The name YHWH or Jehovah belongs in the New Testament

[Ross]

The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible, The New World translation, which has been used in their proselytising and study almost exclusively since it was produced in the 1950's.
The Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) were translated first in secrecy by a translation committee appointed by their then President Nathan Homer Knorr and Vice President and chief theologian Frederick William Franz, without the knowledge of their Governing Body around 1950. The NT completed work was presented one morning to the remainder of the organizational staff at Bethel Headquarters in New York.
The name 'Jehovah' was inserted into the Christian Greek Scriptures by the committee 237 times, even though there is not a single extant Greek manuscript in existence containing 'Jehovah' or the Hebrew YHWH. Is there good and just reason to put it there, or is this a case of inserting spurious text?

[Ross]

Jesus said to the Jews:

John 8:54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.
And Paul said:
Rom. 3:29 Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of people of the nations? Yes, also of people of the nations.

Once again, you have ignored everything I have presented, failed to answer any of my questions, not provided any evidence to your claims as requested, and you have went off topic and changed the subject.

Eloi, remember, you said the world is watching.

[Eloi]

Jesus said to the Jews:

John 8:54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.
And Paul said:
Rom. 3:29 Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of people of the nations? Yes, also of people of the nations.

Once again, you have ignored everything I have presented, failed to answer any of my questions, not provided any evidence to your claims as requested, and you have went off topic and changed the subject.

Eloi, remember, you said the world is watching.

You have ignored everything I have presented.
And there will be more, so you can ignore much more of what you ignore now.

For example: since Matthew was written originally in Hebrew just like I taught you before, look how many times he quoted from OT passages with the name of Jehovah:

Mat.3:3 (Is.40:3)
... 4:4 (Deut.8:3), (...) 7 (Deut.6:16), (...) 10 (Deut.10:20).
... 5:33 (Deut.23:21)
... 21:42 (Sal.118:22,23)
... 22:36-38 (Deut.6:4,5)
... 22:43,44 (Sal.110:1)
... 23:39 (Sal.118:26)
... 27:9,10 (Zac.11:12,13)

[Eloi]

Why don't you answer my question? Do you think Jesus mentioned the name of Jehovah on his responses to Satan's temptations?
Matt. 4:4 But he answered: “It is written: ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah’s mouth.’” (Deut. 8:3)
(...) 7 Jesus said to him: “Again it is written: ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’” (Deut. 6:16)
(...) 10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (Deut. 10:20).

I must look to what I believe to be the true or the closest version of 'Bible' possible, the extant NT manuscripts; and as the text is all written in koine' Greek, I must conclude that the conversation was in koine' Greek, the language of the day. There is no 'Jehovah' or Hebrew YHWH in any NT manuscript of this passage.

If it was in any other language, there certainly is no reason for any translator to render the text in anything other than what the manuscripts reveal.

What is your particular point about this passage please?

I note that you have avoided almost everything I have replied to you on this thread. Remember, as you said to me, the world is watching.

Did Jesus talk in Greek with Satan? ... That's funny. I don't think anyone is going to agree with you on that.

... Or maybe, you do not believe that Satan is a real spirit person who spoke with Jesus, as another forumer said before

A denialist is the only one who can think that Jesus did not mention the name of Jehovah three times, once in each of Satan's temptations in the desert, each time he quoted an OT scripture containing the personal name of God...

[Eloi]

Jesus was not superstitious with the name of his Father
John 17:6 I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world.

There is no name assigned to The Father in the NT. You only assume it is YHWH because you deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The name referred to here is The Fathers reputation, honour, history, what he stands for and represents.
'Name' does not always mean Bob or Joe.
As Matthew 28: 19, 20 states

"Go therefore and make disciples of all peoples and nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit.

If you disagree with this then perhaps you can tell me what is the name of the Holy Spirit?"

I guess you don't know these words of Jesus already resurrected and in heavens:

Rev. 3:12 ‘The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my G d, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.

... or these words of John about his vision:

Rev. 14:1 Then I saw, and look! the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who have his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.

From my point of view you are so busy criticizing, accusing, judging and condemning the JWs, that you have neglected to learn everything that we have tried to help you see in the Scriptures and that no one has ever taught you before. Focus on the most important things before it is too late for you: on really knowing who is the one sent and who was the One who sent him:

John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

About 7 times Jesus said in his prayer to God (John 17) how he taught his followers about WHO sent Him, but you don't seem to have the slightest idea...

John 13:16 Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

[Eloi]

I will add a note about this post of yours.

I must look to what I believe to be the true or the closest version of 'Bible' possible, the extant NT manuscripts; and as the text is all written in koine' Greek, I must conclude that the conversation was in koine' Greek, the language of the day. There is no 'Jehovah' or Hebrew YHWH in any NT manuscript of this passage. (...)

First, I will remind you this post of mine first:

The NT is a retelling of actual events. It is authoritative on doctrinal matters, and it is authoritative on the historical events it narrates. Manuscripts we got today are just copies of copies of what was originally recorded and originally written by the human writers. (...)

Since that is a fact, we need to learn how to differentiate between these three things:

1) the real event
2) how the inspired writer recounted it
3) what the copies we have say.

The closest we can get to the truth is not at point 3), not even at point 2) ... but at point 1) we are closest to the truth: when we actually visualize the scene and understand what really happened. For example, in the case of the temptations of Jesus in the desert, or when Jesus read the passage from Isaiah in Hebrew in the synagogue.

It is obvious that when we enter to analyze the real events that happened, we understand the truth on a different level. Of course, to understand that truth, the first thing we have to do is to be honest with ourselves and with others, and accept the truth even if we have to discard what we previously believed. In fact, the JWs (our teachers) have no hesitation in rectifying if we have previously had a misunderstanding on any Biblical matter. How many religious leaders in Christendom are willing to do that? And, how many independent believers are willing to do that, especially if we, JWs, are the ones who help them understand the Biblical truth?

[Eloi]

(...) we need to learn how to differentiate between these three things:

1) the real event
2) how the inspired writer recounted it
3) what the copies we have say.

The closest we can get to the truth is not at point 3), not even at point 2) ... but at point 1) we are closest to the truth: when we actually visualize the scene and understand what really happened. For example, in the case of the temptations of Jesus in the desert, or when Jesus read the passage from Isaiah in Hebrew in the synagogue.
(...)

We could be even further from the truth if we limited ourselves to:

4) the way current translators render it
5) the way the version creators (not translators) express it
6) how different religious leaders, theologians or modern biblical scholars (who are not believers) interpret the text.

The greatest danger of all is trying to analyze the Bible only from the literary point of view. The Bible is important to a Christian because it is alive; it was inspired by the holy spirit and contains a complex system of information about realities that must be scrutinized deeply, much more than just at the letter level. By studying the Bible we can get an idea of what God thinks and how he has been expressing it throughout human history.

Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart. 13 And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight of him, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.

[Ross]

(...) we need to learn how to differentiate between these three things:

1) the real event
2) how the inspired writer recounted it
3) what the copies we have say.

The closest we can get to the truth is not at point 3), not even at point 2) ... but at point 1) we are closest to the truth: when we actually visualize the scene and understand what really happened. For example, in the case of the temptations of Jesus in the desert, or when Jesus read the passage from Isaiah in Hebrew in the synagogue.
(...)

The greatest danger of all is trying to analyse the Bible only from the literary point of view. The Bible is important to a Christian because it is alive; it was inspired by the holy spirit and contains a complex system of information about realities that must be scrutinized deeply, much more than just at the letter level. By studying the Bible we can get an idea of what God thinks and how he has been expressing it throughout human history.

Eloi, as I have indicated before, your multiple posts are so long that it is not possible for me to find the time to cover everything, so I will deal with this one.

While what you say is more or less correct, what you are describing is interpretation of text, exegesis and theology. We all do this and are allowed to.

However, the real and present danger is not to anylize the Bible from a literary point of view, but it is to tamper with the word of God, rewrite it, inject things that are not present, and add spurious text that does not belong in the Bible itself. This is known as inserting pre-conceived doctrine into a translation. And the such translation is unfaithful, corrupted, impure and condemned. By doing so, or by following those who have, and defending them, one has abandoned the true Bible and is worshiping a band of men and a religious movement.

Revelation 22: 18,19

" I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society whom you seek to defend with a whole load of smokescreen and huff and bluff has done this very described thing; and it's fate is written.

[Ross]

In fact, the JWs (our teachers) have no hesitation in rectifying if we have previously had a misunderstanding on any Biblical matter.

This is off topic to the thread but is so outrageous a statement that I just can't let it go without a comment.

Firstly you refer to your teachers. You accept everything they say even if they say blue is red. They tell you that the Bible needed to be re-written and you bow to them. You have the audacity to post on this Biblical forum that they were inspired by God to inject text to the Bible that is not in the manuscripts 237 times in the NT.

As for misunderstandings on Biblical matters, massive volumes of nonsensical 'explaining away' of clear unambiguous scripture have been written, rather than accepting errors of previous Watchtower theologians.

And almost the ONLY occasions that rectification and mistake has been admitted, has been when the passing of time has proven beyond doubt that your movement's interpretations and time forecasts of scripture has been exposed as utterly false and idiotic.

[Eloi]

In fact, the JWs (our teachers) have no hesitation in rectifying if we have previously had a misunderstanding on any Biblical matter.

This is off topic to the thread but is so outrageous a statement that I just can't let it go without a comment.

Firstly you refer to your teachers. You accept everything they say

I do

even if they say blue is red. (...)

They won't.

But a lot of people out there accept that three is one, that Son of God is God the Son, that a firstborn has not origin, that first is chief, that to die is to move to another place, etc.

I don't have to accept any of that. I am very lucky.

[Eloi]

Have you ever read this dialogue where Jesus mentions the Jewish Shema?

Mark 12:28 One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you spoke well, in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other besides him’; 33 and to love him with one’s whole heart, with one’s whole understanding, and with one’s whole strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself is worth far more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 At this Jesus, discerning that he had answered intelligently, said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” But no one had the courage to question him anymore.

You will have noticed the immense difference between a Shema without the personal name of God and the original Shema recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Deut. 6:4 “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. 5 You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength."

Do you really think that Jesus did not mention the name of Jehovah when he quoted the Jewish Shema?