of substituting “Adonai” for YHWH in Scripture readings influenced the Greek rendering of YHWH as κύριος in the Septuagint. Early Christians, inheriting the Septuagint, naturally retained this substitution while introducing the nomina sacra as a further sign of reverence. The use of sacred abbreviations in Jewish contexts, such as the Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts like P. Fouad 266, indicates that the concept of reverence-driven abbreviation was not uniquely Christian but had roots in Jewish textual practices.
Jehovah’s Witnesses allege that the use of κύριος and the nomina sacra reflect an intentional effort by early Christians to “obscure” the divine name (YHWH) and introduce heretical theology. This claim is unfounded for several reasons. Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently argue that the substitution of YHWH with κύριος in Christian manuscripts reflects a coordinated effort by later ecclesiastical authorities, possibly the papacy. However the papacy as a powerful institution did not exist in its developed form until the 4th century, and no ecumenical council addressed the issue of divine names in Scripture. The nomina sacra practice predates such developments, as evidenced by their appearance in manuscripts from the 2nd century CE, well before the rise of formal ecclesiastical hierarchies. The use of κύριος in the LXX predates Christianity itself, making any alleged “decision” irrelevant.
It is entirely plausible that the apostles themselves initiated the use of κύριος and the nomina sacra. Early Christian communities sought to honor sacred names, and the consistent appearance of nomina sacra across widespread regions suggests that this practice originated during the apostolic era. If the apostles used κύριος in place of YHWH, as suggested by their extensive quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament, this further validates the practice as rooted in Christian orthodoxy.
The nomina sacra were not a suppression of truth but an elevation of sacred terms. Reducing the practice to a conspiratorial effort ignores the cultural and theological motivations behind it. The absence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ in Christian manuscripts is not evidence of suppression but reflects the broader Jewish reluctance to pronounce or write the divine name, a tradition the early Christians respected and continued.
The universal use of κύριος and its abbreviation (ΚΣ) in Christian manuscripts suggests that no transition was needed because κύριος had already been firmly established in the Greek text of the Septuagint before Christianity adopted it. If there had been a conspiracy to replace YHWH with κύριος, we would expect evidence of resistance or debate in early Christian writings. Instead, the use of κύριος is universally accepted without controversy.
The nomina sacra safeguarded sacred names from profane use while making their reverence explicit in written texts. Far from obscuring theological truths, they highlighted the centrality of these terms in Christian worship and theology. The consistent use of nomina sacra in Greek, Latin, Coptic, and other manuscript traditions reflects the early Christian commitment to preserving the sacred in a universally recognizable way. The contraction of sacred names mirrors theological themes in Scripture, such as Christ being “the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:13), reflecting the divine completeness of the names abbreviated in the nomina sacra.
The accusations by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the early Christians maliciously replaced YHWH with κύριος and introduced the nomina sacra to suppress the divine name are historically and theologically baseless. The evidence shows that:
- The use of κύριος and the nomina sacra was motivated by reverence, not deception.
- These practices reflect a continuity with Jewish traditions of substituting the divine name and elevate, rather than obscure, theological truths.
- The uniformity of κύριος in Christian manuscripts and its adoption in New Testament writings underscores its centrality in early Christian worship and belief.
The argument made by Jehovah’s Witnesses about the alleged "conspiracy" to replace the Tetragrammaton with κύριος in early Christian texts mirrors the Islamic claim of Tahrif al-Nass—the corruption of the text of the Bible. This comparison is worth exploring, as it highlights the weaknesses in such claims and the historical and textual evidence that refutes them. In Islamic thought, particularly among certain Muslim apologists, Tahrif al-Nass refers to the belief that the original text of the Bible (Torah, Psalms, and Gospel) has been corrupted or altered by Jews and Christians to conceal the true message of God. This claim often lacks specific historical or textual evidence and is based on the Qur’an's allegations (e.g., Surah 2:75-79), which accuse the People of the Book of concealing or miswriting portions of scripture.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the original New Testament and Septuagint manuscripts contained YHWH (or ΙΑΩ) and that these were deliberately replaced with κύριος by proto-orthodox Christians. This, they allege, was done to obscure the divine name and replace it with a generic title. The similarity to Tahrif al-Nass lies in the accusation of deliberate tampering for theological purposes. There is no historical or manuscript evidence supporting the idea of a conspiracy to systematically alter sacred texts. Neither Islamic apologists nor Jehovah’s Witnesses provide specific instances of textual replacement or transitional manuscripts that show mixed usage (e.g., some portions with YHWH and others with κύριος). Both accuse early Christians or Jews of acting with deliberate theological deceit, which contradicts the textual and historical realities of how sacred texts were transmitted.
Both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Islamic proponents of Tahrif al-Nass face a similar logical problem: if their accusations are true, why is there no transitional evidence or record of controversy or debate over the alleged alterations? If YHWH or ΙΑΩ were systematically replaced with κύριος, why are there no historical records or transitional manuscripts showing partial replacements? Why did early Christians adopt the Septuagint (which they inherited from Jews) without resistance, even though it consistently used κύριος? If Jews or Christians corrupted the Bible, why do we have no historical evidence of such changes in the manuscript tradition? Ironically, the Qur’an itself affirm the reliability of Jewish and Christian scriptures in several verses.
The accusations by Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Islamic apologists parallel one another in their reliance on unsubstantiated claims of textual corruption and theological tampering. However, both claims are refuted by the overwhelming manuscript evidence, the historical continuity of scribal traditions, and the logical inconsistencies inherent in their arguments.
- In the case of nomina sacra, the evidence demonstrates that the use of κύριος and its abbreviation as ΚΣ was an act of reverence rooted in Jewish and Christian traditions, not a deliberate erasure of the divine name.
- Similarly, the Islamic claim of Tahrif al-Nass ignores the textual consistency of the biblical manuscripts and fails to provide historical evidence for systematic corruption.
The historical record overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the sacred texts of both the Old and New Testaments were preserved faithfully, and practices like the use of nomina sacra reflect reverence and continuity rather than tampering or conspiracy.
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345
Jehovah’s Witnesses Terminology: A Critical Analysis of Apostasy and Misuse of the Concept
The terminology employed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (commonly known as Jehovah’s Witnesses) reflects not only their theological position but also their deep-seated anti-Catholic bias. This article critically examines their usage of the term apostasy, juxtaposes it with its traditional Christian, especially Catholic, understanding, and contrasts it with heresy. Furthermore, it explores the misuse of the term apostate by Jehovah’s Witnesses, drawing parallels to the takfiri rhetoric in radical Islam, and how this undermines their claim to intellectual and theological legitimacy. Jehovah’s Witnesses categorize all non-Witness Christian denominations as part of the "Great Apostasy," equating them with spiritual defection. This view, while internally consistent with their theological worldview, highlight their exclusivist rhetoric and offer a clear basis for evaluating their terminology.
The Christian Understanding of Apostasy and Heresy
In traditional Christian theology, the term apostasy refers to the complete renunciation of the Christian faith by someone who was previously a believer. It is derived from the Greek word apostasia, meaning “to stand away from” or “defection.” Apostasy is a significant act of rebellion against God, marked by a deliberate abandonment of the Christian identity. For instance, a baptized Christian converting to Islam, Buddhism, or atheism is considered an apostate.
Heresy, on the other hand, refers to the denial or distortion of specific tenets of Christian doctrine while maintaining an overall Christian identity. Historically, figures like Arius or Pelagius were labeled heretics for their doctrinal deviations, yet they never renounced Christianity outright. The Catholic Church, while condemning heresies, did not consider heretics as apostates unless they formally renounced the Christian faith altogether.
This distinction underscores the nuanced understanding of theological errors within Christianity: apostasy represents a complete departure, while heresy is a deviation from orthodoxy.
Jehovah’s Witnesses Misuse of Apostasy
Jehovah’s Witnesses use the term apostasy far more broadly and indiscriminately. They apply it not only to individuals who leave their movement but also to all other Christian denominations. This is evident in their literature, where the “Great Apostasy” is described as the supposed “corruption” of Christianity that began right after the apostolic age, culminating in the establishment of "Christendom" (a term they use pejoratively to refer to all non-Witness Christian groups).
By conflating apostasy with heresy, Jehovah’s Witnesses make a fundamental theological error. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians who profess belief in Christ and adhere to core Christian doctrines, even if differing in interpretation, are not apostates under the traditional definition. Labeling them as such is not only terminologically incorrect but also polemically divisive. It disregards centuries of Christian theological discourse and creates an exclusivist narrative where only Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered true Christians.
Jehovah’s Witnesses define apostasy broadly to encompass any deviation from what they consider "true worship." Their Insight on the Scriptures explains apostasy as a "rebellion against Jehovah God and a departure from true worship." (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 126) This definition sets the stage for their labeling of all other Christian groups as apostates, even those who maintain their belief in Christ and the Bible.
Jehovah’s Witnesses consider all of "Christendom"—not just certain groups or movements—part of apostasy. According ot the Jehovah’s Witnesses, right after the death of Christ’s apostles, a "Great Apostasy" took root. It flourished in the form of "Christendom", which "adopted" "pagan "beliefs and practices, creating what the according to them Bible calls 'Babylon the Great.' For them every branch of Christianity outside the Witnesses’ organization is considered part of an overarching apostasy
By claiming that "true Christianity" was effectively dormant for centuries until the emergence of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the organization positions itself as the sole custodian of authentic Christian worship. This leaves no room for recognizing the faith of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Protestants, all of whom are lumped together under the banner of "apostasy".
A critical linguistic distinction in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rhetoric is their use of "Christendom" instead of Christianity. In their publications, "Christendom" is consistently used to refer to all Christian denominations outside of their organization, emphasizing their deviation from what Jehovah’s Witnesses define as true Christianity. This distinction is strategic, as it enables them to delegitimize other denominations without engaging directly with their theological claims. They claim that the "true Christians" are separate from "Christendom", which is steeped in "apostasy" and "false worship", and emphasise that "Christendom’s" practices are not just errors; they are "rebellion" against God. By framing other denominations as part of "Christendom," they subtly assert that these groups are fundamentally distinct from "true Christians," who are, by their definition, only Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Anti-Catholic Bias in the Misuse of Apostasy
The Watchtower Society’s anti-Catholic rhetoric plays a significant role in their misuse of apostasy. By using apostate instead of heretic, they aim to evoke stronger negative connotations, tapping into the broader cultural disdain for traitors. This is especially ironic considering that the Catholic Church, often accused of dogmatism, does not go as far as to call non-Catholic Christians apostates. Instead, the Church acknowledges them as separated brethren, albeit with theological disagreements.
Jehovah’s Witnesses reserve special criticism for the Catholic Church, often portraying it as the epicenter of apostasy. This antagonistic stance is rooted in their interpretation of Revelation, where "Babylon the Great" is equated with all "false religion", with "Christendom"—and particularly the Catholic Church—at its heart. By depicting "Christendom" as corrupt and "apostate", Jehovah’s Witnesses make it clear that their denunciation of other Christian groups goes far beyond doctrinal differences; it is an outright rejection of their legitimacy as Christians.
Jehovah’s Witnesses' refusal to use heresy is strategic. The term heresy is historically associated with the Catholic Inquisition, a period often mischaracterized in anti-Catholic propaganda (cf. Black Legend). Avoiding this term allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to appear more inclusive and exploratory, even as they perpetuate a deeply exclusionary theology.
The Original Meaning of “Christendom”
The term Christendom originated as an Anglo-Saxon word, crīstendōm, coined in the 9th century to describe the cultural, political, and religious unity of Christian-majority regions under the influence of the Christian faith. It referred to the “dominion or sovereignty of Christianity,” encompassing territories where Christianity was the dominant religion. Initially, it signified a universal Christian community bound by faith and a shared identity, shaped significantly by the political and religious dynamics of the Roman Empire and later medieval Europe.
Historically, Christendom evolved as a concept to denote the collective Christian civilization that emerged through the integration of secular power and Christian religious authority. The term encapsulates the profound influence of Christianity on law, education, art, philosophy, and governance, particularly in the Western world. It also embodies the idea of a united Christian polity that extended across Europe, manifesting as a socio-political entity grounded in Christian values.
The Watchtower Society’s Distortion of “Christendom”
In contrast to its historical and theological roots, the Watchtower Society employs the term "Christendom" with a distinctly pejorative undertone. Within their literature, "Christendom" is used not to celebrate the cultural and historical achievements of Christianity but to critique and delegitimize all forms of organized Christianity outside of their movement. This usage reflects their anti-Catholic and anti-mainstream Christian bias.
The Watchtower Society distinguishes between Christianity—a label they reserve exclusively for their own beliefs—and "Christendom", which they use to describe what they consider to be apostate, hypocritical, or corrupted forms of Christianity. In their rhetoric, "Christendom" becomes synonymous with false religion, encompassing all other Christian denominations, which they accuse of betraying the teachings of Jesus by compromising with political and cultural systems.
Why the Watchtower’s Usage is Problematic
1. Historical Inaccuracy: The Watchtower Society's definition of "Christendom" as a derogatory term ignores the historical significance and complexity of the term. "Christendom" historically encompassed the development of Christian civilization, including its moral and intellectual contributions to the world. By reducing it to a symbol of apostasy, the Society erases centuries of Christian history and culture.
2. Theological Exclusivism: By reserving the term Christianity for themselves, Jehovah’s Witnesses delegitimize the Christian identity of billions of believers worldwide. This exclusivist attitude contrasts sharply with the Catholic Church’s more inclusive view, which recognizes all who are baptized in the name of the Trinity as Christians.
3. Conflation with Apostasy: The Society's use of "Christendom" conflates it with their concept of a “Great Apostasy.” They label historical Christian institutions as apostate for integrating with political systems or adopting practices they deem unbiblical. This overlooks the nuanced theological and historical reasons behind the evolution of Christian doctrines and practices.
The Islamic Concept of Apostasy and the Takfiri Parallel
In Islamic theology, apostasy (irtidad) similarly refers to the act of leaving Islam, often punishable by death in traditional interpretations of Sharia law. A radical subset of Islam, known as takfiri, extends this concept by declaring fellow Muslims apostates for perceived doctrinal or behavioral deviations. Groups like ISIS have exploited this ideology, justifying violence against Muslims who do not conform to their interpretation of Islam.
This takfiri approach parallels the rhetoric of Jehovah’s Witnesses in unsettling ways. Like the takfiris, Jehovah’s Witnesses declare all other Christians to be "apostates", effectively excommunicating everyone of "Christendom". While Jehovah’s Witnesses do not advocate violence, the underlying logic of exclusion and the delegitimization of others’ faiths mirror the exclusivism of radical Islam.
The rhetoric used by Jehovah’s Witnesses bears an unsettling resemblance to the takfiri doctrine in radical Islam, where fellow Muslims are declared kafir (unbelievers) for not adhering to a purist interpretation of Islam. Both approaches revolve around exclusivism: a binary worldview in which only one group holds the truth, while all others are considered rebellious or illegitimate.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denunciation of all other Christians as apostates mirrors the takfiri methodology of declaring mainstream Muslims apostates for failing to adhere to specific doctrines. The implications are similarly divisive: instead of fostering dialogue or understanding, such rhetoric alienates and demonizes those with differing beliefs.

This parallel casts Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rhetoric in a troubling light. While they do not advocate violence, their spiritual condemnation of others perpetuates an "us vs. them" mentality, fostering isolationism and intellectual rigidity. For an organization that professes to champion love and truth, this resemblance to radical exclusivism damages their credibility.
The Watchtower Society's dismissal of all other Christians as part of "Christendom" bears unsettling similarities to the rhetoric of takfiri movements in radical Islam. Takfiri ideology involves declaring fellow Muslims apostates for deviating from specific interpretations of Islamic law. Similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses denounce all other Christian denominations as part of a corrupted, false religious system.
This parallel is significant and concerning for several reasons:
- Sectarianism: Both ideologies foster division by denying the legitimacy of other faith communities within their broader religious tradition.
- Rhetorical Extremism: Labeling entire groups as apostates or false Christians creates an “us vs. them” dichotomy that stifles dialogue and mutual understanding.
- Negative Associations: The comparison to takfiri rhetoric risks aligning Jehovah’s Witnesses with the sectarian extremism seen in radical Islam, casting a shadow over their claims of being a peaceful, truth-seeking organization.
A More Respectful Alternative
If the Watchtower Society were to label other Christian denominations as heretical rather than apostate, they would align more closely with historical Christian terminology. Heresy denotes doctrinal error within the faith, while apostasy involves a complete rejection of the faith. Acknowledging this distinction would demonstrate a greater respect for the shared Christian identity of other groups, even amidst theological disagreements.
Such a shift would not only improve the Society’s credibility but also mitigate the alienation and offense caused by their current rhetoric. It would allow for a more constructive critique of other denominations without resorting to exclusivist and inflammatory language.
The Theological and Ethical Implications
The implications of this parallel are troubling. By adopting a terminology that resembles takfiri rhetoric, Jehovah’s Witnesses align themselves with one of the most divisive and destructive forms of religious discourse. This not only alienates them from broader Christian ecumenism but also casts a shadow over their claims to moral and theological superiority.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses were to use heresy instead of apostasy, they would be engaging in a more accurate and respectful dialogue with other Christian groups. Such a shift would acknowledge the shared Christian identity of others while still allowing for doctrinal critique. However, their insistence on apostasy reflects an underlying exclusivist agenda that prioritizes sectarian identity over theological precision or mutual respect.
Conclusion
The misuse of apostasy by Jehovah’s Witnesses exemplifies their theological isolationism and anti-Catholic bias. By conflating apostasy with heresy, they distort established Christian terminology to delegitimize all other denominations. This approach not only disrespects the shared heritage of Christian faith but also mirrors the divisive rhetoric of radical Islamic takfiri ideology. For an organization claiming to uphold truth and justice, such a stance is both intellectually and ethically indefensible. A more accurate and respectful approach to theological differences would benefit not only their relations with other Christians but also their credibility as a religious movement.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ misuse of the term "apostasy" to describe all other Christian denominations reflects both a theological misunderstanding and a polemical strategy. By conflating heresy with apostasy, they delegitimize centuries of Christian faith and dialogue. Their anti-Catholic rhetoric and their binary distinction between "true Christianity" (themselves) and "Christendom" (everyone else) parallel the exclusivist takfiri ideology of radical Islam, raising serious ethical and theological questions about their approach.
The term Christendom has a rich historical and cultural meaning that reflects the development of Christian civilization. The Watchtower Society's misuse of the term as a synonym for apostasy distorts its significance and reinforces their theological isolationism. By adopting a rhetoric reminiscent of takfiri extremism, they risk alienating themselves further from the broader Christian community and damaging their moral credibility. A more accurate and respectful use of theological terminology would foster greater understanding and dialogue, aligning with the values of truth and humility they claim to uphold.

Such rhetoric not only undermines their claims to inclusivity and truth but also risks alienating them further from the global Christian community. A re-examination of their terminology and a more respectful approach to other faiths would benefit their credibility and contribute to a more meaningful interfaith dialogue.
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345

Here is an interesting and thought-provoking quote:
“Christianity, unlike Islam, did not enjoy the protection of the civil authority for its first four centuries. During this time, Christian books—including copies of the New Testament—were destroyed during the “Great Persecution” under the emperor Diocletian in the early fourth century. This may partially explain the scarcity of early New Testament manuscripts from that time. Another reason for the paucity of manuscript evidence from the first four centuries is the fragile nature of the papyri upon which the first copies of the New Testament were written. Later developments, such as the use of parchment, allowed for the production of copies that were far more resilient, thousands of which have survived to the present day. Nevertheless, a significant amount of manuscript evidence from these early centuries remains, which helps us trace the history of the New Testament’s transmission during this period.
Unlike the systematic destruction of divergent manuscripts in the Qur’ān’s history under Caliph Uthman, early Christians did not organize to eliminate manuscripts with variant readings. For example, among Church Fathers like Jermone, Irenaeus, and Augustine, Origen (c. 185–254) acknowledged textual variations in New Testament manuscripts and explored the causes of textual corruption. The presence of variants in the Greek New Testament manuscripts has long been a source of criticism from Islamic apologists and embarrassment for some Christians. However, viewed differently, these variants provide a wealth of data for scholars about the history of the text and turn out to be a net positive for the reliability and stability of the New Testament. These variants were not always seen as a liability for the New Testament by scholars and Christian leaders, and for good reason.
There are as many as 500,000 textual variants among Greek New Testament manuscripts, which might seem to suggest instability. However, the large number of extant manuscripts provides numerous data points, enabling scholars to identify meaningful variants and reconstruct the autographical text with high probability, tracing the history of its transmission over two millennia with greater confidence. One might even say that the textual variants are a providential feature of the tradition rather than a bug.
In contrast, the homogeneity of the Qur’ān’s text, achieved by Uthman’s destruction of variant manuscripts, gives an appearance of stability but presents significant challenges for text-critical study. Keith Small notes that:
“Without textual criticism being done on early manuscripts of the Qur’ān, claims for the preservation of the Qur’ān are challenging to evaluate and in some respects are both unverifiable and unfalsifiable; that is, they can’t be proven to be either reliably or unreliably transmitted.”
The destruction or loss of early Qur’ānic witnesses during Uthman’s standardization campaign leaves scholars with fewer resources to reconstruct the early textual history of the Qur’ān, making the task of textual criticism even more difficult.
In comparison, the rich and complex tapestry of the New Testament’s transmission allows scholars to examine multiple streams of textual evidence. This diversity ensures that Christians today can have confidence that the New Testament they read is what the early Church received. If, hypothetically, only the Byzantine textform (also known as the Majority Text) of the New Testament had survived, we would doubtless have a good and largely accurate text. Still, in lacking access to the fuller range of textual streams in the tradition, it would be impossible to detect potential errors that might have entered unnoticed. We could never be sure if the more homogeneous text of the Byzantine tradition went back to the autographs or not. Fortunately, because multiple textual streams have survived, we can have confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament text—a level of certainty that the Qur’ān’s transmission history does not provide. What is remarkable about the New Testament tradition is that despite the shockingly high number of extant variants, the story of Jesus and his gospel are preserved throughout the tradition’s different textual streams of every leaf of every manuscript, as is the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ and the meaning of his life, death, and resurrection.
These differences highlight why the New Testament’s text and history are more accessible to scholars than the Qur’ān’s and why the historical realities of the manuscript tradition, far from being an embarrassment to Christians, should be a source of encouragement. They allow us to conduct the historical research necessary to show its stability and reliability going back to the beginnings of Christianity. Unfortunately, the Qur’ān’s textual tradition, due to its intentional early homogenization, leaves far less room for such investigation.”
Source: The Qur’ān, Textual Criticism, and the New Testament
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
Claim: Manuscripts such as 4Q120, P. Fouad 266, and Naḥal Ḥever proves that ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH predated the use of κύριος in the LXX.

While these manuscripts are significant for understanding the textual history of the LXX, they do not prove that κύριος was not the original translation for YHWH, because these manuscripts reflects revision, not originality:
1. P. Fouad 266: This fragment preserves the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script embedded within the Greek text. However, as Emanuel Tov and others acknowledge, this reflects a revisionist tendency to reinsert the Hebrew name for liturgical or theological reasons. The Greek translation preceding this insertion likely used κύριος, consistent with Jewish oral substitution of “Adonai.”
2. 4Q120 (Leviticus, 1st Century BCE): The use of ΙΑΩ is a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton and is not a translation. It reflects how YHWH was pronounced phonetically but does not represent a standardized rendering. ΙΑΩ appears sporadically and is limited to a handful of texts. Its presence does not demonstrate widespread adoption in the Septuagint tradition but instead reflects regional or sectarian preferences. As Anneli Aejmelaeus points out, the translation vocabulary of early LXX manuscripts was not yet standardized, and revisions like the Kaige recension aimed to align Greek texts with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. This indicates diversity in early textual traditions but does not negate the predominance of κύριος.
3. 8HevXII gr: This scroll also uses the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton within the Greek text, aligning with the same revisionist tendencies seen in P. Fouad 266. Importantly, this reversion to the Hebrew form reflects a Jewish attempt to preserve the Tetragrammaton in opposition to the Christian use of κύριος.
The presence of ΙΑΩ or the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in these manuscripts must be understood as variants or later revisions, not as evidence that they were the original translation practice of the LXX. The widespread use of κύριος in the majority of extant manuscripts, including Christian copies of the LXX, strongly suggests that it was the standard rendering from the outset. In conclusion, manuscripts like 4Q120 and P. Fouad 266 reflect revisionist efforts to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, not the original Septuagint translation practice.

Claim: The absence of God’s name in NT manuscripts is due to their late date (2nd century CE and beyond), by which time κύριος had already replaced the Tetragrammaton.

If the NT authors originally used the Tetragrammaton (e.g., ΙΑΩ or YHWH), we would expect to see transitional evidence—manuscripts or fragments showing a gradual replacement of the name with κύριος. However, no such transitional manuscripts exist. The NT manuscripts we have (2nd century and later) consistently use κύριος or θεός in OT quotations. If a widespread conspiracy or systematic replacement occurred, it would leave textual or historical traces—but none are found. Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture, and they quoted it extensively in the NT. The consistent use of κύριος in these quotations reflects the tradition as it existed in the LXX manuscripts available to them. Early Christians saw no need to alter the text because κύριος was already established as the equivalent of YHWH. If Philo’s writings avoided the Tetragrammaton due to his theological beliefs, what about other contemporary Jewish authors? There is no evidence that ΙΑΩ or YHWH was widely used in Greek Scriptures of the time. The absence of God’s name in NT manuscripts aligns with the established practice of using κύριος in the LXX. The lack of transitional evidence further weakens the claim that the Tetragrammaton was systematically replaced.

Claim: Philo’s avoidance of God’s name is irrelevant because it stems from his belief that God is “unnameable” (akatonomastos).

Philo’s avoidance of the Tetragrammaton actually strengthens the argument that κύριος was used as a substitute for YHWH. Philo’s reverence for God as “unnameable” aligns with the Jewish practice of avoiding the pronunciation of YHWH. Instead, Jews orally substituted “Adonai” for the Tetragrammaton. In Greek, this practice naturally led to the substitution of κύριος, which means "Lord." If ΙΑΩ were widely used in Greek Scriptures during Philo’s time, it is remarkable that he never mentions it. His complete silence suggests that ΙΑΩ was not standard or widely accepted in Greek-speaking Jewish communities. Philo’s writings confirm that Jews of his era avoided pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, which aligns with the LXX translators' choice to render YHWH as κύριος. Philo’s influence is irrelevant to the broader Jewish tradition of substituting κύριος for YHWH, because his avoidance of the Tetragrammaton simply aligns with the general Jewish practice of substituting κύριος for YHWH and further weakens the case for ΙΑΩ as the original rendering.

The uniform use of κύριος in Christian LXX manuscripts and NT quotations provides strong evidence that it was the established Greek equivalent for YHWH, rooted in Jewish tradition and adopted by early Christians.

@slimboyfat
Claim: Shaw’s work shows the name "Yaho" (ΙΑΩ) was familiar and widespread among ordinary Jews, challenging the claim that early Christians avoided using the divine name.
While Shaw highlights that ΙΑΩ appears in magical texts, onomastica (name lists), and select Jewish papyri, this evidence does not demonstrate widespread liturgical or scriptural usage of ΙΑΩ among Jews in the 1st century CE. The contexts in which ΙΑΩ appears—magical amulets, Jewish incantations, and niche transliterations—are fundamentally different from the formal translation of Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The Septuagint translators were producing a canonical and liturgical text for the Jewish community in Alexandria, not magical or mystical documents. ΙΑΩ reflects a transliteration, not a translation. It preserved the phonetic sound of YHWH for specific uses but does not indicate that it was the dominant rendering in the Septuagint.
The Jewish practice of avoiding pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and substituting it with "Adonai" (Lord) was already established by the Hellenistic period. This reverence strongly influenced the Greek translators, who adopted κύριος as the functional and respectful equivalent of YHWH. This substitution was not merely a practical decision but reflected Jewish theological sensitivities. Evidence from Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria confirms this. Philo symbolically refers to the divine name and never uses ΙΑΩ, despite living in the same cultural and historical context.
The diversity in rendering the Tetragrammaton (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH) reflects later textual developments and recensional efforts, not the original translation of the LXX. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Emanuel Tov emphasize that manuscripts with ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH are likely part of Jewish revisions (e.g., the Kaige recension), aimed at aligning Greek texts more closely with the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The absence of ΙΑΩ in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts and the uniform use of κύριος in Christian LXX traditions suggests that κύριος was the original and standard choice.
Shaw’s evidence for ΙΑΩ does not disprove Pietersma’s hypothesis. The appearance of ΙΑΩ in regional or magical contexts reflects diversity and revisionist tendencies, not the original Septuagint practice. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH and the substitution of "Adonai" in oral recitation provide a consistent explanation for the use of κύριος in the earliest Greek translations.
Claim: Psalm 110:1 and other NT passages clearly distinguish between Jehovah (YHWH) and Jesus, presenting Jesus’ lordship as subordinate to God.
Actually title Κύριος as applied to Jesus operates on two levels:
- A) Divine Lordship: The NT writers use Κύριος to directly identify Jesus with YHWH. This is evident in OT quotations where Κύριος (YHWH) is applied to Jesus. For example Romans 10:9-13 connects confessing Jesus as Κύριος with calling on the name of YHWH (Joel 2:32).
- B) Messianic Lordship: As Messiah, Jesus is also “Lord” in the sense of being the promised Davidic King who reigns with divine authority (cf. Psalm 110:1). This does not exclude His divine nature but fulfills God’s promise to establish a ruler whose kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:32-33).
Jesus’ divine Lordship is eternal, whereas His messianic Lordship is revealed and recognized in time through the Incarnation and Resurrection. While Psalm 110:1 distinguishes between YHWH and the messianic Lord (Adonai), the NT intentionally applies this passage to Jesus (e.g., Matthew 22:44; Acts 2:34-36). By identifying Jesus as the one who fulfills this psalm, the NT writers elevate Jesus to the divine throne, a position of supreme authority and honor.
Acts 2:36 refers to Jesus’ human nature being glorified through the resurrection and ascension. The statement “God has made Him Lord” does not deny Christ’s eternal divine nature. Rather, it emphasizes that Jesus, as fully human, has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father. This is consistent with Philippians 2:9-11, which describes Jesus’ exaltation following His humility and obedience to death. The title Κύριος is given to Jesus as the culmination of His salvific work, not as something newly conferred upon Him in essence. Jesus has always been Lord by virtue of His divine nature. What is “made” or conferred is the manifestation of His Lordship in His human nature after the resurrection. This does not conflict with His eternal divine identity as the Son.
Philippians 2:9-11 intentionally echoes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” Paul applies this passage directly to Jesus, declaring: “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), to the glory of God the Father.” The NT authors do not view this as a diminishing of God’s glory. Instead, Jesus’ exaltation as κύριος participates in and reflects the divine glory. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for Jesus reflects their understanding of his divine identity. In Romans 10:13 Paul quotes Joel 2:32: “Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) will be saved.” He applies this to Jesus, affirming that Jesus is the Lord (κύριος) who saves. NT writers consistently apply OT passages about YHWH to Jesus (e.g., Hebrews 1:10 quoting Psalm 102:25-27). This would be blasphemous unless they understood Jesus as sharing in YHWH’s divine nature.
The assertion that Jesus' lordship in the New Testament merely derives from His sacrifice as "owner" of redeemed humans while being different in nature from Jehovah's eternal lordship neglects the deeper Christological truths revealed throughout Scripture, particularly in Revelation 4 and 5. In Revelation 5:13, all creation praises both "Him who sits on the throne" (God) and the Lamb (Jesus) together. The Greek text highlights that the same blessing, honor, glory, and dominion (τὴν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὸ κράτος) are given equally to both. Worship of Jesus is not lesser or "different" but identical to the worship of God. The use of articles (τὴν) before each term makes the praises specific and unambiguous; no relative or lesser worship is implied. The universal scope (all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth) reflects the magnitude of this worship.
In this Old Testament passage, homage to David is "civil reverence," whereas praise to God remains religious worship. Revelation 5 differs because Jesus is explicitly given the same religious adoration as God in the heavenly throne room. If Jesus were a mere creature, it would constitute idolatry to worship Him alongside God.
The distinction between creation (those who worship) and God and the Lamb (those who are worshipped) demonstrates that Jesus is not part of creation but shares in the divine nature. Revelation 5:13 specifically says that "every created thing" worships God and the Lamb. If Jesus were created, He would fall into the category of "every created thing" and could not simultaneously be worshipped as God. This echoes Philippians 2:10-11, where Jesus is given the name above every name, and every knee bows to Him in the same way Isaiah 45:23 describes allegiance to YHWH alone In Revelation 22:3, God and the Lamb receive "sacred service" (latreuo), a form of worship explicitly reserved for God in both the Old and New Testaments (cf. Matthew 4:10, Deuteronomy 6:13). This shows that the Lamb is not worshipped through God or relatively, but directly as God.
The fact that Jesus redeemed humanity with His blood (Revelation 5:9) demonstrates His role as Savior, but this act does not define or limit His lordship. Jesus was already "Lord of all creation" before the Incarnation (Colossians 1:16-17). His redemptive act affirms His divine prerogative to rule and judge all things (Revelation 19:16). Worship of the Lamb is not “different” but complementary to the worship of God. They share one divine essence and are worshipped as one God. The joint worship of God and the Lamb underscores Jesus’ equality with God, not ontological subordination.
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Claim: The introduction of nomina sacra into Christian manuscripts aligns with the alleged decision to discontinue the use of the Tetragrammaton.
The nomina sacra (e.g., ΚΣ for κύριος, ΘΣ for θεός) may be a Christian scribal innovation, intended to show reverence for sacred names in scripture. However, this does not support the idea that κύριος replaced YHWH at that time. By the time nomina sacra were used, the LXX tradition already rendered YHWH as κύριος. The uniform Christian use of κύριος in LXX manuscripts is strong evidence that it was the earlier, standard translation. There is no transitional manuscript showing a removal of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with κύριος. If this were a deliberate change, such a transition would leave clear traces, yet no such evidence exists. Furthermore Pietersma and Tov argue that early manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton appears (e.g., in paleo-Hebrew) reflect later Jewish recensional activities, not the original Old Greek translation. The Kaige recension supports this: It was an effort by Jewish scribes to revise Greek texts to align with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, including the reinsertion of the divine name. So even the introduction of nomina sacra is chronologically and textually distinct from the use of κύριος as a rendering for YHWH. The lack of any transitional evidence undermines the claim of a systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton.
And by the way, if it was the Christians, why does the Watchtower cite Shabbat 116a from the Talmud, suggesting that it was done by the Jews?
Claim: Frank Shaw argues in The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW (2014) that ΙΑΩ was widely used among ordinary Jews in the 1st century.
While Shaw’s work highlights that ΙΑΩ was known and used in certain Jewish contexts, this evidence does not prove it was the original or predominant rendering of YHWH in the LXX. The use of ΙΑΩ is largely regional (especially in Egypt) and primarily appears in Jewish magical texts and onomastica (lists of divine names). These sources are distinct from the formal translation tradition of the LXX. Transliteration of YHWH as ΙΑΩ served a different function, particularly in mystical and magical contexts. Manuscripts using ΙΑΩ are isolated and fragmentary. They represent regional or liturgical variants, not the broader Greek Jewish tradition. In contrast, the majority of surviving LXX manuscripts and Christian quotations consistently use κύριος. Philo (1st century CE), a prominent Hellenistic Jew, does not use ΙΑΩ in his works. Instead, he adheres to the reverence for the divine name by substituting it symbolically or with κύριος. If ΙΑΩ were widespread among Jews as Shaw suggests, it is notable that Philo does not reference or use it. So Shaw’s assertion for ΙΑΩ as “widespread” among ordinary Jews fails to account for its contextual and regional limitations. It does not challenge the evidence that κύριος was the standard and dominant Greek rendering of YHWH in the LXX tradition.
Claim: Howard and Trobisch argue that the removal of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with κύριος contributed to Christological "ambiguities", paving the way for Trinitarian theology.
This claim is speculative and ignores key historical and textual evidence. The translation of YHWH as κύριος in the LXX occurred before the emergence of Christianity. Jewish translators rendered YHWH as κύριος because it was the Greek equivalent of "Adonai," which Jews substituted orally for YHWH. This Jewish practice, rooted in reverence for the divine name, directly influenced the LXX. The New Testament authors inherited the LXX tradition where YHWH was consistently rendered as κύριος. The high Christology of the NT arises not from confusion but from a deliberate identification of Jesus with YHWH. For example Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32, applying "whoever calls on the name of YHWH" to Jesus as κύριος; Philippians 2:11 declares that every tongue will confess Jesus as κύριος, echoing Isaiah 45:23, where κύριος refers to YHWH. If the Tetragrammaton had been systematically removed to accommodate evolving Christology, we would expect transitional manuscripts or explicit evidence of such a decision. None exists. Early Christian manuscripts uniformly use κύριος, reflecting the inherited LXX tradition. There is no evidence that Christians replaced the Tetragrammaton; they simply adopted the Greek text as it stood. The alleged ambiguity between “Lord God” and “Lord Christ” is a theological interpretation, not a textual fact. The NT authors intentionally identified Jesus as κύριος (YHWH), not out of confusion but as a bold theological assertion. Jewish criticisms of early Christians (e.g., accusations of idolatry) focused on their worship of Jesus, not on their supposed misuse of the divine name. The same word was used to refer to Jesus ("the Lord," κύριος) and even the Holy Spirit (e.g., 2 Corinthians 3:17). There is no rule or reference in the New Testament suggesting that κύριος had one meaning for YHWH and a separate meaning for Jesus. If the use of the nomina sacra means that YHWH or ΙΑΩ originally stood in place of ΚΣ, that does not support your theological agenda either, since Christ is called ΚΣ the same way in the earliest MSS, but on what basis could you claim that YHWH or ΙΑΩ only appeared where God the Father is called ΚΣ? Based on these facts, we have only three options:
1. If the NT authors did not consider the possibility that readers might “confuse” YHWH with Jesus, they wrote with a level of carelessness that fundamentally undermines the inspiration and sacredness of their writings.
2. If the NT authors aimed to deceive intentionally, then the entire issue would be meaningless.
3. If the NT authors wrote carefully and conscientiously without intending to mislead, the logical conclusion based on the evidence is that they also affirmed Jesus' deity.
If the writers adhered to Watchtower theology, why were they not concerned about someone "confusing" Jesus with the Lord?
The Smoking Gun?
You cannot give a satisfactory answer to the question: Who made the decision to replace YHWH (or ΙΑΩ) with κύριος? Even more specifically: Who was the “Caliph Uthman” of the “apostate” (=proto-orthodox) Christianity who ordered the standardization of the NT and, under this heading, the falsification of the text?
The answer lies not in a conspiracy but in the Jewish translation process itself. The Jewish translators of the LXX rendered YHWH as κύριος because it reflected the Jewish oral practice of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH, and it was a theological choice to preserve reverence for the divine name. There was no systematic removal: The use of alternatives like ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH reflects later recensional efforts to reintroduce the divine name in specific Jewish contexts. Christians inherited the LXX as it stood, with κύριος already in place. There is no evidence of tampering or conspiracy to replace the Tetragrammaton.
So there is no “smoking gun” simply because there was no conspiracy. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that κύριος was the original and standard Greek rendering of YHWH, rooted in Jewish translation practices.
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
While it is true that manuscripts containing paleo-Hebrew or ΙΑΩ for the divine name exist, the evidence is not exclusively against κύριος. Pietersma hypothesizes that the earliest Greek translators used κύριος to render YHWH as a standard translation, primarily due to linguistic and religious constraints. The translators were adapting the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jewish communities. This aligns with Jewish avoidance of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton and substituting it orally with "Adonai" (Lord)—a practice which naturally influenced written translations. While fragments of pre-Christian LXX manuscripts (e.g., from Qumran or Naḥal Ḥever) show variations in how the Tetragrammaton is rendered (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew script), there is no conclusive evidence that the use of κύριος was absent. The Dead Sea Scrolls show a variety of practices, including the use of ΙΑΩ and paleo-Hebrew YHWH, indicating diversity rather than uniformity in rendering the divine name. The Kaige Recension is critical here. Anneli Aejmelaeus highlights that revisions such as Kaige aimed for extreme literalism and fidelity to the proto-Masoretic text. This revision likely replaced or revised earlier Greek renderings, including where κύριος had been standard. Therefore, the absence of κύριος in select texts does not prove it was never used; it merely points to alternative strategies of transmission.
Critics often argue that the development of contracted forms (κύριος → ΚΣ) is a distinct Christian phenomenon. However, this does not imply that κύριος was not the original Greek rendering. The transition to the contracted forms was a later scribal practice designed to reverence sacred terms, building on earlier traditions. The absence of an "uncontracted κύριος" from specific third to second-century BCE manuscripts is an argument from silence. Such a conclusion does not negate the plausible use of κύριος in the earliest Septuagint traditions. A critical point is that the Greek Old Testament tradition as we have it overwhelmingly uses κύριος. As Martin Rösel notes, the Septuagint translators appear to have adopted κύριος to denote the unique sovereignty of God over all creation, distinguishing Him from pagan gods.
The claim that the Septuagint did not originally use κύριος oversimplifies the situation. The textual history of the Greek Bible reveals diverse strategies for handling the divine name. The Kaige recension, highlighted in Anneli Aejmelaeus' analysis, was an effort to revise Greek translations to align more closely with the Hebrew proto-Masoretic text. This revision evidences a deliberate attempt to "correct" earlier renderings. As Angelini and Nagel note, manuscripts display ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH, and dots or blanks. This diversity supports the conclusion that there was no single strategy across all Jewish communities during the pre-Christian period. However, this does not disprove the early adoption of κύριος by certain Jewish translators in Alexandria. Later revisions, including Theodotion’s work, retained and standardized κύριος where older Greek texts may have exhibited alternatives. Traces of this standardization appear even in New Testament quotations, suggesting a pre-Christian precedent for using κύριος.
Theological objections to equating Jesus with YHWH (κύριος) appear to influence modern critiques. However the Septuagint translators' use of κύριος reflected Jewish reverence for YHWH, avoiding its direct pronunciation. This theological choice aligns with the oral practice of substituting "Adonai." The New Testament authors' identification of Jesus as κύριος draws on this pre-existing LXX tradition. The deliberate choice to attribute YHWH's titles to Jesus demonstrates the continuity of κύριος as a divine title rooted in Greek translations. Rösel highlights that the LXX's use of κύριος reflects a theological universalism, portraying God as the Κύριος tēs oikoumenēs (Lord of the whole world). This broader significance aligns with the emerging universalistic monotheism of Hellenistic Judaism.
Claim: ΙΑΩ was the original form of the divine name in the Septuagint (LXX), supported by fragments of Leviticus and its use in onomastica (name lists).
While ΙΑΩ does appear in some Greek manuscripts and onomastica (lists of transliterations of divine names), its limited textual presence does not make it the original or standard practice for the Old Greek (OG) translation of the LXX. These were transliterations of the divine name for specific purposes, often for Jewish and pagan magical contexts, not translations. Their usage reflects how the name sounded phonetically (transliteration of YHWH into Greek), but it does not indicate widespread adoption in scriptural texts. These fragments are isolated occurrences and likely represent either a regional textual tradition (such as in Egypt, where Jewish magical texts were common), or a liturgical revision to preserve the divine name for reverence. Crucially, the majority of extant LXX manuscripts and all post-Christian LXX texts uniformly use κύριος to render YHWH. If ΙΑΩ were the original, we would expect to see its widespread transmission in Greek biblical texts, yet this is absent. Pietersma's hypothesis explains this better: κύριος was the standard and earliest choice for translating YHWH, while isolated transliterations like ΙΑΩ emerged later as part of recensional efforts or regional variants.
Claim: The fragment of Leviticus with ΙΑΩ is of "good Septuagintal quality," indicating that ΙΑΩ was original.
Textual "quality" (?) does not necessarily determine originality; it indicates how faithfully a manuscript reflects its Vorlage (source text). A well-translated fragment containing ΙΑΩ could still be part of a later revisionist tradition. The Kaige recension and other textual corrections were efforts to bring the LXX closer to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). The reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton or transliterations like ΙΑΩ reflects this revisionist tendency. Pietersma and Emanuel Tov elsewhere emphasize that textual witnesses with ΙΑΩ are not definitive proof of its universal use. Instead, they indicate textual diversity, which arose over time. For example, Papyrus Fouad 266 (1st century BCE) contains the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew amidst Greek text. This demonstrates reverence but also suggests later liturgical insertions rather than original translation practice. Thus, while ΙΑΩ has a role in the textual tradition, it is better understood as a regional variant or scribal revision.
Claim: Κύριος was introduced only in the 2nd century CE.
This claim is speculative and lacks textual support. The Christian adoption of κύριος does not mean that it originated with Christians. The use of κύριος as the Greek equivalent of "Adonai" predates Christianity. Jewish reverence for the Tetragrammaton led to oral substitution with Adonai, which the Greek-speaking Jewish translators rendered as κύριος. Philo of Alexandria (1st century CE) confirms this. He avoids writing the Tetragrammaton but refers to it symbolically and reverentially, indicating the accepted Jewish practice of substituting κύριος. The nomina sacra (contracted forms of κύριος and θεός) emerged among Christians, but these reflect a later scribal tradition, not the original translation. By the time of the New Testament (1st century CE), κύριος was already the standard LXX equivalent for YHWH. NT authors consistently quote the LXX using κύριος where the Hebrew MT has YHWH. In conclusion, κύριος predates Christianity and reflects a long-established Jewish translation practice.
Claim: Textual variants between κύριος and θεός in the NT suggest the original presence of the divine name.
The textual variants cited (e.g., Acts 1:24, 1 Cor 2:16, Jude 5) reflect scribal harmonization and theological interpretation, not the removal of the divine name. Early NT manuscripts consistently use κύριος and θεός, which aligns with the LXX tradition of rendering YHWH as κύριος. There is no evidence of ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH in NT manuscripts. George Howard’s argument that the divine name was originally present in NT quotations lacks manuscript evidence. The NT’s consistent use of κύριος reflects its reliance on the LXX. For example, in Philippians 2:11, Paul applies Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) to Jesus: "Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), to the glory of God the Father." Here, κύριος is clearly understood in the YHWH sense, reflecting the LXX tradition. The textual variants cited are secondary developments and not indicative of an earlier presence of the Tetragrammaton.
Claim: Philo refers to the divine name, which some argue he derived from LXX copies containing the Tetragrammaton.
Philo's symbolic references to the divine name are consistent with Jewish tradition to avoid pronouncing YHWH. He does not quote the LXX using ΙΑΩ; instead, his writings reflect the substitution practice of κύριος. If Philo were familiar with a Greek Bible containing ΙΑΩ or YHWH, it is striking that he never explicitly refers to it.
Conclusion
1. The use of ΙΑΩ in select fragments and onomastica reflects regional revisions or transliterations for specific purposes. It does not prove ΙΑΩ was the original rendering of YHWH in the LXX.
2. The Kaige recension and manuscript diversity indicate that Jewish scribes occasionally reinserted the divine name to align with Hebrew liturgical practices.
3. Κύριος is attested in the Jewish tradition prior to the Christian era and aligns with the oral substitution of "Adonai" for YHWH.
4. The NT authors relied on the LXX tradition of using κύριος, applying it to Jesus in a way that equated Him with YHWH.
Emanuel Tov, Patrick Skehan, and others may argue for ΙΑΩ, but the overwhelming manuscript evidence, textual consistency, and historical context support κύριος as the standard and original Greek rendering of YHWH.
The JW argument is self-defeating because it fails to identify a plausible or consistent agent for the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the NT. If Jews were responsible, the argument collapses under its own weight. The Jewish authorities, already hostile toward Christianity, would not have had control over Christian manuscripts. More importantly, if Christians were using the Tetragrammaton to call upon the God of Israel, it would have caused massive controversy. Instead, Jewish criticism of Christians focused on their worship of Jesus as God (e.g., Pliny and Talmudic polemics). As you noted, Pliny the Younger, in his famous letter (ca. 112 CE), writes that Christians sang hymns “to Christ as God”. If Christians were proclaiming the divine name “YHWH” in this context, it would have been a far greater scandal to Jewish ears and Roman authorities alike—yet there is no evidence of such accusations.
Was It the Christians? If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton, why did they replace it with Kyrios—a term already used for Jesus throughout the NT? This substitution only reinforces the NT’s high Christology, where Jesus is identified with the Lord of the OT (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). Furthermore, early Christian manuscripts are overwhelmingly consistent in using Kyrios or Theos in OT quotations. If a theological conspiracy to remove the Tetragrammaton occurred, we would expect transitional manuscripts showing inconsistency or remnants of the divine name—but no such evidence exists. I repeat: There is no written record within early Christianity indicating that the Church ever instructed copyists or translators to eliminate YHWH.
Fear of Jewish Retaliation? The idea that Christians removed the Tetragrammaton to avoid persecution from Jews is weak and ahistorical. By the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, Jewish-Christian relations had already fractured significantly (e.g., the Birkat ha-Minim curse). Christians were being persecuted for proclaiming Jesus as divine, not for misusing the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish rejection of the Septuagint itself (ca. 2nd century) demonstrates that it was not Christians but Jews who distanced themselves from the LXX because Christians were using it to argue for Jesus’ Messiahship and divinity. If anything, the Christian use of Kyrios solidified the LXX as a distinctly Christian scripture.
Who made the decision on this? Where is the “smoking gun?”
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
Once I argued with a JW about the hypothesis that if they found a 2nd or 3rd-century NT manuscript fragment which would contain some form of the Tetragrammaton (or ΙΑΩ). Well, what would that prove? That this was the original apostolic variant? That the JW emphasis on the “use” of the Tetragrammaton was the original understanding in the apostolic age? Not even remotely! This would prove only that there was ALSO such a thing, we would not really know anything about who made it, what group it belonged to, what theological background represented. So we wouldn’t really know anything specific about this issue. For example, according to Pietersma, the Greek OT editions with the forms of the Tetragrammaton are the result of a later re-Hebraizing recension, so the hypothetical NT manuscript I suggested could also be the own product of a Judaizing heterodox sect (e.g. Ebionites). We wouldn't really know anything specific, but let's not doubt it, the Watchtower would immediately start promoting that their claim regarding this has been “proven”.
If such a hypothetical NT manuscript fragment were found containing the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ, it would not conclusively prove that this form was original to the apostles or the earliest Christians. A singular manuscript, or even a handful fragments tell us very little about its origins, provenance, or theological alignment. Was it mainstream or sectarian? Orthodoxy or heresy? Without additional evidence, it’s impossible to attribute this practice to the apostles or the original NT authors. Judaizing sects such as the Ebionites could have produced manuscripts that reintroduced a Hebrew form of the divine name. Such a fragment could simply reflect the influence of a heterodox group, not mainstream Christian belief. The existence of one textual variant does not invalidate other manuscript traditions. For example, we find textual variations in early manuscripts of the Gospels and epistles, but scholars rely on the broad attestation of the textual tradition to reconstruct the original text. A lone fragment with the Tetragrammaton would not outweigh the overwhelming manuscript evidence of Kyrios in the Greek NT.
In the same unfair way, you now want to reverse the burden of proof, so that instead of the Watchtower having to prove the existence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT, or its removal, I have to present the LXX manuscripts with Kyrios.
Albert Pietersma’s thesis regarding re-Hebraizing revisions is highly relevant here. Pietersma and other scholars (e.g., Martin Rösel, Emanuel Tov) argue that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in some Greek OT manuscripts, like 8HevXIIgr or Papyrus Fouad 266, represents later corrections that sought to align the Greek text with Hebrew scribal traditions. This process is particularly visible in the Kaige revision, which emerged in the 1st century BCE to “correct” the Septuagint toward proto-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts reflects a reactionary phase of Jewish scribal activity, not the original practice of the LXX translators. It arose out of a perceived need to return to Hebrew textual and theological norms, likely as part of broader concerns about Hellenistic influence and Christian usage of the LXX. The Kaige revision and re-Hebraizing tendencies show that Jewish scribes were inconsistent in handling the divine name. Some manuscripts included the Tetragrammaton; others used Greek equivalents like Kyrios. This diversity highlights that there was no universal standard in pre-Christian Judaism.
So the claim that “all” pre-Christian LXX manuscripts containing the divine name use the Tetragrammaton (or ΙΑΩ) is grossly misleading because pre-Christian manuscripts of the LXX are extremely limited and fragmentary. The few surviving examples that preserve the Tetragrammaton are exceptions, not representative of a universal scribal standard. These fragments constitute isolated instances. From such a small sample size, it is methodologically unsound to generalize that “all” pre-Christian LXX manuscripts used the Tetragrammaton. The fact that no extant pre-Christian LXX manuscript contains Kyrios does not prove that Kyrios was absent. The textual gap does not allow for definitive conclusions about the entire pre-Christian LXX tradition. The argument assumes that the absence of Kyrios in a limited number of surviving manuscripts equates to its universal absence. This is a classic argument from silence, which fails to account for the selectivity and incompleteness of the surviving manuscript record.
Philo of Alexandria consistently uses Kyrios when quoting the Septuagint. This is a crucial piece of evidence for the pre-Christian use of Kyrios in Greek-speaking Jewish communities. Philo never refers to the Tetragrammaton or its Greek equivalents (e.g., ΙΑΩ) in his extensive works. If the divine name were universally preserved in the LXX, Philo’s omission would be inexplicable. Philo explicitly uses Kyrios as a reverent reference to God, demonstrating that Kyrios was already a common and accepted substitute for the Tetragrammaton in Jewish circles during the pre-Christian period.
The NT writers, all of whom were Jewish, consistently quote the LXX using Kyrios where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. The NT authors were writing under divine inspiration. If the original LXX universally contained the Tetragrammaton, it is inconceivable that the apostles would consistently use an “altered” form of the text (Kyrios). In every instance, the NT writers preserve Kyrios, not the Tetragrammaton, reinforcing that this was the form of the Greek Scriptures used in the Jewish-Christian milieu of the first century.
The Kaige Revision of the Greek Old Testament is key to understanding how scribal practices evolved. The Kaige revisers were hyper-literal scribes who sought to align the Greek text more closely with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. The re-Hebraization seen in texts like 8HevXIIgr and P. Fouad 266 reflects a later scribal correction, not the original LXX. This reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton likely arose as a reaction to the increasing Christian use of Kyrios. Pietersma argues that the Old Greek translators originally used Kyrios to represent the Tetragrammaton. The use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in certain fragments is evidence of later scribal revisions, not the original translation practice.
The translation technique of the original LXX, particularly in the Pentateuch, strongly suggests that Kyrios was the original rendering of YHWH. The LXX translators frequently rendered YHWH as Kyrios, often without the definite article, to reflect its function as a divine name. For example in Genesis 15:2, where the Hebrew text has Adonai YHWH, the LXX reads Κύριε Κύριε ("Lord, Lord"). This shows that Kyrios was not merely a placeholder but an intentional rendering. If the Tetragrammaton had been present, we would expect inconsistencies or mixed usage in these renderings. The uniformity of Kyrios strongly indicates that it was the translator’s choice, not a later Christian insertion.
While scholars like Tov and Skehan argue for the originality of the Tetragrammaton, their views are far from universally accepted. Their conclusions rely heavily on the limited evidence of fragments like P. Fouad 266. These fragments do not represent the full scope of the early LXX tradition. Scholars such as Albert Pietersma, Martin Rösel, and Larry Perkins argue persuasively that Kyrios was original in the Old Greek. Tov himself acknowledges that the evidence is inconclusive, as the number of pre-Christian manuscripts is insufficient to make universal claims.
A deliberate and perfect textual forgery of the type that the JWs claim about the NT Tetragrammaton would have been physically possible only if the Church had implemented a textual standardization like that implemented by Uthman ibn Affan on the Qur’an. However, this - even if there had been such an intention - would not have been physically possible before the Constantine shift, given that, unlike Islam, which was quickly gaining a position of power, Christianity was a small and persecuted community in its first three centuries, without capability to carry out such centralized textual purge. There is no written record within early Christianity indicating that the Church ever instructed copyists or translators to eliminate YHWH. Such a decision would have required at least an ecumenical council decree, incited significant internal resistance, and could not have been carried out in secret. No external record from non-Christian sources supports this claim either—something that, for example, Jews could have used as a strong argument during theological debates.
Consider this: even the Uthmanic standardization of the Qur'an was not perfect, and evidence remains that other textual versions existed prior to Uthman's efforts. Capih Uthman ordered the burning of all other manuscripts that differed from the standardized version to suppress existing variations. This very act implies that multiple Qur'anic versions circulated before his standardization.
Prominent companions of Muhammad, such as Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, had their own codices that differed from Uthman's version. Ibn Mas’ud’s codex excluded Surahs 1, 113, and 114, Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s codex included additional surahs, such as the “Surah of the Two Lights,” not found in the current Qur'an. Islamic traditions themselves confirm these differences, showing that Uthman did not erase all evidence of alternative readings. Early Qur'anic manuscripts, such as the Sana’a Palimpsest, reveal textual variants when compared to the Uthmanic text. These manuscripts contain differences in wording, order, and even omitted or added verses, proving that diverse versions existed. The existence of multiple qira’at (canonical recitation styles), such as those of Hafs and Warsh, demonstrates that variations persisted even after Uthman’s standardization. These differences include changes in vowels, diacritical marks, and sometimes even words, which alter meanings.
So despite Uthman’s efforts to enforce a single Qur'anic text, the historical testimonies, manuscript discoveries (e.g., the Sana'a Palimpsest), and surviving variant recitations demonstrate that multiple versions of the Qur'an existed. Uthman’s standardization was not able to completely erase the evidence of these earlier textual differences.
In light of this, I ask, how was the "evil" Catholic Church able to remove the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament without leaving any direct or indirect trace of it?
The Watchtower Society frequently conflates hypothetical scenarios with established fact. If some hypothetical NT fragments with the Tetragrammaton were discovered, they would likely promote it as definitive proof of their claims. However, based on the fragmentary manuscript data, it cannot be stated that this is normative. Without widespread attestation across early manuscripts, the fragment’s significance would remain limited. The Watchtower fails to meet the burden of proof for its claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the NT. There is no evidence of transitional manuscripts or historical records describing this supposed “removal.” In contrast, the consistent use of Kyrios in the NT and early Christian manuscripts reflects a well-established tradition. The Watchtower ignores the overwhelming evidence for Kyrios in early Christian manuscripts while elevating isolated and ambiguous examples of the Tetragrammaton. Their argument relies on speculation and selective reasoning, not a balanced assessment of the textual tradition.
Pliny the Younger writes about the Christians: “Affirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere...” Why doesn't he write that they call upon some “Iehovah”, thereby causing great scandal to the Jews?
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345

@Earnest
FYI: Pietersma, Albert (1984), "Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX"
The claim that there is no pre-Christian Septuagint (LXX) manuscript containing Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton is an argument from silence. It assumes that the absence of early LXX manuscripts with Kyrios is conclusive evidence of its nonexistence. The extant pre-Christian Greek manuscripts are extremely limited and fragmentary. We cannot infer with certainty what the “universal” practice was based on these small samples. Texts like 8HevXIIgr and P. Fouad 266—which contain the Tetragrammaton—reflect a re-Hebraizing recension, where scribes intentionally reintroduced the Tetragrammaton into the Greek text. Albert Pietersma and other scholars (e.g., Hanhart) have shown that these texts are not representatives of the original LXX, but are later corrections aimed at aligning the LXX with the Hebrew tradition.
Scholars like Albert Pietersma, Martin Rösel, and Larry Perkins argue persuasively that Kyrios was the original rendering of the divine name in the Old Greek (OG). This conclusion is based on the internal evidence of the LXX itself. The translation technique of the Pentateuch indicates that the translators adopted Kyrios consistently as a proper noun, often unarticulated (without the article) to reflect its role as a divine name. In passages like Exodus 8:22 (LXX), Kyrios appears in an appellative form (ho Kyrios) for interpretive purposes, indicating that the translators were intentionally using Kyrios to convey the meaning of the Tetragrammaton, not as a placeholder.
Furthermore, the consistency with which Kyrios replaces both YHWH and Adonai (when the two occur together, such as in Genesis 15:2 and Deuteronomy 3:24) demonstrates that the translators viewed these names as synonymous in Greek. If the Tetragrammaton were present in the original LXX, such consistent substitution patterns would be inexplicable.
The argument that there is no recorded discussion about the substitution of Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton fails on multiple fronts. Silence about scribal practices or textual transmission is common in antiquity. For instance, we have no historical record of a decision to introduce the nomina sacra in Christian texts, yet they appear universally in Christian manuscripts.The lack of record about this change does not imply a conspiracy; it reflects the organic and practical development of scribal conventions in Jewish and Christian communities.
The claim that Christians “hijacked” the LXX is misleading. The Jewish rejection of the LXX began in earnest in the second century AD following disputes with Christians who used the LXX to prove Jesus as the Messiah. In response, Jews favored the proto-Masoretic text and translations like those of Aquila, which avoided Kyrios and reverted to more literal renderings. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in Christian copies reflects continuity with the Greek-speaking Jewish tradition that originally produced the LXX, not a deliberate Christian alteration.
The claim that Christians systematically replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios after the first century is unsupported by textual evidence. Manuscripts like P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr post-date the LXX’s original composition and reflect specific re-Hebraizing revisions, not the norm. The original LXX, as Pietersma demonstrates, used Kyrios to represent YHWH. No evidence exists for a widespread Christian effort to alter pre-existing manuscripts. The introduction of Kyrios predates Christianity and aligns with Jewish practices in the Greek-speaking diaspora, where the divine name was not vocalized out of reverence. Moreover, Philo of Alexandria, a pre-Christian Jewish philosopher, explicitly interprets the divine name as Kyrios in his writings (e.g., De Plantatione 85–90). Philo’s testimony confirms that Kyrios was read and understood as the Greek equivalent of YHWH in Jewish communities before the rise of Christianity.
It is speculative to claim that Christian scribes replaced the Tetragrammaton. The appearance of Kyrios in all known NT manuscripts and later LXX copies aligns with pre-Christian Jewish tradition. If Christians had systematically replaced the divine name, we would expect clear evidence of transitional manuscripts showing inconsistent usage. No such manuscripts exist.
51
Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
aqwsed12345

@Earnest
Almost all of our surviving LXX manuscripts date from the second century CE onward, however, we have strong evidence that Kyrios was in use before the Christian era. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Jewish philosopher, frequently uses Kyrios (Lord) when quoting the Septuagint. Philo never mentions the Tetragrammaton or its preservation in Greek manuscripts, suggesting that Kyrios was already established in his community’s scripture. This demonstrates that the Septuagint circulated with Kyrios in place of the divine name among Hellenistic Jews by the 1st century CE.
The New Testament writers (all of whom were Jewish) quote extensively from the LXX. In every instance where they quote Old Testament passages containing the Tetragrammaton, they use Kyrios (Lord). If the original LXX manuscripts used the Tetragrammaton universally, it is inconceivable that the apostles and New Testament writers, under divine inspiration, would have conformed to an “altered” version of the text. The practice of using Kyrios as a reverent abbreviation (nomina sacra) for God’s name emerged in the first and second centuries CE. This convention reflects a continuity with the Jewish scribal tradition of substituting Adonai (Lord) for the Tetragrammaton in spoken and written form.
While certain pre-Christian manuscripts, such as Papyrus Fouad 266, preserve the Tetragrammaton, these fragments are exceptions rather than evidence of a universal standard. Other Greek Jewish texts show no evidence of insisting on the inclusion of the divine name in its Hebrew form. The Jewish community’s widespread avoidance of pronouncing the divine name (substituting Adonai) likely influenced scribes to adopt Kyrios as a reverent equivalent.
It is important to note the lack of pre-Christian manuscripts that exclusively and universally contain the Tetragrammaton. The evidence points to a diversity of scribal practices among Greek-speaking Jews before the Christian era. While Papyrus Fouad 266 includes the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script, it is an isolated example, not a conclusive representative of the pre-Christian LXX scribal transmission. The existence of these fragments that preserve the Tetragrammaton does not prove that the use of Kyrios was absent. On the contrary, the broader tradition of Philo, the New Testament, and subsequent manuscripts shows that Kyrios was the dominant practice.
So what we do know is that Philo, the New Testament writers, and early Christians consistently used Kyrios as the Greek equivalent for the Tetragrammaton. This established practice demonstrates that Kyrios was already widely accepted in the Jewish Greek-speaking world before the Christian era.
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze in
1. watchtower
2. bible
that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
The Watchtower article cited makes selective use of historical and biblical sources, misrepresenting them to support Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrinal stance. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit celebrating birthdays. The examples of Pharaoh (Genesis 40:20) and Herod (Matthew 14:6-10) show sinful acts committed on birthdays, but the celebrations themselves are not condemned. These narratives highlight the wickedness of the individuals, not the inherent sinfulness of marking a birthday. In fact, Job 1:4-5 suggests that Job’s children held feasts "each on his day." While Jehovah's Witnesses argue this refers to something other than birthdays, the text does not explicitly deny the possibility. Job’s concern was for their behavior, not the occasion itself. The Watchtower’s argument hinges on the idea that wedding anniversaries celebrate a divinely instituted arrangement (marriage), while birthdays do not. However the Bible does not mandate the celebration of anniversaries either. Birthdays, like anniversaries, can be moments to reflect on God’s blessings and milestones in life. Both celebrations can honor God if done appropriately.
Jehovah’s Witnesses often reject customs with alleged pagan origins (birthdays, Christmas) while embracing others (wedding rings, using names of days/months). This double standard is illogical: As the Watchtower itself states (The Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1991):
“Still, all kinds of objects, designs, and practices have, at some time or place, been given a false interpretation or have been linked with unscriptural teachings. Trees have been worshiped, the heart shape has been viewed as sacred, and incense has been used in pagan ceremonies. Does this mean that a Christian must never use incense, have trees in any decoration, or wear heart-shaped jewelry? That is not a valid conclusion.”
If wedding rings are permissible despite their pagan history, so too should be birthdays or Christmas, which no longer carry pagan meanings in their modern context. Practices like birthdays and Christmas have lost their pagan associations and are celebrated today in entirely different contexts. Christians focus on Christ’s incarnation at Christmas, not pagan gods or rituals. Similarly, birthdays celebrate life—a gift from God.
The Watchtower often cites sources like Hastings’ Encyclopaedia or Origen to argue against birthdays, ignoring the broader historical context. Origen’s condemnation of birthdays reflects his ascetic philosophy, not a biblical command. His views were not universally accepted by early Christians and are irrelevant as binding doctrine. While ancient Jews avoided birthdays due to potential astrological connotations, this cultural preference is not a binding principle for Christians. The New Testament explicitly teaches that Christians are not bound by Jewish customs (Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 4:9-10).
The claim that "week names" (e.g., Thursday, named after Thor) are unavoidable but harmless is revealing. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that using pagan-derived weekday names is acceptable because these names are practical tools, not acts of worship. However the same reasoning applies to birthdays and Christmas. These celebrations no longer carry their original pagan significance and are instead opportunities for family unity, gratitude, and worship of God.
Romans 14:5-6 teaches that Christians have freedom regarding the observance of special days:
“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.”
This passage underscores personal liberty in matters of celebration, provided they honor God. Celebrating a birthday or Christmas is not inherently sinful and can be done in a God-honoring way. Celebrating milestones like birthdays or Christmas can be spiritually enriching when approached with gratitude toward God. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ blanket rejection overlooks the potential for these celebrations to inspire faith and community.
The entry in Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature provides historical context about birthdays in ancient cultures but does not establish any prohibition against their observance for Christians. Below is a detailed response addressing the key points raised in the entry:
Claim: "The observance of birthdays may be traced to a very ancient date... celebrated with a degree of festivity."
Yes, the celebration of birthdays has ancient origins, but their historical existence does not inherently make them inappropriate for Christians. The argument that birthdays are tied to pagan practices misunderstands the nature of cultural evolution. Modern birthday celebrations are no longer associated with the religious or idolatrous rites of ancient Egypt, Persia, or Rome. Just as wedding rings or calendars have pagan origins but are now used without religious connotations, birthdays can similarly be celebrated without idolatry.
Claim: "The birthdays of the Egyptian kings were celebrated with great pomp... regarded as holy days with no business done upon them."
The text mentions Egyptian practices, which often involved idolatrous rituals, but it does not follow that modern birthday celebrations are idolatrous. Christians are not bound by Egyptian or Persian customs, nor do contemporary birthday celebrations mimic those practices. For example a holiday like Christmas or Easter may have coincided with ancient pagan festivals but has been "Christianized" to reflect biblical truths. Similarly, birthday celebrations today are a time of thanksgiving and joy, often involving prayer and acknowledgment of God’s blessings.
Claim: "In the Bible there is no instance of birthday celebrations among the Jews themselves... later Jews regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship."
The absence of explicit birthday celebrations in the Bible is not a prohibition. The Bible does not record many neutral or positive cultural practices of its time, but this does not make them sinful. Later Jewish avoidance of birthdays was cultural and based on caution against pagan influences, not a biblical command. This reflects a post-exilic mindset of distancing from Gentile customs, but Christians are not bound by later Jewish traditions (see Colossians 2:16-17).
Claim: "The example of Herod the tetrarch, whose birthday celebration cost John the Baptist his life, can scarcely be regarded as such."
The fact that immoral acts occurred during Herod’s birthday does not condemn the concept of celebrating birthdays. The Bible does not attribute the beheading of John the Baptist to the birthday itself but to the wickedness of Herod and his family. By this logic, one could argue against any festivity because sinful acts might occur during them. Similar logic could be misapplied to weddings. For instance, Jesus attended a wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), but if someone committed a sin during a wedding, would that mean weddings are sinful? Of course not. It is the actions of the individuals, not the occasion, that are condemned.
Claim: "Later Jews regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship... on account of idolatrous rites in honor of patron gods of the day."
The association of birthdays with idolatry in some cultures does not apply universally or historically to every birthday celebration. Christians do not observe birthdays with idolatrous intent or rituals. Modern birthday customs, such as cakes or candles, are secularized expressions of celebration and gratitude, devoid of pagan worship. The argument against birthdays based on their alleged pagan origins ignores the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses allow practices like the use of wedding rings, which also have pagan roots. Their own literature acknowledges:
“Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices.” (The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1972, p. 63-64).
Why apply a stricter standard to birthdays while ignoring other practices with similar origins? The Bible does not explicitly command or forbid birthday celebrations. However, it does emphasize the freedom of Christians regarding cultural practices, as long as they do not involve sin:
"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord." (Romans 14:5-6)
"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." (Colossians 2:16-17)
In Job 1:4-5, Job’s children held feasts "each on his day," which some scholars interpret as their birthdays. Job, rather than condemning the celebrations, prayed for his children, showing concern for their spiritual well-being. This demonstrates a balanced perspective: celebrations can be occasions for gratitude and prayer, not condemnation.
So the argument against birthdays relies on guilt by association, linking modern practices with ancient pagan customs that are no longer relevant. The Bible provides no explicit prohibition of birthdays, and their modern observance bears no resemblance to ancient idolatrous rites. Christians are free to celebrate birthdays as occasions of gratitude to God for the gift of life. As Paul wrote, "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on birthdays reflects an inconsistent application of their principles, as they permit other practices with similar historical roots while condemning birthdays without biblical justification. In short, the observance of birthdays is a personal choice and can be a God-honoring tradition when approached with the right intent.
The rejection of birthdays and Christmas by Jehovah’s Witnesses is rooted in selective interpretations of history and inconsistent application of their own principles. Modern Christians celebrate these occasions in ways that reflect their faith and gratitude to God, not paganism. The Bible allows freedom in such matters, emphasizing that the heart's intention is what matters most (Colossians 3:17). Rejecting these celebrations outright imposes unnecessary restrictions and misses opportunities to glorify God through shared joy and thanksgiving.
Your emotional claims deserve a measured response:
- Claim: "I avoid celebrations for commercialism or pagan reasons."
- Claim: "People like you put me off religion."

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345

The Original Meaning of “Christendom”

The Watchtower Society’s Distortion of “Christendom”

Why the Watchtower’s Usage is Problematic

A More Respectful Alternative