Oldest and Best, Really??

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,570
5,114
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
all modern technology ... DOES NOT JUSTIFY some malpractices such as removing the personal name of God from His own written word.
Exactly. Removing God's name from his book is not a function of technology. It is a moral choice.

@RLT63 asked if we know WHY. My reply is to focus on the WHAT. I truly do not care why people from an ancient land altered God's word. Of all God's word, the one I most want to know is his personal name. Whose name are we to keep hallowed, as Jesus taught us to pray?

As a trivial pursuit footnote, I may one day care to read why the ancients removed it. For me and my house, we will serve YHWH. Joshua 24:15 (NOG)
 

Jim B

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2020
5,793
1,797
113
Santa Fe NM
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I totally agree.

However, even modern scholars' translations with all modern technology and tools, as well as new manuscripts and other material that can help them create advamced "master texts" DOES NOT JUSTIFY some malpractices such as removing the personal name of God from His own written word. On doing that they are opposing the will of God plainly stated in the Scriptures of making His Name known to the whole world.

That, of course, does not nullify their good work at all, but it forces us to be prudent as to whether or how far we should trust everything they produce, since the enemy of God owns this world... The true God's loyal servants defend his Name and collaborate with the fulfillment of his purposes, regardless of what the scholars or scientists of this world say.
Can you give any "malpractices such as removing the personal name of God from His own written word"? As you probably know "YHWH", the tetragrammaton, a) has no vowels and b) is considered to sacred to pronounce. "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" shouldn't really appear in Bibles.

Exodus 3:13-15, "But Moses said to God, “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” God also said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’:

This is my name forever,
and this my title for all generations."
NRSVue

Exodus 6:3 in the KJV, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them" In the NRSVue it's "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘The Lord’ I did not make myself known to them." So the KJV renders YHWH as "Jehovah", whereas the NRSVue and many other translations have "the Lord". Adding vowels to YHWH doesn't make sense, as it's a title, not His name. Even the New King James Version has "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Lord I was not known to them."

Creating the name "Jehovah" opposes the will of God: that His name is too sacred to pronounce. Calling anyone by their proper name in the Bible is a sign of familiarity, making God into your personal acquaintance, which is clearly blasphemy. The true God's loyal servants defend His [capitalized] title!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLT63

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exactly. Removing God's name from his book is not a function of technology. It is a moral choice.

@RLT63 asked if we know WHY. My reply is to focus on the WHAT. I truly do not care why people from an ancient land altered God's word. Of all God's word, the one I most want to know is his personal name. Whose name are we to keep hallowed, as Jesus taught us to pray?

As a trivial pursuit footnote, I may one day care to read why the ancients removed it. For me and my house, we will serve YHWH. Joshua 24:15 (NOG)
I’m just trying to understand this idea that there was a conspiracy to remove God’s name from the Bible and I agree with Jim B’s post
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim B

Jim B

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2020
5,793
1,797
113
Santa Fe NM
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’m just trying to understand this idea that there was a conspiracy to remove God’s name from the Bible and I agree with Jim B’s post
The KJV people don't consider that God's Name -- the all-consonant tetragrammaton -- was changed by the addition of English vowels to create the name "Jehovah".
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLT63

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The KJV people don't consider that God's Name -- the all-consonant tetragrammaton -- was changed by the addition of English vowels to create the name "Jehovah".
Yes and some have attached special meaning to Jehovah, as though it was the original word.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,570
5,114
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’m just trying to understand this idea that there was a conspiracy to remove God’s name from the Bible and I agree with Jim B’s post
Many people make this mistake. They fixate on why while ignoring WHAT. Fact is, God's name, his personal name was removed from Scripture some 7,000 times. Understanding why, is secondary.

Calling it a conspiracy changes nothing. What lengths do you think Satan would go to not give glory to God?
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,570
5,114
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes and some have attached special meaning to Jehovah, as though it was the original word.
I never heard that! Yeshua is the name Mary called her son when dinner was ready. His God's name is YHWH.

I don't like that we change proper names when translating but we do. Those names are in English, Jesus and his God Jehovah. I know that you know that.
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
23,824
40,619
113
52
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is a difference between New Testament Bible translations today. Depending on which one you use, it comes from one of two different types of Greek text. And it DOES matter which one you rely upon for The New Testament.

The authors of the Critical text (Wescott and Hort) claimed that the Greek Majority Text, which earlier New Testament translations are based on, are not as old nor as reliable as their Critical text. They claim the Greek Majority Text has additions, which is why their Critical text is shorter, and omits around 2,800 words that the Received Text has. They claim over time words were added to produce the Received Text. And because they allege their Critical text is older, it doesn't have those additions. None of that has ever been proven to be fact though. It was just assumed by Wescott and Hort.

What this means then, is that if you want to use a modern New Testament version, understand that you are relying on a totally different set of Greek manuscripts other than the Traditional texts used in history for the New Testament prior to the 1880s. And that newer Greek text is shorter, because it does not include something like 196 verses that are in earlier New Testament translations, like the KJV.

1. Received Text (Textus Receptus) or Byzantine Text or Majority Text, or Traditional Text -- this Greek text is based on the majority of existing Greek NT manuscripts, which is in the thousands. They make up the Byzantine tradition. This is why it is also called the Majority Text.

The higher critics wrongly claim that the Textus Receptus was created by Erasmus. That idea is false, because Erasmus in the 1500s made a Greek translation from... those Majority Text manuscripts. He only made a translation from existing Greek texts, and published it. These Greek texts were the same ones from antiquity. The title 'Received Text' was coined in the 1600s and thus the Latin name Textus Receptus means Received Text. But the source is from the Majority Text of thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts that exist.

It is what was used for New Testament Bible translations prior to the 1880s, like the 1611 KJV, Bible translations by John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, etc.


2. Critical Text, or Eclectic Text -- this is mainly 2 Greek texts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. The conventional theory is that these Greek texts are the 'oldest and best' Greek New Testament manuscripts, as alleged by the 1800s British scholars Wescott and Hort (abbreviated as W&H). Notice the NKJV is in this group also, simply because it has notes of NU in its margin, showing the Critical Text of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies was used which included Wescott and Hort's new Greek text.

However, that oldest and best idea of Wescott and Hort was never established as fact, and discovery of newer manuscript evidence even shows the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus are not the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Vaticanus was first discovered in the Vatican library in 1475 with nothing to date any previous origin. The Sinaiticus was first discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf at St. Catherine's monastery in Greece. Tischendorf, a German rationalist, is who first claimed Sinaiticus is older than the Textus Receptus without any evidence. A Greek scholar and paleographer of ancient Greek text named Simonides at the monastery claimed he was assigned to write Sinaiticus (under a different title), and that it was to be presented to the Czar in hopes of getting a donation for a printing press. The translation contained many errors that required repair, and overwrites, making the translation unpresentable. All this means it is a modern work created in the 1840s. The white appearance of the Sinaiticus manuscript also gives away its modern authorship. All the ancient Greek texts show oxidation, turning the document to a bronze color.

The Critical text, plus some pieces of other Greek manuscripts claimed to have been found later, are what the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies (UBS) New Testament translations are based upon, making up about 2% of modern New Testament versions, because its main reliance is still upon Wescott and Hort's 1881 new Greek translation.

The modern New Testament translations are based on the Critical Text. NIV, New Living Translation, English Standard Version (ESV), New King James Version (NKJV), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), The Message (MSG), New American Standard Version (NASV). English Revised Version (ERV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), World English Bible (WEB), Updated American Standard Version (UASV). If you have a New Testament that says it's from the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Societies, often abbreviated as NU, then you're using Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation they did from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
my advice would be and IS , let no man , woman or child follow wescott or hort . they decieved the heck out of folks .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvelloustime

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I never heard that! Yeshua is the name Mary called her son when dinner was ready. His God's name is YHWH.

I don't like that we change proper names when translating but we do. Those names are in English, Jesus and his God Jehovah. I know that you know that.
Surely you know who I’m talking about, and I’m no expert but according to this article Jehovah is the latinization of Yahweh Jehovah - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I never heard that! Yeshua is the name Mary called her son when dinner was ready. His God's name is YHWH.

I don't like that we change proper names when translating but we do. Those names are in English, Jesus and his God Jehovah. I know that you know that.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Many people make this mistake. They fixate on why while ignoring WHAT. Fact is, God's name, his personal name was removed from Scripture some 7,000 times. Understanding why, is secondary.

Calling it a conspiracy changes nothing. What lengths do you think Satan would go to not give glory to God?
Are you sure his personal name is Jehovah?
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,570
5,114
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Still relying on copy and paste as a substitute for you making an argument. I don’t use the term Jehovah. Point is. Certainly, ‘LORD’ is not Jesus’ God’s name.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Still relying on copy and paste as a substitute for you making an argument. I don’t use the term Jehovah. Point is. Certainly, ‘LORD’ is not Jesus’ God’s name.
Wrangler “I don’t use the term Jehovah “. Wrangler earlier;

I don't like that we change proper names when translating but we do. Those names are in English, Jesus and his God Jehovah. I know that you know that
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Still relying on copy and paste as a substitute for you making an argument. I don’t use the term Jehovah. Point is. Certainly, ‘LORD’ is not Jesus’ God’s name.
Moving the goalposts now
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,279
1,873
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Still relying on copy and paste as a substitute for you making an argument. I don’t use the term Jehovah. Point is. Certainly, ‘LORD’ is not Jesus’ God’s name.
You can’t refute the material so you make it about me