Restoring the divine name in the N.T the Watchtower Society's Commentary.

 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”

Watchtower online library

Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.) The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.

Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.a

              nwtsty

C1

The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament”

Nash Papyrus, dated from the second or first century B.C.E.

Nash Papyrus, dated from the second or first century B.C.E., showing portions of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The divine name appears a number of times in the Hebrew text.

When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.) The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO). Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.

Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed. However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.a

That practice creates a special challenge for anyone who translates the “New Testament.” For example, when a translator examines an “Old Testament” quotation in the Greek text of the “New Testament,” he will not see the Tetragrammaton anywhere in the Greek text from which he is translating. However, he should be aware of two basic facts: (1) The original quotation from the “Old Testament” may contain the Tetragrammaton, and (2) the Greek text that he is using is based on manuscripts from a period of time when copyists regularly substituted titles for the divine name. Realizing this, he must make an important decision. Will he follow the Greek text that uses Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ instead of the Tetragrammaton, or will he endeavor to ascertain where the Tetragrammaton would have appeared in the original Greek manuscripts?

                 The basic question that needs to be answered is this: Since the

                  Tetragrammaton appeared in the original Hebrew text that was being quoted by the first-century Bible writers, did those writers deliberately substitute the word Kyʹri·os or The·osʹ for the Tetragrammaton each time they quoted from the “Old Testament”? Throughout the centuries, numerous Bible translators have concluded that such a substitution would not have taken place. Therefore, such translators have felt compelled to restore the divine name in their translations of the “New Testament.” The translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation agree with that viewpoint.b

WHERE SHOULD THE DIVINE NAME BE RESTORED?

The following two sections of Appendix C list the verses where the name Jehovah occurs in the main text of the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation.c Appendix C2 lists verses that contain either direct quotations from or indirect references to scriptures that use the Tetragrammaton in the original Hebrew text of the “Old Testament.” Appendix C3 lists verses that do not contain a direct quotation from the “Old Testament” and provides reasons for restoring the divine name in those verses.

Appendix C4 provides a list of some of the translations of the “New Testament” that have restored the divine name in various verses.d (These are referred to in Appendixes C2 and C3.) Not only have some of these translations restored the divine name in direct quotations from the “Old Testament” but they have also restored that name in other verses where the context or other factors give a valid reason for doing so. None of these translations have been produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.e Included in these are a number of translations that were made into Hebrew, as well as those made into many other languages. For ease of reference, these have been designated by the letter J followed by a number. For a list of over 120 languages and dialects in which the divine name can be found in the main text of the “New Testament,” or the Christian Greek Scriptures, see Appendix A5.

                   

An even more explosive Cambrian explosion?

 Taphonomy Study Shortens Fuse for the Cambrian Explosion

David Coppedg

The Cambrian Explosion problem to Darwinian evolution is well known to our readers, having been explicated by Stephen Meyer in his NY Times bestseller, Darwin’s Doubt. Objections to the case for intelligent design of the Cambrian phyla were answered in Debating Darwin’s Doubt in 2015, and we regularly post updates about the Cambrian Explosion. Since Darwin himself, evolutionists have wrestled with the question: how could 16 or more complex animal body plans arise in the geological blink of an eye? If Darwin’s theory were true, where is the evidence for ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record?

Faith in (Missing) Fossils

Evolutionary paleontologists have been trusting that the missing Cambrian ancestors did indeed exist, because genetic estimates put their origins hundreds of millions of years before the explosion. They admit fossils are lacking, but the molecular clock seemed to provide evidence for a long fuse leading up to the Cambrian radiation. Perhaps fossils of the ancestors would turn up some day to validate the molecular clock. The ancestral forms might have been too small to show up, or the material they were buried in was not suitable for preservation.

To investigate that last possibility, researchers at Oxford University led by Dr. Ross P. Anderson examined the taphonomic potential of Neoproterozoic (Precambrian) sediments from around the world. Their work is published (open access) in Trends in Ecology & Evolution. News from Oxford calls it “the most thorough assessment to date of the preservation conditions that would be expected to capture the earliest animal fossils.”

The ‘molecular clock’ method, for instance, suggests that animals first evolved 800 million years ago, during the early part of the Neoproterozoic era (1,000 million years ago to 539 million years ago). This approach uses the rates at which genes accumulate mutations to determine the point in time when two or more living species last shared a common ancestor. But although rocks from the early Neoproterozoic contain fossil microorganisms, such as bacteria and protists, no animal fossils have been found.

This posed a dilemma for palaeontologists: does the molecular clock method overestimate the point at which animals first evolved? Or were animals present during the early Neoproterozoic, but too soft and fragile to be preserved? 

Anderson’s team first examined the mineralogy of the twenty best Cambrian fossil sites, such as the Burgess Shale. Using three analytical techniques, they determined that Burgess-Shale-Type (BST) rocks, notably Cambrian mudstones, are enriched in certain clays that appear responsible for the exceptional preservation. Then they asked if any Neoproterozoic rocks have similar BST mineralogy. Most do not, they concluded. But three of them do: one in Nunavut (Canada), one in Siberia, and one in Norway. These sites are assigned dates of 800 to 789 mya in the Tonian period.

Given that BST conditions preserve small, soft, and fragile animals in the Cambrian, a lack of widely accepted animal fossils in Neoproterozoic successions, even if BST preservation occurred, would suggest a real absence of animals at that time.

Guess the Result

No Cambrian animal ancestors were found in the three sites.

Microanalytical study of direct clay-microfossil associations from three of the most biodiverse Neoproterozoic mudstones, the ∼1000-million-year-old Lakhanda Group (Siberia, Russia), and the ∼800-million-year-old Svanbergfjellet (Svalbard, Norway) and Wynniatt (Nunavut, Canada) formations, suggests that the role of BST preservation promoted by clays was as important in some Neoproterozoic as in Cambrian settings. These three deposits preserve multicellular and filamentous microorganisms, as well as forms with complex spines/processes that appear to be more fragile than typical spheroidal organic-walled forms common in Neoproterozoic assemblages. Elemental (EDS) and mineralogical mapping (synchrotron-based infrared microspectroscopy) revealed enrichments of kaolinite immediately adjacent to cell walls and forming protective haloes around the fossils.

Similarities in the distribution of clays in fossils from these three Neoproterozoic deposits and those from the Burgess Shale suggest that, in both cases, clays attached to or precipitated on decaying tissues, and that conditions conducive to BST preservation were available in both time periods. The diversity of fossil organisms and biopolymers preserved in this way shows no phylogenetic bias. Burgess Shale fossils representing stem taxa from a variety of groups (Canadia – annelid, Marrella and Opabinia – euarthropods, Ottoia – priapulid, Pikaia – chordate) are associated with kaolinite. Tonian microfossils associated with kaolinite include a chlorophyte, other undetermined eukaryotes, and probable cyanobacteria, organisms composed of a variety of biopolymers. However, no metazoan fossils have been reported from these Neoproterozoic deposits.

Their conclusion: animal ancestors “had not evolved by this time.”

Animal Affinities

Another constraint can be set at the Ediacaran period (600 to 574 mya). Most Ediacaran sites are of sandstone but show good taphonomic potential, as exemplified by detailed fossils of Dickinsonia, Kimberella and frondose organisms. The animal affinities of these are doubted, but the fossils prove that the mineralogy could have preserved Cambrian ancestors, had they existed. 

Comparing the role of clays in the preservation of Cambrian and Neoproterozoic soft-bodied fossil assemblages highlights the value of taphonomic data in substantiating the absence of animals. We have presented a new maximum constraint on animals of ∼789 Ma (Tonian), while unambiguous fossils from the Ediacara Biota place a minimum constraint at ∼574 Ma

Based on Assumptions

Delicately stated, but here’s the rub: to reconcile the conflict, the molecular clock will have to give. Fossils can be held in the hand and photographed. The molecular clock is based on assumptions of mutation rates. Fossils should calibrate the molecular clock, not the other way around.

This provides the first “evidence for absence” and supports the view that animals had not evolved by the early Neoproterozoic era, contrary to some molecular clock estimates.’

If the animal ancestors were not there 800 mya, and still not there 574 mya in the best possible taphonomic conditions, what are the chances they will be found in between? Slim to none is a common-sense guess. Otherwise, evolutionists are left with ghost stories: the animals appeared but left no trace. A similar argument can be made about the time between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian, since fossil animal ancestors are missing in that range, too. Science is supposed to be about what can be observed, not what is necessary to keep a popular theory from being falsified.

A reasonable conclusion from this paper is that the molecular clock is wrong, and there were no animal ancestors in Precambrian strata. This removes the “long fuse” argument and puts more bang in the Cambrian Explosion.

Coptic John ch.1:1

The Sahidic Coptic Indefinite Article at John 1:1

Memra

“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5 (my emphasis)

What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *me*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)

These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”.

Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*

Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *ne* is elided with the "o" in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)

Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.

True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt.

The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.

Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.

It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.

On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.

In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.

Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any.

Memra at 9:02 AM

Life finds a way?

 

Against Nincsnevem XXI

 Nincsnevem:The apostle Paul not only taught in his letters about Jesus that he "had a prehuman existence", but also that he existed in the form of God (no one ever claimed this about angels) 

Actually the angels are called Gods see Psalms ch.8:5 . Sons of God Job ch.38:4-7

Nincsnevem:and used the term THEOS for the Son completely freely, all this to the congregations made of gentiles freshly converted from paganism in letters written 

Moses is called God by JEHOVAH Himself also the divinely appointed princes of the ancient Hebrew nation are called God

Exodus ch.7:1 KJV"And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet."

Psalms ch.82:6KJV"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

Nincsnevem:without making it clear that this particular THEOS really only means archangel. 

He made it clear that this particular has a God above him and thus is not the most high God 2Corinthians ch.1:3, Ephesians ch.1:3,Ephesians ch.1:17 etc. Thus contrary to the Nicene Creed the the Father of Christ is both a distinct and infinitely higher God than the Logos.

Moreover, if we also attribute the letter to the Hebrews to the apostle Paul, then it becomes clear already in the first chapter that the Son cannot be an angel.

No what becomes clear to a pair of unbiased eyes is that the Son was MADE better than angels in a particular respect

Hebrews ch.1:4KJV"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."

Hebrews ch.1:5NIV"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

At acts ch.13:33 Paul uses this verse in referring to Jesus' resurrection so it was via this resurrection that his God and Father made him better the angels. Before his resurrection though he was made lower than the angels a thing not possible for the immutable God.

Hebrews ch.2:9KJV"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

Being distinguished from the angels in a certain aspect does necessarily imply that he cannot be called an angel in some respect 

At Hebrews ch.1:1,2 Jesus is distinguished from the prophet's yet we know that he himself is a prophet. 

Acts ch.3:22KKJV"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the LORD your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you."

 I never said that the Church "went beyond" the Bible, but probably your denomination also preaches as doctrines that are not explicitly in the Bible, but were formed by reading several passages of the Bible together, through INTERPRETATION. 

What the brothers endeavor to do is to allow the bible to speak for itself there is no infant baptism unlike the Catholic church and only those who demonstrate total commitment to JEHOVAH'S cause are allowed to get baptised. We were never taught to view our leaders as prophets or saints. Our conviction comes from our own PERSONAL study of scriptures and the way such confirms the brothers total determination to let the Bible speak for itself and JEHOVAH'S Blessing on that determination.

It is still not clear where in the New Testament it is prophesied that as soon as the apostles die, the ekklesia can close the curtain, see you in 1800 years...

And it is equally unclear to me what relevance that query has to this discussion. The brothers have never taught that those Judged to be through Christians "wheat" will disappear during the apostasy but that will be intermingle with and vastly out numbered by False Christians including false teachers ,"weeds"

The bible states that nearing/ during the endtimes their would be a separating of the true from the false and a gathering of them both and then a Judgment.

 See Matthew ch.13:25-30

The intermingling with the weeds is why the end time cleansing mentioned at Daniel ch.12:8-10 proves necessary.

Daniel ch.12:10KJV"Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. "

The Jewish Logos?

 

File under "Well said" XCVI

 

" I am thankful to everyone who said no to me, it's because of them that I did it myself."

Albert Einstein

Tour and Meyer continue to demystify OOL science.

 

Reason and faith are two sides of the same coin?