Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #4

Perhaps these citations from the very same book regarding the name of Jehovah in the NWT will cause reconsideration for using the above statement without clarification that the quote is speaking strictly of the OT.

This quote below immediately precedes the citation given above; which, in it the author states he does not consider the NWT as being at all accurate with the Greek text of the NT regarding their use of Jehovah.

• "I am referring to use of "Jehovah" in the NW New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book in the New Testament. So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament as the NW does two-hundred-thirty -seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text." (pg. 169)

There is more, but the above and following quote will, I believe, suffice in demonstrating that the specific quotation used by JW.org is slanted to give the impression of complete and high regard of their NW translation by this author which in full reading is not the case.

• "The editors of the NW are making a conjectural emendation when they replace kurios, which would be translated "Lord", with "Jehovah"." (pg. 171)

Obviously I don't believe so, and by your own admission above he takes exception to the inaccurate translation method of using "Jehovah" in the NWT.

• "So, to introduce the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament as the NW does two-hundred-thirty -seven times, is not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy: adherence to the original Greek text." (pg. 169) (emphasis mine)

And

• "The editors of the NW are making a conjectural emendation when they replace kurios, which would be translated "Lord", with "Jehovah"." (pg. 171)

The author's own words in his book, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, stand against the view you hold on this.

There are no "Original Inspired Scriptures" i.e. autographs extant for either the OT or NT. If by this "faulty translations" you consider any translation not having used the autographs to be "faulty" but instead copies of copies, as you prefer; then, the NWT is among what you consider to be "faulty translations". The NWT certainly has no access to any NT autographs, or OT autographs.

And specifically, what truth, and special knowledge, is it that the WT has a premium on that no textual critic has ever possessed. Please enlighten us.

Really? Bibles generally make known an OT quotation by the formatting of it being different in the text, along with a cross reference given. So, I completely disagree with your assertion above. 

Additionally, many, if not the majority, of the quotations and allusions to the OT within the NT are from the old Greek text, not the MT. Meaning, that the name Jehovah is not found in that quoted passage; which, is the exact point of Jason David BeDuhn in his statements quoted previously, and above, referring to the misuse and inaccuracy of the NWT in the NT using Jehovah.

First, the picture you posted is written in Hebrew, not Greek, and the tetragram is written in an older form of Paleo Hebrew – so what.

𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 appears in three manuscripts total, written in Greek, all OT books. There is no NT writings found in the extant DSS scrolls – so, the DSS connection you are attempting to make for the NWT using Jehovah in the NT has no merit.

Yes, the DSS were discovered in the late 1940's but were not published for a considerable number of years and only had reference to the OT in that these scrolls are the earliest date of OT text and provide a comparison to the MT. Again, there is no support from this for the use of Jehovah in the NT.

Overall, nothing of substance to substantiate the assertions made by you.

I believe the Greek NT text speaks for itself on this matter, and once again reinforces the point made by Jason David BeDuhn in his book criticizing the NWT for using Jehovah in the NT. That criticism provided in the quotes from his book, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 169 and 171 which have been previously posted in this thread.

The Greek text of Lk. 4:8:

• “καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· γέγραπται· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.” (Luke 4:8)

Thank you for the compliment; but, from the above statement I obviously didn't make myself absolutely clear on the use of the tetragram 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 which is Paleo Hebrew script being used in three Greek DSS Old Testament scrolls – there are no Greek NT documents among the DSS. Just to be absolutely clear, 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 is not Greek.

In any of what Greek? I only referred to Lk. 4:8, a single passage, brought up by yourself; though I disagree with the assertion that Jesus isn't in Lk. 4:8 – he, Jesus, is the one speaking.

•  “καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· γέγραπται· κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.” (Luke 4:8)

Who, in this conversation between us, in this thread, has claimed "Jesus is God"? Certainly not me; though, it is in your writing above that broaches the subject and seeks to deny.

Why would you have expectation that the OT should speak directly about the person named Jesus who was yet to be born? 

What relevance this has, if any, to what it is supposedly being responded to is anyone's guess.

But, in bringing up "born" and Pr. 8 again makes this an opportune moment to once again ask you these five questions regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי asked in another thread discussion.

You take Pr. 8:22-25 as an absolutely literal with no figurative or metaphoric language being used in this passage; hence, the following questions for you.

Regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי:

1) Do you then maintain that Jehovah, himself, was in labor, experiencing pain, writhing, and trembling to give birth to Wisdom? 

2) Or would you suggest that Jehovah had a consort and this language is referring to the consort's experience? 

3) If you reject the above two options; who then, was present and experiencing these labor pains? It was certainly not Wisdom, herself.   

4) Prior to Gen. 3:16, how is it that חוללתי (pain, writhing, and trembling) existed in birth, "to be brought forth (through labor pains)" HALOT?  

5) Did physical birth even exist before the world came to be (cf. Gen. 1:28)? 

Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Father was exalted (Heb. 1:1-4).

More detail is you please; I'm not aware of an angel giving a name to another angel in the book of Hebrews, or Philippians.

Welcome to your opinions of course; but, maybe you can provide more detail on "the co-equal sham"? No one I'm aware of on these forums has asserted "God is co-equal"; what has in fact been asserted is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal. 

Addressed in the Deity of Jesus thread.

Christ is a title and carries a specific definite meaning for that office as it is applied to Jesus, of which we're speaking; Jesus, the (eternal, in my view) Son of God, called the Christ; who is sent by the Father to give his life as a ransom for many, providing redemption for all who believe in his name.

Therefore, I am in complete disagreement with your statement above on the basis of it having any reality on the subject concerning the supposed omission of Jesus who holds the office of Christ within trinitarian doctrine. 

Consider picking up this inexpensive resource in Logos for your library.

@Brother Rando

Welcome to your opinion along with the non-relevant response.

I'm unable to resist this, "Quotes from Your Bible:", meaning the bible you have, and read, doesn't contain those texts?  Are you reading the Vulgate again?

And yes, you are welcome to your opinions and the posting of irrelevant material that is mistakenly considered to somehow be an informative and developed response in a discussion.

My "spin" on what?

In what appears to be another self-referential argument, you first present as a quotation the very same quotation you then cite, apparently as reflective of my "spin" on something. I assure you, @Brother Rando, that's not the way I "spin" any argument.

And FWIW, the NRSV makes no mention of any claims of "modern critics" regarding the baptismal formula in Matthew 28.19. Perhaps an NRSV study Bible includes such a note, but the translation itself does not. (The translation offers a footnote labeled "d" to the end of Matthew 28.20 - "Other ancient authorities add Amen.")

In your previous post, you wrote:

That is, YOU quoted from a resource that YOU called the "New Revised Standard Version." My response was to report that the New Revised Standard Version, which is a Bible translation, does NOT include the words you attributed to it via quotation marks. Whether you are a "modern critic" is not relevant to the fact that the words you attributed to the New Revised Standard Version are not in the New Revised Standard Version.

As a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology, I don't have a "Trinity doctrine" to post.

The remainder of your post to which I'm replying here reflects your objections to issues that don't interest me. But I wish you would tell me what your reference to an "@Bill_Coley spin" meant in THIS POST. To what topic, verse, or assertion were you considering the application of such a "spin," and what would have been the result had you completed one?

Again you are mistaken about an objective fact.

In my previous post I referred to myself as "a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology." By definition, it's not possible to be BOTH a follower of Jesus who does not believe in Trinitarian theology AND a Trinitarian. There is no overlap in the Venn diagram that displays both of those options. I am not a Trinitarian. In support of my Christological views, as you would discover were you to review my hundreds of forum posts on the subject over the years, I employ many of the texts you have cited in your posts. You and I agree that Jesus was not God.

In addition, neither do I "omit Christ" from my personal theology, but I choose to engage you on the merely "highly unlikely" task of persuading you to accept objective facts, rather than the "patently impossible" task of persuading you to accept points of view different from yours own.

A simple Logos search of the NT found more than 600 (more than 700 verses in some translations) in which Jesus is named as "Jesus," not "Jesus Christ." Is it your view that those hundreds of verses all "omit Christ"? Do you contend that since they fail to add "Christ" to Jesus, those verses, too - or at least their composers - are Trinitarians?

To make sure I understand what you mean by an "omission of Christ," please address each of the following very simple yes/no questions:

1) When in THIS POST you wrote, "Many others, but here is one that is commonly misapplied to Jesus," did you "omit Christ"?

2) When in THIS POST you wrote, "Anyways, Jesus was co-existent then the scripture would of never stated, 'In the Beginning was the Word,'" did you "omit Christ"?

3) When in THIS POST and from The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge you chose to quote these words: "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus," did you quote from a resource whose author at least twice "omitted Christ"?

If your answer to each of those questions is "yes," then I will acknowledge that I too "omitted Christ" in my previous post. If, however, your answer to any of those questions is "no," then I will deny that I "omitted Christ" in my previous post.

In THIS POST your term for me was "Trinitarian," NOT "trinity apologist." Please advise as to which term you're actually applying to me. (FYI, given that an "apologist" is one who defends a given, usually controversial, view, I am by no means a "trinity apologist" either. I certainly respect Trinitarian theology, but in no way do I embrace or defend it.)

As soon as I see your answers to the three questions presented above, I will know whether to confess to omitting Christ.

In my previous post, I asked you four questions, three of which required a simple "yes" or "no" response, while the fourth required nothing more than either the word "Trinitarian" or the words "Trinity apologist." In your reply, you chose not to address any of them.

• So you're willing to accuse people of "omitting Christ," but you're not willing to declare whether you hold yourself accountable to your own definition of that offense.
• And though my hundreds of post on the subject make abundantly clear that I am clearly neither, you're willing to accuse me of being both a "Trinitarian" and a "Trinity apologist." But when challenged, you're not willing to specify which term you actually believe applies to me.

And in other news, the sun set in the west this evening and will rise in the east tomorrow.