Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 10 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
Switch to Forum Live View Changes in LXX and M by Jews and removal of the Divine Name by apostate Christians - Setterfield
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2015 - 2:03PM #91
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT: This is one of you more ridiculous responses - you posted to my post:


NEWT: Again the point being that the Divine Name was not removed from the ancient Greek mss. before or during Jesus' time but rather after Jesus' time - so if Jesus used the Greek versions he still would have read the Divine Name, not the title Lord (Greek kyrios; Hebrew adonay, etc.).


NEWT: We already know from Greek translations of Bible names with the Divine Name in the prefix or suffix that there were Greek translations of the Divine Name.   However, the name Jesus, as an example, begins with Ie, not Ia - the "o" is, of course, the middle vowel of the Divine Name, but "a" is the last vowel, not the first vowel. compare:  Revelation 19:4


FPD: So, let me see if I'm understanding this.  Because the NT has the abbreviations for "Jehovah" in some names and words, you draw the conclusion that the entire word "Jehovah" must have been present in those manuscripts during the time of Jesus?  So, if I get a letter in the mail that is addressed to "Mr." I can assume that the entire word "Mister" was there at one time and someone removed it?  Are you serious? 


FPD: Not so ridiculous when you include your post to which I was responding. 



NEWT:  Are you serious, FPD - your response has nothing to do with what I said!   Try again to respond to what I actually said, as you quoted.



FPD:  You were making the point that bits and pieces of the divine name appear in the NT, which they do.  So, if someone removed the divine name, never mind the fact that they missed the 6,800 occurrences in the OT, but how in the world did they miss the bits and pieces scattered throughout the NT. 



NEWT:  [Oh, but good debate tactic - combining the typical bait and switch with saying I said what I didn;t say, and than arguing against what I didin't say as if it was what I did say!]



FPD: Did I misunderstand you? 
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2015 - 2:11PM #92
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Here is a brief link on the Hexapla - there are other longer links you could find that argue for variant conclusions - but a picture is worth a thousand words!


www.divine-name.info/archaeology/aquila....


First this introduction, which, btw, corrects FPD's definition of "palimpsest":


In between the old documents was a very important one, written about 128 A.D. by a Jew proselyte named Aquila. The document was a palimpsest, a manuscript, which was re-used - in most instances the parchment would be washed and/or scraped and resurfaced, then written on again. In this case, the letters were scraped from the original scroll, but the new text was still visible under the old one. The parchment contains parts from the Psalms in Greek, translated by Aquila. In various places the Divine Name is written in Old-Hebrew.


And then this picture:



Facsimile made by B. Bonte
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2015 - 2:15PM #93
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT:  Which Bible verse are you referring to FPD - please specify the verse being footnoted.


FPD: I was referring to the web address that you supplied and the information in your JW material that  your supplied. 


NEWT:  Also, the J documents are not being used for the reasons you mistakenly assert.  So, by making that mistake, you are the one who is misleading!


FPD: What are you talking about?  You cited this list to bolster the notion that the tetragrammaton is found in NT mss.  That list that you supplied contains "J" documents that are Hebrew translations OUT OF THE GREEK for a Hebrew speaking audience.  It is a bogus piece of research.  And you accuse me of being misleading?  What other reason would there be? 


NEWT:  So in that verse, do you agree that the original text has been tampered with?  


FPD: Not in the Greek, no.  I agree that the Greek of the NT was translated into Hebrew by several translators. 


NEWT:  I think the evidence is conclusive.


FPD:  So, let me see if I'm understanding this.  We begin with the Greek NT that doesn't have the tetragrammaton.  Several people translated it into Hebrew in the 13 through the 18 centuries and added the Hebrew tetragrammaton because it was a translation into Hebrew.   You take these Hebrew translations that were made from the Greek, find the tetragrammaton and say, "Ah, see, we're right, the tetragrammaton was in the original NT Greek documents."  And then you think that is "conclusive" evidence.  Do I have that right? 


NEWT:  And, btw, which reading do you think is closer to he original text?


FPD: For the NT, I would say the earliest Greek manuscripts are closer to the original text and not a single one of them has the tetragrammaton. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2015 - 2:17PM #94
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

Jan 30, 2015 -- 2:11PM, Newtonian wrote:

Here is a brief link on the Hexapla - there are other longer links you could find that argue for variant conclusions - but a picture is worth a thousand words!


www.divine-name.info/archaeology/aquila....


First this introduction, which, btw, corrects FPD's definition of "palimpsest":


In between the old documents was a very important one, written about 128 A.D. by a Jew proselyte named Aquila. The document was a palimpsest, a manuscript, which was re-used - in most instances the parchment would be washed and/or scraped and resurfaced, then written on again. In this case, the letters were scraped from the original scroll, but the new text was still visible under the old one. The parchment contains parts from the Psalms in Greek, translated by Aquila. In various places the Divine Name is written in Old-Hebrew.


And then this picture:



Facsimile made by B. Bonte


So, you end up agreeing that the tetragrammaton only appears in palimsets and manuscripts destined for Hebrew speaking audiences?  Isn't that what I've been saying all along? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2015 - 2:25PM #95
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

FPD - Hopefully you did misunderstand me.   The point about the Greek consonants and vowels of the Divine Name being found in the Greek translations of Bible names with the Divine Name in the prefix and suffix is a totally separate point from the quote you responded to - I am not sure why you didn't realize this!


This is a separate point:


NEWT: Again the point being that the Divine Name was not removed from the ancient Greek mss. before or during Jesus' time but rather after Jesus' time - so if Jesus used the Greek versions he still would have read the Divine Name, not the title Lord (Greek kyrios; Hebrew adonay, etc.).


That latter point is back on thread theme and thread research on thread theme!


As I said, try again!  And note the further research I posted on Aquila's version - which is also represented in Origen's Hexapla.


Also, palimpsests are not what you claimed and they are valuable manuscript evidence - not notations as you mistakenly claim.


And, btw, Origen is documenting (notdelilberately) the change from the Divine Name to Kyrios - which clearly began before Origen's time but after Jesus' time - that was part of my point - but it seems to have escaped you!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 30, 2015 - 4:34PM #96
five_point_dad
Posts: 4,719

NEWT: Again the point being that the Divine Name was not removed from the ancient Greek mss. before or during Jesus' time but rather after Jesus' time - so if Jesus used the Greek versions he still would have read the Divine Name, not the title Lord (Greek kyrios; Hebrew adonay, etc.).


FPD: If that were the case, there would have been some evidence--there is none!  One of the church fathers would have quoted it--none did!  If some group removed the name in the first or second centuries, they must have had total control over every single manuscript available.  Why doesn't such a group appear in history?  If they had total control of all the manuscripts and changed them all without being detected, what other damage did they do?  What other changes did they made?  No one knows.  So you theory destroys any confidence in the Word of God.  You are actually basing a teaching upon manuscripts that no one has seen, no one quotes and no longer exists.  Isn't that the stuff that cults are made from? 


NEWT:  As I said, try again!  And note the further research I posted on Aquila's version - which is also represented in Origen's Hexapla.  Also, palimpsests are not what you claimed and they are valuable manuscript evidence - not notations as you mistakenly claim.


FPD:  They are manuscripts altered for the particular audience in which they are found.  There are some with "Jehovah" in a different handwriting for Jewish readers. 


NEWT:  And, btw, Origen is documenting (notdelilberately) the change from the Divine Name to Kyrios - which clearly began before Origen's time but after Jesus' time - that was part of my point - but it seems to have escaped you!


FPD:  Nonsense.  He is producing a parallel Bible using the manuscripts he had available to him at the time. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2015 - 10:57AM #97
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

Jan 30, 2015 -- 2:17PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jan 30, 2015 -- 2:11PM, Newtonian wrote:


Here is a brief link on the Hexapla - there are other longer links you could find that argue for variant conclusions - but a picture is worth a thousand words!


www.divine-name.info/archaeology/aquila....


First this introduction, which, btw, corrects FPD's definition of "palimpsest":


In between the old documents was a very important one, written about 128 A.D. by a Jew proselyte named Aquila. The document was a palimpsest, a manuscript, which was re-used - in most instances the parchment would be washed and/or scraped and resurfaced, then written on again. In this case, the letters were scraped from the original scroll, but the new text was still visible under the old one. The parchment contains parts from the Psalms in Greek, translated by Aquila. In various places the Divine Name is written in Old-Hebrew.


And then this picture:



Facsimile made by B. Bonte



So, you end up agreeing that the tetragrammaton only appears in palimsets and manuscripts destined for Hebrew speaking audiences?  Isn't that what I've been saying all along? 




FPD - You know full well the value of palimpsest mss (copied over - older writing hidden underneath) and Fouad 266 is not one of them.


And of course these Greek mss. were not meant for Hebrew speaking audiences - where did you get such a ridiculous idea?  Hebrew speaking audiences would have used Hebrew manuscripts - how could you miss something so obvious???


Or did you just post that to discount rather than address the evidence presented?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2015 - 11:01AM #98
Newtonian
Posts: 14,082

FPG - Interesting FPD that you claim there is no evidence the Divine Name was in the Greek LXX before and during Jesus' time and, in fact, in most cases up to Origin's time - as proven in the Hexapla - eg. Aquila's and Symmacus versions.


It reminds me of how evolutionists in debating with creationists claim they too have posted no evidence.


Hopefully readers will realize this is simply a dishonest debate tactic meant to avoid addressing the actual evidence posted.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook