Gods name

[kjw47]

Every bible scholar on earth knows 100% that God put his name --( YHVH(Jehovah) = the tetragramoton) in his bible in over 7000 spots because God wants it there. Thus wicked men by satans will removed Gods name to mislead and replaced it in OT( nearly 6800 spots) with GOD or LORD all capitols--quoted in NT over 200 spots where God willed his name.
Now in light of Jesus, who at the Lords prayer has clearly shown to all that his Fathers name( YHVH(Jehovah) is the #1 most important thing, followed by his Fathers kingdom and will. Thus to a true follower Gods name is #1 most important issue.
So then one must ask why is my religion using altered translations in support of satans will over Gods will on the matter of his name belonging in his bible? Would you say to mislead is the answer? Yes it is.
Here is a prime example of the misleading that it does
Joel 2:21-22--Whoever calls on the name of YHVH(Jehovah) will be saved---quoted 2 x in the NT at Acts 2:21-22--Romans 10:13--But since satan willed translations have LORD at Joel, Lord is at both spots of NT, and all who know Jesus is Lord will call on his name in error because they are being mislead. God is not called LORD in the OT by his will, his name belongs there. it is causing major confusion.
The New world translation corrected that matter, yet every religion using the altered translations condemned the NWT. Why because with that name back in it exposes all of those ones using the altered translations as false religion.
The sad fact is that they know Gods name belongs in all of those spots. So what are you going to do about being mislead?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to historia in post #35]

Why would Jesus quote the OT and NOT say God's name?

I'm sure he thought it was important enough to pronounce it.

[Ross]

[Replying to historia in post #35]

Why would Jesus quote the OT and NOT say God's name?

I'm sure he thought it was important enough to pronounce it.

You believe that one should translate from a doctrinal opinion rather than from the real manuscripts of the actual Greek New Testament?

Or translate and manipulate the New Testament manuscripts from the Hebrew Bible when the New Testament was a completely new revelation and explanation of, and a 'new light' ( as you would put it ) of previous and limited understanding and insight into God?

Either way, your leaders had no right, authority, or ordination to do so.

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."

I have done some bad deeds in my life, but I shudder at the thought of being accused of such a thing or of upholding those who have.

[William]

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WOULD HAVE PRONOUNCED THE DIVINE NAME WHEN QUOTING HEBREW SCRIPTURE THAT CONTAINED THE TETRAGRAMMATON ?

The evidence lies in Jesus' expressions of his high regard for the Divine Name. At no time did he express the desire that its holiness be preserved by not pronouncing it; indeed quite to the contrary he explicitly stated he had made God's name known.

It seems reasonable then to pressume that which ever text Jesus quoted from, he quoted them in full pronouncing the Divine Name as it appeared in the texts of his day. There certainly no indication in his rhetoric that bowed to later traditions that it not be pronounced nor did he ever explicitly prohibit his followers from its pronunciation.

It seems far more reasonable that Jesus referring to YHVH as "Father/The Father" was specific to relationship (what he was always pointing to the people as being a fundamental necessity). One does not have a relationship with a "name" but with an actual being who is "Fatherly".

Therefore, yes - one can presume Jesus was speaking about the same entity (YHVH) while purposefully not mentioning that entity as "YHVH" because even the most schoolled in religious dogma where proven to have no relationship with the actual entity - which is why we read Jesus' critiquing the religious orders - in telling them that their "Father" was not his Father. He was saying that YHVH was not their schooled understanding (of "God") because their understanding of YHVH lacked a genuine relationship because they relied solely on the scriptures they had to form their schoolary outlook and presented their outlook (to the people) as them having a genuine relationship with YHVH.

[Ross]

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."

One doesn't have to look too far:

Revelation 1:8 New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures (The Jehovah's Witness Bible)

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

[onewithhim]

[Replying to historia in post #35]

Why would Jesus quote the OT and NOT say God's name?

I'm sure he thought it was important enough to pronounce it.

You believe that one should translate from a doctrinal opinion rather than from the real manuscripts of the actual Greek New Testament?

Or translate and manipulate the New Testament manuscripts from the Hebrew Bible when the New Testament was a completely new revelation and explanation of, and a 'new light' ( as you would put it ) of previous and limited understanding and insight into God?

Either way, your leaders had no right, authority, or ordination to do so.

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."

I have done some bad deeds in my life, but I shudder at the thought of being accused of such a thing or of upholding those who have.

So, you think that Jesus would not say the name of God, his Father, upon reading or speaking quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures? You don't put very much importance on the Father of Jesus. Yet Jesus thought his Father's name was very important.

"I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world..." (John 17:6) "And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them." (John 17:26)

[Ross]

So, you think that Jesus would not say the name of God, his Father,

This is where again; you are interpreting scripture, drawing conclusions, making assumptions, and fully ignoring the words of Revelation. Refusing to accept that the manuscripts are the TRUE word of God and not the spurious words included in your own Bible. What anyone 'thinks' should not allow for adding words to a translation of The Bible when such words are not there.

In answer to your question to me, the question is like reading a Watchtower magazine because it is loaded. Meaning the question already makes doctrinal statement. YHWH is not as you presume the name of the Father. YHWH is the divine name of God which includes The Word who became Jesus Christ.

[onewithhim]

So, you think that Jesus would not say the name of God, his Father,

This is where again; you are interpreting scripture, drawing conclusions, making assumptions, and fully ignoring the words of Revelation.

I'd call it using our power of reason, which you balk at doing. (Isaiah1:18)

Now, the scripture says that Jesus went to the house of Mary and Martha. It says nothing there about how he felt about them, whether he liked them or not. We assume that he liked them. Otherwise he probably wouldn't have been their friend. Is that an interpretation, or drawing conclusions? It didn't SAY that Jesus liked them. Everything has to be spelled out for you. If you have trouble with God's name and Jesus pronouncing it, you surely must have trouble with Jesus at Mary and Martha's house, saying we're going beyond what is written there.

I do not ignore the words of Revelation. I have used my power of reason to figure out which words refer to YHWH and which refer to Jesus. YOU have missed out on the correct view of the verses in Revelation. The Father, YHWH, is referred to throughout, but you don't see that. Why wouldn't He be referred to often, being the Person who gave Jesus the words of Revelation?

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God GAVE him." (Rev.1:1)

BTW, in verse 2 it says that Jesus Christ gave a witness. About whom was he witnessing?

[historia]

Where did Jerome say that the Divine Name "belonged in the NT before translating"?

Info on Jerome takes less than 1 whole minute to look it up for self.

"Just look it up for yourself" is what people say when they can't support their arguments with evidence.

I'm familiar with Jerome's writings. Where did he say this?

Jerome and Gods name in NT--GOOGLE IT.

Anyone who does "GOOGLE IT" will soon realize that none of those search results say that Jerome thought the Divine Name "belonged in the NT." Why? Because Jerome never said that.

Those search results even include a couple of web pages from the official JW website, such as this article that argues (rather unconvincingly) that the Divine Name should be inserted into the New Testament. It quotes Jerome three times, but never says he thought the Divine Name should be in the New Testament. Why? Because, again, Jerome never said that.

That article does mention that Jerome observed that the Divine Name was written in Hebrew/Aramaic letters in some manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. I suspect that here, again, you got confused, thinking this was about the New Testament, and so have been repeating this false claim about Jerome because of that.

So, let's be clear here, kjw47: You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You have made a half-dozen or so demonstrably false historical claims in this thread. You are, in essence, lying about the past. And, even after I corrected these false claims above, you have yet to admit you were repeating falsehoods. Until you do so, no one here has any reason to take you seriously.

Its recorded history that no trinity was served prior to 381 ce when they added the holy spirit as apart of a godhead of 3. It even says so in the new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, vol XIV, page 299

No Trinity was "served"? What does that mean?

I would encourage you to actually read the full entry on the "Trinity" in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It points to the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament itself. It notes that the Apostolic Fathers referred to the Son as God, and considered both the Son and the Holy Spirit to be in some sense divine, even though they didn't explaining how exactly. That 'how' was left to later Church Fathers. The term "Trinity" itself was coined in the second century, long before 381. Again, you're confusing a formal conciliar statement on the Trinity with the origin of the belief itself.

[onewithhim]

Where did Jerome say that the Divine Name "belonged in the NT before translating"?

Info on Jerome takes less than 1 whole minute to look it up for self.

"Just look it up for yourself" is what people say when they can't support their arguments with evidence.

I'm familiar with Jerome's writings. Where did he say this?

Jerome and Gods name in NT--GOOGLE IT.

Anyone who does "GOOGLE IT" will soon realize that none of those search results say that Jerome thought the Divine Name "belonged in the NT." Why? Because Jerome never said that.

Those search results even include a couple of web pages from the official JW website, such as this article that argues (rather unconvincingly) that the Divine Name should be inserted into the New Testament. It quotes Jerome three times, but never says he thought the Divine Name should be in the New Testament. Why? Because, again, Jerome never said that.

That article does mention that Jerome observed that the Divine Name was written in Hebrew/Aramaic letters in some manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. I suspect that here, again, you got confused, thinking this was about the New Testament, and so have been repeating this false claim about Jerome because of that.

So, let's be clear here, kjw47: You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You have made a half-dozen or so demonstrably false historical claims in this thread. You are, in essence, lying about the past. And, even after I corrected these false claims above, you have yet to admit you were repeating falsehoods. Until you do so, no one here has any reason to take you seriously.

Its recorded history that no trinity was served prior to 381 ce when they added the holy spirit as apart of a godhead of 3. It even says so in the new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, vol XIV, page 299

No Trinity was "served"? What does that mean?

I would encourage you to actually read the full entry on the "Trinity" in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It points to the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament itself. It notes that the Apostolic Fathers referred to the Son as God, and considered both the Son and the Holy Spirit to be in some sense divine, even though they didn't explaining how exactly. That 'how' was left to later Church Fathers. The term "Trinity" itself was coined in the second century, long before 381. Again, you're confusing a formal conciliar statement on the Trinity with the origin of the belief itself.

You yourself are agreeing with our view of the trinity doctrine. It started in the NT period and was refined later by church fathers, not that it was taught by Jesus and his followers. The term "trinity" wasn't an early idea but, as you say, "was coined in the second century." And I've read what the early church fathers said. They don't call Jesus God. And I'm talking about the "fathers" of the first century AD, and that would be Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. The "fathers" after them were a part of the great Apostacy that Paul warned about (Acts 20: 29,30). And the writings of Ignatius are divided into two versions. One of them is accurate and one of them is not. I'll go with the longer version. He said to the Ephesians: "Our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only begotten Son."

[kjw47]

Where did Jerome say that the Divine Name "belonged in the NT before translating"?

Info on Jerome takes less than 1 whole minute to look it up for self.

"Just look it up for yourself" is what people say when they can't support their arguments with evidence.

I'm familiar with Jerome's writings. Where did he say this?

Jerome and Gods name in NT--GOOGLE IT.

Anyone who does "GOOGLE IT" will soon realize that none of those search results say that Jerome thought the Divine Name "belonged in the NT." Why? Because Jerome never said that.

Those search results even include a couple of web pages from the official JW website, such as this article that argues (rather unconvincingly) that the Divine Name should be inserted into the New Testament. It quotes Jerome three times, but never says he thought the Divine Name should be in the New Testament. Why? Because, again, Jerome never said that.

That article does mention that Jerome observed that the Divine Name was written in Hebrew/Aramaic letters in some manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. I suspect that here, again, you got confused, thinking this was about the New Testament, and so have been repeating this false claim about Jerome because of that.

So, let's be clear here, kjw47: You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You have made a half-dozen or so demonstrably false historical claims in this thread. You are, in essence, lying about the past. And, even after I corrected these false claims above, you have yet to admit you were repeating falsehoods. Until you do so, no one here has any reason to take you seriously.

Its recorded history that no trinity was served prior to 381 ce when they added the holy spirit as apart of a godhead of 3. It even says so in the new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, vol XIV, page 299

No Trinity was "served"? What does that mean?

I would encourage you to actually read the full entry on the "Trinity" in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It points to the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament itself. It notes that the Apostolic Fathers referred to the Son as God, and considered both the Son and the Holy Spirit to be in some sense divine, even though they didn't explaining how exactly. That 'how' was left to later Church Fathers. The term "Trinity" itself was coined in the second century, long before 381. Again, you're confusing a formal conciliar statement on the Trinity with the origin of the belief itself.

I found write ups that said Jerome did say that.
Yes Tertullian was considering God to be a trinity in the 2nd century all the while the true living God= the Abrahamic God= a single being God=YHVH(Jehovah) was still being served.
The divine name kjv came out in 2015 with Gods name back in the over 7000 places it belongs, nearly 6800=OT--over 200-NT.
I know exactly what i am talking about.
The darkness= A house divided( hundreds of trinity based religions) will not stand.= The broad and spacious path.
The narrow gate= 1Cor 1:10) a true mark of the 1 religion Jesus heads. 1 single religion( no division) unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth)----not hundreds of different truths in hundreds of different religions claiming to be christian= a mass of confusion= a lack of holy spirit.