metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's in reference to Jesus being the "final sacrifice", so how is it that God could be sacrificed to God?
As he sits on "God's right hand", so how can God sit on "God's right hand"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
JW Minister
Member
The King James translation is slanted by the scribes to portray Jesus as GOD the passage preacher of Christendom point as proof Jesus is GOD is:
King James Version 1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
If this verse was the original text then yes Jesus is in fact GOD because it clearly says God became flesh and blood .
Of course any one who attends Church would cringe at a Witness at their door saying this verse is false and I can understand why they have been told this doctrine for years that Jesus is GOD and preachers read this in Church.
But this verse is false and not part of the original text but was changed by the scribes and slanted to make a trinity teaching.
True when examined some scholars claim this was a innocent mistake but how could it be a overlook when it gives the thought that GOD became a human flesh and blood man,it was not a mistake but a deliberate false misleading doctrine.
How was it done to make it seem it was just a overlook or a innocent mistake ?
First the correct translation from Jehovahs Witness NWT
1 Timothy 3:16
Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,+ was declared righteous in spirit,+ appeared to angels,+ was preached about among nations,+ was believed upon in the world,+ was received up in glory.’
Instead of GOD the original text was HE
Bible scholars all agree it should be HE and not GOD several other translation agree with Jehovahs Witness translation:
New International Version
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
English Standard Version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
New American Standard Bible
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
Christian Standard Bible
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory
Holman Christian Standard Bible
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
These are just a few there are many more but the question is how was this done and since the King James translation is the most used in Churches most Church people are in the dark and mislead.
The Alexandrine Codex was the first of the major Bible manuscripts to be made accessible to scholars.It dates back to the early part of the fifth century C.E. Several scribes evidently shared in writing it, and the text has been corrected throughout. It is written on vellum, two columns to each page,scribes made their copies from the same source or close exemplars. With the Alexandrine Codex, however, the scribes seemed concerned with bringing together readings from different families so as to provide as good a text as possible. In fact, it proved to be older and better than any of the Greek manuscripts used as the basis for the King James Version of 1611.
The Alexandrine reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 provoked much controversy when it was published. The King James Version here reads: “God was manifest in the flesh,” in referring to Christ Jesus. and if this was the text then Jesus is GOD.
But in this ancient codex, the contraction for “God,” formed by two Greek letters “ΘC,” appears originally to have read “ΟC,” the word for “who.” Obviously, this meant that Christ Jesus was not “God.”
It took more than 200 years and the discovery of other older manuscripts to confirm the rendering “who” or “which” as being correct.
Bible scholor of the NT who disagree with Jehovahs Witnesses doctrine himself confesses that the text in KJ version is an error he says;
“No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century . . . supports θεός [the·osʹ]; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός [the·osʹ].” Today, most translations concur in omitting any reference to “God” in this text."
Still how many who go to Church with their King James bible know this verse is FALSE? when we point this out at their door do you think they will listen? How many door have been slammed in our faces when we say the Holy Bible they believe in has been tampered with?
Hi @JW Minister
JW Minister said "The King James translation is slanted by the scribes to portray Jesus as GOD the passage preacher of Christendom point as proof Jesus is GOD is: King James Version 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
If this verse was the original text then yes Jesus is in fact GOD because it clearly says God became flesh and blood . (Post #782)
JW Minister said : 'Instead of GOD the original text was HE...Bible scholars all agree it should be HE and not GOD several other translation agree with Jehovahs Witness translation:" (Post #782)
This is a good example of how theology affects translation.
While a corrector did change ΟΣ ("he") into ΘΣ ("God") in C. Alexandrinus, the motive to change was presumably that the corrector thought the word OUGHT to be "God" (gk ΘΣ) instead of "He".
This does not mean that the writer of the text did not MEAN "God" by the word "He", merely that the text does not use the word God.
This was my point regarding Hebrews 1:3.
The translator that changes "Character" into "Exact Character" is applying his own theology in creating this error, just as the corrector of Alexandrinus was using his theology (presumably) to make the text say what he thought it should say instead of what it actually said.
That "ΟΣ is the correct reading OF THAT MANUSCRIPT is not questioned (though there are at least 23 other manuscripts that DO us ΘΣ (eng "God") in this phrase.
Perhaps the corrector was used to the other manuscripts and was trying to correct this one and he was not trying to insert his theology into the text. We simply don't know.
I would think that, given the verse prior, would at least justify a corrector for thinking it was o.k. to switch "God" for "He". For example, verse 15 says, '"....thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."
IF the corrector and the many, many early Church Fathers who quote verse 16 as "God was manifest..." instead of "He was manifest...", perhaps it was because verse 15 speaks of "the living God" and this may have formed the context for the assumption that verse 16 is referring to that same living "God" in the many greek manuscripts where it appears as "Theos" (God) instead of "He" (or "he who").
I don't know the answer to why it was changed. I do agree that "He" is the authentic version in GN4. "OS" (eng "he") is an "A" category verse in GN4 and 5 translators text (meaning it is clearly the more original version of the multiple versions in early manuscripts)
I am not trying to argue theology, but translation and how the text and translations are created and changed and affected by the theology of the writers and of the later correctors of the early texts.
In any case, and whether "he" refers to God or Jesus, I appreciate the example of changes made to manuscripts presumably based on the theology of the writer, or of a later person who is trying to change the text to represent their theology.
In any case, I hope your journey is wonderful.
Clear
ειφισενετωω
JW Minister said "The King James translation is slanted by the scribes to portray Jesus as GOD the passage preacher of Christendom point as proof Jesus is GOD is: King James Version 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
If this verse was the original text then yes Jesus is in fact GOD because it clearly says God became flesh and blood . (Post #782)
JW Minister said : 'Instead of GOD the original text was HE...Bible scholars all agree it should be HE and not GOD several other translation agree with Jehovahs Witness translation:" (Post #782)
This is a good example of how theology affects translation.
While a corrector did change ΟΣ ("he") into ΘΣ ("God") in C. Alexandrinus, the motive to change was presumably that the corrector thought the word OUGHT to be "God" (gk ΘΣ) instead of "He".
This does not mean that the writer of the text did not MEAN "God" by the word "He", merely that the text does not use the word God.
This was my point regarding Hebrews 1:3.
The translator that changes "Character" into "Exact Character" is applying his own theology in creating this error, just as the corrector of Alexandrinus was using his theology (presumably) to make the text say what he thought it should say instead of what it actually said.
That "ΟΣ is the correct reading OF THAT MANUSCRIPT is not questioned (though there are at least 23 other manuscripts that DO us ΘΣ (eng "God") in this phrase.
Perhaps the corrector was used to the other manuscripts and was trying to correct this one and he was not trying to insert his theology into the text. We simply don't know.
I would think that, given the verse prior, would at least justify a corrector for thinking it was o.k. to switch "God" for "He". For example, verse 15 says, '"....thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."
IF the corrector and the many, many early Church Fathers who quote verse 16 as "God was manifest..." instead of "He was manifest...", perhaps it was because verse 15 speaks of "the living God" and this may have formed the context for the assumption that verse 16 is referring to that same living "God" in the many greek manuscripts where it appears as "Theos" (God) instead of "He" (or "he who").
I don't know the answer to why it was changed. I do agree that "He" is the authentic version in GN4. "OS" (eng "he") is an "A" category verse in GN4 and 5 translators text (meaning it is clearly the more original version of the multiple versions in early manuscripts)
I am not trying to argue theology, but translation and how the text and translations are created and changed and affected by the theology of the writers and of the later correctors of the early texts.
In any case, and whether "he" refers to God or Jesus, I appreciate the example of changes made to manuscripts presumably based on the theology of the writer, or of a later person who is trying to change the text to represent their theology.
In any case, I hope your journey is wonderful.
Clear
ειφισενετωω
JW Minister
Member
Hello
Clear
You said: "I don't know the answer to why it was changed."
A comparison of ancient manuscripts shows that the Bible is basically unchanged despite millenniums of recopying on perishable materials.
Thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts have been found. Some of these contain a number of differences, indicating that mistakes were made in copying. Most of these differences are minor and do not change the meaning of the text.or the attempt to interject their own theology or beliefs in the text as a WARNING from GOD who is the author :
“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things,+ God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;+ 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life+ and out of the holy city,+ things that are written about in this scroll.
The question that then has to be asked Is it not reasonable that God, having inspired the Bible in the first place, would also preserve its accuracy?
After all, he intended it to benefit not only people of long ago but also us today.
Still there is a enemy of truth who is the Prince of darkness and has people in the dark to Gods message for today the fact that there has been deliberate attempts made long ago to alter the Bible’s message the question has to be aked is how many more errors or alterations are in the King James version thats used widely in the Churches of Christendom :
Why the King James Bible of 1611 Remains the Most Popular Translation in History
Why the King James Bible of 1611 Remains the Most Popular Translation in History
There are many instances of not just excluding but adding text :
at John 8:1-11 (Authorized Version) about an adulterous woman about to be stoned, and that reports Jesus as saying, ‘Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.’
It was not in early manuscript. So later editions of the Bible have removed it
John 8:1-11
There is a controversy concerning this story—whether it was part of the Gospel of John from the beginning. Most scholars agree that the story is not Johannine in its origins and that it was added later.
Manuscript History and John 8:1-8:11
Interestingly enough, the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John do not contain this beloved passage. Indeed, the first manuscript to contain the story is from around 400 C.E. Around 4% of Greek manuscripts that include the passage place it in locations other than John 8:1-8:11; the earliest of these is from around the ninth and tenth centuries C.E. This perplexing manuscript history fuels debates about whether the story was originally in John’s Gospel and, if so, where. The majority of scholars believe a later Christian scribe inserted the passage into John’s Gospel at John 8:1-8:11 and that the alternate locations are due to the effects of later liturgical reading in what is known as the lectionary system. This popular method of reading the Bible broke the text into individual units that were designated for specific days and often rearranged the order of the holy text in order to reflect these reading preferences. The story of the woman caught in adultery was one of several such relocated passages.
We can say its a nice passage of Jesus compassion of forgiveness so whats the harm? the harm suggest how many more texts have been removed, altered and tampered with ? There are many instances that Jehovahs Witnesses have found and try to bring out and rejected as false teachers with your own bible the New World translation ,yet if the bothered to research they would discover these instances.Why do some not bother to check since their salvation is involved ? Thats because the Church pastor is the authority of the bible since he went to theology school and ordained to preach and teach and all others are not ordained therefore he is the one to interpret ,read and discuss scripture,which is false
the first century believers set the example for all other bible believers.
New International Version
Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It looks like a simple error and not a purposeful slant "by scribes to portray Jesus as GOD".
This is not THE passage trinitarians point to,,,,,,,,,,,,there are many.
The new and probably improved translation does not actually mean that Christ Jesus is not "God".
IMO it is unfortunate that some churches see the KJV as sacrosanct. It means the people don't read what the scriptures actually do say in places where mistakes have been made.
I guess it leaves the door open for unscrupulous JWs to say the Bible has been tampered with by evil Christendom.
The NWT however has not got a good reputation when it comes to the Bible being tampered with.
JW Minister
Member
t looks like a simple error and not a purposeful slant "by scribes to portray Jesus as GOD".
This is not THE passage trinitarians point to,,,,,,,,,,,,there are many.
The new and probably improved translation does not actually mean that Christ Jesus is not "God".
There are no scriptures that point to Jesus as being God to support a trinity .One other one is:
King James
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript but were tampered with to yet again slant the trinity teaching.
“According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read: ‘And there are three who give testimony, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.’”
Jehovahs Witness NWT has the correct manuscript:
For there are three witness bearers: 8 the spirit+ and the water+ and the blood;+ and the three are in agreement.
To say there are 3 in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one again is not an overlook or "simple error" CLEARLY the scribe slanted this passage to support a false trinity teaching and several other modern translation follow JWs in CORRECTING this deceit:
New International Version
For there are three that testify
the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
7For there are three that testify:i, j 8the Spirit,k the water, and the bloodl — and these three are in agreement. 9
Several other agree with our NWT the original text said nothing about 3 in heaven to support a false trinity teaching ,the scribe failed to copy the text he seen and changed the meaning to mislead untold millions the the Catholic Church and all of standard Churches in the world ,cant be yet another little "simple error" but a outright blatant deception ,the manuscript as seen didn't harmonize with his beliefs so he usurp his responsibility as a trusted scribe and in doing so billions have the beliefs that Jesus is GOD.Untold millions will never take the time to investigate the passages that conflict with their beliefs and reject Jehovahs Witnesses New World Translation just like your comment;
"The NWT however has not got a good reputation when it comes to the Bible being tampered with"
The most learned Bible scholar of the New Testament Ernest Colwell recognized as the Bible scholar of the NT with Colwells rule .He was not a Jehovahs Witness but factually accessed with his rule the accuracy of the NT
"Colwell recognized an extraordinary textual affinity between Minuscule 2427 and Codex Vaticanus. According to him the codex 2427 preserved a "primitive text" of the Gospel of Mark ("Archaic Mark").[2] He found that from 73 singular readings of Codex Vaticanus, 46 are shared with codex 2427.[3] Colwell examined Minuscule 330 and found that the text of the Pauline epistles of this codex is textually very close to the codices 451, 2400 and 2492.[4]'
Scholar searched the NT for accuracy from the Greek text of wihich he was an expert
in Greek the JWs New World Translation was completed in 1950 Professor Colwell released a book entitled
What is the Best New Testament? Hardcover – Import, January 1, 1952
by Ernest Cadman Colwell (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/What-Testament-Ernest-Cadman-Colwell/dp/B0000CIAZJ
Profesor Robinson said
[URL='https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3N45O4I3H1FD4/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0000CIAZJ'] Excellent Publication
Reviewed in the United States on October 9, 2010
Verified Purchase
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to compare translations. Colwell really did his homework!
What was Colwells apparatus of translations ?
[1]Had to agree with the Critical Text[/URL]
[2] Agrees with the later Textus Receptus King James Version,
[3] Westcott and Hort Text Jehovah's Witness
Greek Scholar E.C Colwell scored textus last among 64 translations
and according to his critical text ranked Jehovahs Witness New World Translation 1st along with 21st Century NT* and Goodspeed* scoring 64 out of 64
King James 0-64 he then commented;
The New World Translation is the Best New Testament According to E.C. Colwell
Why is the TR (Textus Receptus/Received Text) weaker. According to Colwell,?
"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20; Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100
IMO it is unfortunate that some churches see the KJV as sacrosanct. It means the people don't read what the scriptures actually do say in places where mistakes have been made.
I guess it leaves the door open for unscrupulous JWs to say the Bible has been tampered with by evil Christendom.
The NWT however has not got a good reputation when it comes to the Bible being tampered with.[
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, the Trinitarian concept does not posit Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God but instead are of God. IOW, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are believed to be of the "essence" of God, and remember, "essence" means this: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character".
JW Minister
Member
God is Holy ,Jesus is Holy, Angels are said to be HOLY ,God has a name Jehovah ,his son has a name Jesus what is the Holy Spirits name? just Holy Spirit dosnot differentiate this so called 3rd part of a Godhead because Angels can be viewed as Holy Spirits since they are HOLY :
King James Bible
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.
This suggest to the reader that The Holy Spirit has no biblical separation since all Spirits which are messengers are HOLY.
Another reason this teaching has no biblical support but invented by scribes is one scripture that cant be explained if in fact THE HOLY SPIRIT is equal in substance with God .
The Trinity teaching says;
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold") holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons, each corresponding to its own hypostasis: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, as one God in three Divine Persons.
So this is saying THE HOLY SPIRIT IS EQUAL with the other two ,yet this scripture cast doubt of this doctrine;
King James Bible
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
New King James Version
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
So the 1st part and 2nd part of this GODHEAD can be blasphemed but somehow the 3rd part the HOLY SPIRIT cant be ,THE HOLY SPIRIT somehow is more HOLY than the other 2 but the doctrine says;
'the Holy Spirit, as one God in three Divine Persons"
So the bible dont support this doctrine when looked at closely and not just accepted just because its a teaching of the Churches.
Is the Holy Spirit the same as God?
For the majority of Christian denominations, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is the third person of the Trinity, the Triune God manifested as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each entity itself being God
Are God and the Holy Spirit the same?
"The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God because three persons exist in God as one entity. They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.
This doctrine is false and when a bright light is shone on this belief its proved false and not supported by the scriptures as scribes tore out the parts of the manuscripts that disagreed with his beliefs or blotted out the texts and inserted texts that did support his beliefs.
Hi @JW Minister
I agree that the text of 1 Tim 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus was inappropriately changed from “He” (gk “ΟΣ) to “God” (gk “ΘΣ).
This is similar to the changes made by the Jehovahs Witnesses when they inappropriately inserted “Jehovah” into the New Testament text where it did not exist in New Testament greek source texts.
When I said I didn’t know why the text was changed (post #783), I was referring to the motives of the corrector who changed it.
Though I do not support changing the text, I did not ascribe an evil motive to this change in the biblical text.
The Corrector may have changed the text to modify the text to support their personal theology.
The Corrector may have changed the text because the text did not match the prior manuscripts the corrector had seen that read “God” instead of “He”.
There may be another motive but in the first case the motive is less justifiable than in the second case.
Thus, in suggesting we do not know what the correctors motive was in changing the text, we cannot simply assume the motive was evil.
For example, when the Jewish Massoretes tell us they found many errors and offer lists of example of changes they themselves made when creating the Masoretic bible that has become the standard bible in rabbinic Judaism, they were trying to make changes that would honor God, despite the changes not being the actual text in their source texts. While the result is a contamination of the source text, the motive to make changes in the text may not have been evil.
Motives to change the stories and narratives have probably existed as long as these stories were told and on into the age where the stories were written down.
Such motives are not unlike the changes the Jehovahs Witnesses have made to the New Testament text when they inserted “Jehovah” in places where the original Greek New Testament text never had it.
Such changes may be misguided, but they are not necessarily “evil” or intended to corrupt the text.
I think that @Brian2 could be correct when he points out that “It looks like a simple error and not a purposeful slant "by scribes to portray Jesus as GOD". (post #785)
Clear
ειφισισιτωω
I agree that the text of 1 Tim 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus was inappropriately changed from “He” (gk “ΟΣ) to “God” (gk “ΘΣ).
This is similar to the changes made by the Jehovahs Witnesses when they inappropriately inserted “Jehovah” into the New Testament text where it did not exist in New Testament greek source texts.
When I said I didn’t know why the text was changed (post #783), I was referring to the motives of the corrector who changed it.
Though I do not support changing the text, I did not ascribe an evil motive to this change in the biblical text.
The Corrector may have changed the text to modify the text to support their personal theology.
The Corrector may have changed the text because the text did not match the prior manuscripts the corrector had seen that read “God” instead of “He”.
There may be another motive but in the first case the motive is less justifiable than in the second case.
Thus, in suggesting we do not know what the correctors motive was in changing the text, we cannot simply assume the motive was evil.
For example, when the Jewish Massoretes tell us they found many errors and offer lists of example of changes they themselves made when creating the Masoretic bible that has become the standard bible in rabbinic Judaism, they were trying to make changes that would honor God, despite the changes not being the actual text in their source texts. While the result is a contamination of the source text, the motive to make changes in the text may not have been evil.
Motives to change the stories and narratives have probably existed as long as these stories were told and on into the age where the stories were written down.
Such motives are not unlike the changes the Jehovahs Witnesses have made to the New Testament text when they inserted “Jehovah” in places where the original Greek New Testament text never had it.
Such changes may be misguided, but they are not necessarily “evil” or intended to corrupt the text.
I think that @Brian2 could be correct when he points out that “It looks like a simple error and not a purposeful slant "by scribes to portray Jesus as GOD". (post #785)
Clear
ειφισισιτωω
Last edited:
JW Minister
Member
JW Minister
Member
"Such motives are not unlike the changes the Jehovahs Witnesses have made to the New Testament text when they inserted “Jehovah” in places where the original Greek New Testament text never had it"
The Greek Septuagint translation contains the divine name in Hebrew characters
Which Bibles use the Septuagint?
All English translations of the Catholic Bible are based on the Septuagint. The original King James Version (1611) included the Apocrypha and was based on the Septuagint
Is the Septuagint accurate?
Scholars say that the Septuagint reflects Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Masoretic text by a thousand years, so in most cases the Septuagint is more trustworthy than the Masoretic text. This is borne out by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aramaic.
But that NAME does not appear in those verses in the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century C.E. The divine name was removed. It was not translated into a Greek equivalent but was replaced with an abbreviated form of the Greek word Kyʹri·os (Lord)
fragments of an early Greek manuscript, God’s personal name appears as the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters within the Greek text.
These papyrus fragments of the Greek Septuagint (Fouad Inv. 266), from the first century B.C.E., show the Tetragrammaton in portions of Deuteronomy. The use of these four Hebrew letters representing the divine name continued in some copies of the Septuagint for centuries thereafter. Thus, in addition to having the Hebrew text of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ and his disciples had the Greek Septuagint; both of these contained the divine name. Undoubtedly, then, the original writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used the divine name, especially when they quoted passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the Tetragrammaton
https://www.google.com/search?clien...MC4yNy4ymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab
Why is the name Jehovah removed from the Bible?
The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. ... Thus, the tetragrammaton became the artificial Latinized name Jehovah (JeHoWaH).
In the Christian Greek Scriptures. In view of this evidence it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called New Testament. Yet the name does appear in these sources in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression “Alleluia” or “Hallelujah” (KJ, Dy, JB, AS, RS). The call there recorded as spoken by spirit sons of God to “Praise Jah, you people!” (NW) makes clear that the divine name was not obsolete; it was as vital and pertinent as it had been in the pre-Christian period. Why, then, the absence of its full form from the Christian Greek Scriptures
Hallelujah” Praise Jehovah
Hallelujah (/ˌhælɪˈluːjə/ HAL-i-LOO-yə) is an interjection. It is a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase הַלְלוּ יָהּ (Modern Hebrew hallūyāh, Tiberian haləlūyāh), which is composed of two elements: הַלְלוּ (second-person imperative masculine plural form of the Hebrew verb hillel: an exhortation to "praise" addressed to several people[1]) and יָהּ (the name of God Yah).[2][3][4] The term is used 24 times in the Hebrew Bible (in the book of Psalms), twice in deuterocanonical books, and four times in the Christian Book of Revelation.[5]
In the Hebrew Bible hallelujah is actually a two-word phrase, not one word. The first part, hallelu, is the second-person imperative masculine plural form of the Hebrew verb hillel.[1] However, "hallelujah" means more than simply "praise Jah" or "praise Yah", as the word hallel in Hebrew means a joyous praise in song, to boast in God.[10][11]
Why is the divine name in its full form Jehovah not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Its been presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.
what does jesus name mean in hebrew
Most dictionaries will translate Jesus' name (which was apparently more properly translated to Joshua than "Jesus") to be "God is salvation." "God is salvation" is a phrase that ascribes a passive quality to God. ... Yah is short for Yahweh, and shuah is from yeshuah which means "to save, save alive, rescue."
. Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” He stated: “I have come in the name of my Father
it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter ,Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Jesus and his disciples used the divine name in speech and in writing.
In view of all the instances of tampering ,blotting and tearing out pages where it disagreed with beliefs Gods name Jehovah was in the Greek scriptures
Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Kyʹri·os and The·osʹ. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Notice this verse KJV:
King James Bible
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
this was the correct manuscript yet most on this same verse use a substitute
Good News Translation
May they know that you alone are the LORD, supreme ruler over all the earth.
Christian Standard Bible
May they know that you alone--whose name is the LORD--are the Most High over the whole earth.
Lord is NOT a name LORD is a title :
https://www.google.com/search?clien...ZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab
"Lord" is also used as a courtesy title
Why was the name of God removed and replaced with LORD?
Holman Christian Standard Bible
May they know that You alone-- whose name is Yahweh-- are the Most High over all the earth.
The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as 1533, in a translation by Anton Margaritha, the Tetragrammaton had already begun to appear in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew. Thereafter, in a variety of other such translations into Hebrew, the translators used the Tetragrammaton in those places where the inspired writer quoted a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the divine name.
The Greek Septuagint translation contains the divine name in Hebrew characters
Which Bibles use the Septuagint?
All English translations of the Catholic Bible are based on the Septuagint. The original King James Version (1611) included the Apocrypha and was based on the Septuagint
Is the Septuagint accurate?
Scholars say that the Septuagint reflects Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Masoretic text by a thousand years, so in most cases the Septuagint is more trustworthy than the Masoretic text. This is borne out by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aramaic.
But that NAME does not appear in those verses in the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century C.E. The divine name was removed. It was not translated into a Greek equivalent but was replaced with an abbreviated form of the Greek word Kyʹri·os (Lord)
fragments of an early Greek manuscript, God’s personal name appears as the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters within the Greek text.
These papyrus fragments of the Greek Septuagint (Fouad Inv. 266), from the first century B.C.E., show the Tetragrammaton in portions of Deuteronomy. The use of these four Hebrew letters representing the divine name continued in some copies of the Septuagint for centuries thereafter. Thus, in addition to having the Hebrew text of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ and his disciples had the Greek Septuagint; both of these contained the divine name. Undoubtedly, then, the original writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used the divine name, especially when they quoted passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the Tetragrammaton
https://www.google.com/search?clien...MC4yNy4ymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab
Why is the name Jehovah removed from the Bible?
The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. ... Thus, the tetragrammaton became the artificial Latinized name Jehovah (JeHoWaH).
In the Christian Greek Scriptures. In view of this evidence it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called New Testament. Yet the name does appear in these sources in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression “Alleluia” or “Hallelujah” (KJ, Dy, JB, AS, RS). The call there recorded as spoken by spirit sons of God to “Praise Jah, you people!” (NW) makes clear that the divine name was not obsolete; it was as vital and pertinent as it had been in the pre-Christian period. Why, then, the absence of its full form from the Christian Greek Scriptures
Hallelujah” Praise Jehovah
Hallelujah (/ˌhælɪˈluːjə/ HAL-i-LOO-yə) is an interjection. It is a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase הַלְלוּ יָהּ (Modern Hebrew hallūyāh, Tiberian haləlūyāh), which is composed of two elements: הַלְלוּ (second-person imperative masculine plural form of the Hebrew verb hillel: an exhortation to "praise" addressed to several people[1]) and יָהּ (the name of God Yah).[2][3][4] The term is used 24 times in the Hebrew Bible (in the book of Psalms), twice in deuterocanonical books, and four times in the Christian Book of Revelation.[5]
In the Hebrew Bible hallelujah is actually a two-word phrase, not one word. The first part, hallelu, is the second-person imperative masculine plural form of the Hebrew verb hillel.[1] However, "hallelujah" means more than simply "praise Jah" or "praise Yah", as the word hallel in Hebrew means a joyous praise in song, to boast in God.[10][11]
Why is the divine name in its full form Jehovah not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Its been presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: “We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
The so-called Christians, then, who “replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios” in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.
what does jesus name mean in hebrew
Most dictionaries will translate Jesus' name (which was apparently more properly translated to Joshua than "Jesus") to be "God is salvation." "God is salvation" is a phrase that ascribes a passive quality to God. ... Yah is short for Yahweh, and shuah is from yeshuah which means "to save, save alive, rescue."
. Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” He stated: “I have come in the name of my Father
it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter ,Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Jesus and his disciples used the divine name in speech and in writing.
In view of all the instances of tampering ,blotting and tearing out pages where it disagreed with beliefs Gods name Jehovah was in the Greek scriptures
Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Kyʹri·os and The·osʹ. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Notice this verse KJV:
King James Bible
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
this was the correct manuscript yet most on this same verse use a substitute
Good News Translation
May they know that you alone are the LORD, supreme ruler over all the earth.
Christian Standard Bible
May they know that you alone--whose name is the LORD--are the Most High over the whole earth.
Lord is NOT a name LORD is a title :
https://www.google.com/search?clien...ZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab
"Lord" is also used as a courtesy title
Why was the name of God removed and replaced with LORD?
Holman Christian Standard Bible
May they know that You alone-- whose name is Yahweh-- are the Most High over all the earth.
The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as 1533, in a translation by Anton Margaritha, the Tetragrammaton had already begun to appear in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew. Thereafter, in a variety of other such translations into Hebrew, the translators used the Tetragrammaton in those places where the inspired writer quoted a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the divine name.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I never use 1John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV as it is said to be inaccurate.
I like John 1:3 and 1Peter 2:8 (a quote from Isa 8:14 applying to Jehovah but used of Jesus at 1Peter 2:8)
I like Heb 1:8 and Heb 1:10-12
I like Phil 2:9 and Heb 1:4. etc etc
In a commentary I read it said that this addition may have been for liturgical purposes and subsequently found it's way into other manuscripts.
You also it seems have been deceived by the Watch Tower. You should check out what EC Colwell's study really showed. It was not saying that the translations were good.
The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said
Colwell and the New World Translation Revisited
Brian2
Veteran Member
The NWT, with it's insertion of the divine name in the New Testament, has produced a translation that is biased because it has the divine name where it probably should not be and has left it out where it should be.
JW Minister
Member
I'm familiar with the chart what scholars have said about the NWT ,Ive been on sites where I was directed to what bible scholars have said about the NWT ,it doesnt deter
the fact that Colwells rule rejected the KJV from texus and supported WH which NWT is partially based so the chart means nothing to dismiss the NWT as the best NT translation.
There are sites that support the NWT as well ;
New World Translation Defended: The New World Translation is the Best New Testament According to E.C. Colwell
You say;
I never use 1John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV as it is said to be inaccurate.
So basically then you do what the scribes did just tear out that page from the who;e translation where it disagree and accept those that agree with your beliefs,as if the rendering of 1 John 5-7 doesn't corrupt the translation.
I like John 1:3 and 1Peter 2:8 (a quote from Isa 8:14 applying to Jehovah but used of Jesus at 1Peter 2:8)
I like Heb 1:8 and Heb 1:10-12
I like Phil 2:9 and Heb 1:4. etc etc
found it's way into other manuscripts.
You also it seems have been deceived by the Watch Tower. You should check out what EC Colwell's study really showed. It was not saying that the translations were good.
The New World Translation, What the Scholars Really Said
Colwell and the New World Translation Revisited[/QUOTE]
I like John 1:3 and 1Peter 2:8 (a quote from Isa 8:14 applying to Jehovah but used of Jesus at 1Peter 2:8)
I like Heb 1:8 and Heb 1:10-12
I like Phil 2:9 and Heb 1:4. etc etc
"You also it seems have been deceived by the Watch Tower"
No,I found a blog by googling to see the best translation ;
http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-new-world-translation-is-best-
new.html
In in event it still shows the texus is the worst translation that has not changed ,wheather the NWT is the best or not makes no differentce its much more accurate than KJV so its you who are deceived I say this in view of this;
You say;
I never use 1John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV as it is said to be inaccurate.
So basically then you do what the scribes did just tear out that page from the who;e translation where it disagree and accept those that agree with your beliefs,as if the rendering of 1 John 5-7 doesn't corrupt the translation.
I'm familiar with the chart what scholars have said about the NWT ,Ive been on sites where I was directed to what bible scholars have said about the NWT ,it doesnt deter
the fact that Colwells rule rejected the KJV from texus and supported WH which NWT is partially based so the chart means nothing to dismiss the NWT as the best NT translation.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nope because there's no "J" sound in Hebrew, thus it's "YHWH" that's used, and notice that since the vowels are missing, we actually don't know which vowels were actually used.
Quite possibly the same as "God's spirit" as found numerous times in the Tanakh. Does this include the angels? Quite possibly.
Which is what I've been saying, thus the "three-in-One" concept. But since there are "three", they cannot be totally identical or that number wouldn't be used.
Again, the key for us at least to try and understand this is the Greek use of the word "essence" since that's the language it was written in [Koine Greek]. IOW, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God but are not identical. In Catholicism it's often referred to as being the "Mystery of the Trinity" since it's really beyond our ability to understand this completely and/or with any assurance that we would be correct.
The mistake a lot of people make in this area is to jump into statements of certainty in an arena that is laced with much uncertainty, thus certainty is the enemy of serious theological study.
Clear said : "Such motives are not unlike the changes the Jehovahs Witnesses have made to the New Testament text when they inserted “Jehovah” in places where the original Greek New Testament text never had it"
JW Minister replied : "fragments of an early Greek manuscript, God’s personal name appears as the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters within the Greek text.
These papyrus fragments of the Greek Septuagint (Fouad Inv. 266), from the first century B.C.E., show the Tetragrammaton in portions of Deuteronomy." (Post #791)
SEPTUAGINTS DID NOT AS A RULE, HAVE THE HEBREW TETRAGRAM IN THE GREEK TEXT
The fact that a single manuscript set (P. Foaud) was found that showed someone inserted the tetragram into the spot where Theos was does not equate to all septuagints having the tetragram any more than a single model A ford from 1920s means all model As' were red (they were in fact NOT red even if one was painted red).
Similarly, Papyrus. Foaud seems to be an exceptional outlier.
Space was placed in the greek text of P. Foaud for κυριος (Lord) but a second scribe wrote the tetragram in this space that was left empty.
It is much more likely that a Jew or a synagogue commissioned this single (and only) example we have of the insertion of the tetragram into the Septuagint.
The point is, taking a very, very rare exception and then using that rare, rare, rare exception and presenting that as the standard for all septuagints doesn’t work historically.
For example, the Ryland papyrus, which is an OLDER papyrus than P. Foaud is like all other extant Septuagint manuscripts in that it does not have the tetragram.
Septuagints did not have the tetragram in them as a rule.
REGARDING THE CHANGE OF "HE" TO "GOD" IN 1 TIM 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus - What was the motive for changing the text?
The motive for a corrector changing ΟΣ (“he”) to ΘΣ (“God”) in 1 Tim 3:16 seems similar to what motivated the Jehovahs Witnesses to insert “Jehovah” into the New Testament where it doesn’t exist in the original Greek New Testament manuscripts.
I am not arguing that it is o.k. to change texts by either the corrector of Codex Alexandrinus nor when the Jehovahs Witnesses do it.
I am saying that the motive for both of these types of corruption of text may not have been evil intent, but may have been simply to support personal theology or bias.
I am simply saying that the motive to make such changes to texts may have been misguided instead of evil intent.
Clear
ειφιακφιτζω
JW Minister replied : "fragments of an early Greek manuscript, God’s personal name appears as the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters within the Greek text.
These papyrus fragments of the Greek Septuagint (Fouad Inv. 266), from the first century B.C.E., show the Tetragrammaton in portions of Deuteronomy." (Post #791)
SEPTUAGINTS DID NOT AS A RULE, HAVE THE HEBREW TETRAGRAM IN THE GREEK TEXT
The fact that a single manuscript set (P. Foaud) was found that showed someone inserted the tetragram into the spot where Theos was does not equate to all septuagints having the tetragram any more than a single model A ford from 1920s means all model As' were red (they were in fact NOT red even if one was painted red).
Similarly, Papyrus. Foaud seems to be an exceptional outlier.
Space was placed in the greek text of P. Foaud for κυριος (Lord) but a second scribe wrote the tetragram in this space that was left empty.
It is much more likely that a Jew or a synagogue commissioned this single (and only) example we have of the insertion of the tetragram into the Septuagint.
The point is, taking a very, very rare exception and then using that rare, rare, rare exception and presenting that as the standard for all septuagints doesn’t work historically.
For example, the Ryland papyrus, which is an OLDER papyrus than P. Foaud is like all other extant Septuagint manuscripts in that it does not have the tetragram.
Septuagints did not have the tetragram in them as a rule.
REGARDING THE CHANGE OF "HE" TO "GOD" IN 1 TIM 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus - What was the motive for changing the text?
The motive for a corrector changing ΟΣ (“he”) to ΘΣ (“God”) in 1 Tim 3:16 seems similar to what motivated the Jehovahs Witnesses to insert “Jehovah” into the New Testament where it doesn’t exist in the original Greek New Testament manuscripts.
I am not arguing that it is o.k. to change texts by either the corrector of Codex Alexandrinus nor when the Jehovahs Witnesses do it.
I am saying that the motive for both of these types of corruption of text may not have been evil intent, but may have been simply to support personal theology or bias.
I am simply saying that the motive to make such changes to texts may have been misguided instead of evil intent.
Clear
ειφιακφιτζω
Last edited:
JW Minister
Member
https://www.google.com/search?clien...IgBAJIBAJgBAKoBB2d3cy13aXqwAQo&sclient=psy-ab
The written language showed no vowels, so the pronunciation is not agreed on. However, most academics agree that "Yahweh" is the most accepted way to say it. It has also been pronounced as "Yehova" in Hebrew as a substitute word for the tetragrammaton.
What is YHWH stands for?
Alternative Titles: Jehovah, YHWH. Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, whose name was revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton.
Brian2
Veteran Member
http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-new-world-translation-is-best-new.html
Colwell's chart does not mean that the NWT is a good translation, all it means is that the NWT used the best manuscripts at the time. But the Watch Tower translated those manuscripts with many errors.
I do what you do, I accept what the scholars tell us about the errors in the Textus Receptus and the subsequent errors in the KJV.
I have no theological reason to rejects translations which agree with my theology.
If you have a Kingdom Interlinear Translation look up Romans 8:23 and see that the Watch Tower has changed the meaning and makes it the opposite of what the literal translation of the Greek tells us it means.
I could point out more places what the Watch Tower does things like that. A good and honest translation would not do such things.
In in event it still shows the texus is the worst translation that has not changed ,wheather the NWT is the best or not makes no differentce its much more accurate than KJV so its you who are deceived I say this in view of this;
You say;
I never use 1John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV as it is said to be inaccurate.
JW Minister
Member
Since you accept what Bible scholars say then youll accept scholar Dr. Jason BeDuhn
“It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available”