Emusan:


Now you focus on your questions but you couldn't realize that they're many of many my questions you didn't attend to before you disappeared on this thread even when I trashed the very link you provided.



I've asked some questions on this thread which I believe if you people have answered them, it'll provide answer to this your question.

Now let me ask again, if Jesus and His disciples actually used the name in glueing THE ACTUAL PRONUNCIATION of the name (because I know if Jesus had to pronounce it He will surely used the right pronunciation) why everything lost again?



Since you have it you can help me get one.



Your organization can help you unless if you want to me that they were wrong.

"Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible
manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. [size=14pt]These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a dependable Greek text IN REFINED FORM[/size]." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold-mine)

Please I've addressed all these in my previous post refute my previous post first before you ask further question(s).



So it pains you how I'm exposing your false teaching through copy and paste.

I don't understand it yet none of them have you nor your brother refuted.

quote]Its as a result of long typing? If u had admitted ur mistake I would have helped u see ur error, but u are here pushing it to typo.

You just like making empty noise, after I've told you it was as a result of long typing. you're still referring to it or you want to tell me it hasn't happened to you before.

OK that these versions were translated into Hebrew abt 1385 is still typo?

I guess you're asking question here.

Are you telling me that J versions are not TRANSLATIONS but ORIGINAL one pen down by the disciples?

Oga, answer those questions or we let the matter slide.

The publication u quoted is not talking about the Septuagint used in Jesus' day, but is about variations in bible manuscripts on hand. That these variations did not make the bible unreliable.

That God's name was latter removed from the bible (not by the apostles) is never in doubt. That's the truth. You are not acquainted with this topic at all. Why don't you make indepth research before writing?

So pls answer those questions.

JMAN05:
Oga, answer those questions or we let the matter slide.

Lame excuse, have you answered my own QUESTIONS? not singular but plural

The publication u quoted is not talking about the Septuagint used in Jesus' day, [size=14pt]but is about variations in bible manuscripts on hand.[/size] That these variations did not make the bible unreliable.

So if this variations DIDN'T make the BIBLE UNRELIABLE, what does it mean?
Remember as a variations it still includes REMOVING OF GOD'S NAME as your organization claimed Yet DIDN'T make the Bible UNRELIABLE.
If God failed to prevent His own name from being removed from over 5000 manuscripts evidence we have today, how are we sure that every thing is RELIABLE?

That God's name was latter removed from the bible (not by the apostles) is never in doubt. That's the truth. You are not acquainted with this topic at all. Why don't you make indepth research before writing?

All this your side talk won't help.
Why can't you post anything you know about this topic and stop this your nonsense talk.
Your brother posted from a link which I've trashed down yet you're saying another thing here. Which evidence do you have that God's name was removed Than to allude to the THEORY of Howard which I've also trashed in my previous reply to your brother's post.

So pls answer those questions.

Answer the question in below chat.

JMAN05:
What you referred to were not greek bible manuscripts, they are bible translations. Next time, research well before you speak.

What did I refer to in my post that is not Greek Bible manuscripts?

JMAN05:
I ve written a reply up to 4 times, yet I can't see any. I wonder what is wrong

Maybe your post against NL rules.

In the previous thread. I asked what you mean by Hebrew root/form, and why Jesus and Isaiah have and Jehovah does not.

Means when Jesus and Isaiah (in Greek) were used by the GREEK WRITERS they used GREEK words that equivalent to their Hebrew words.

You also said that Greek use there Greek equivalent. That does not make any sense, since the issue is about name. Unless you are saying that name should be translated.

Are you telling me that Name can't be translated?
In fact TRANSLATE simply means: To CHANGE TEXT from one LANGUAGE to another.
Yoruba man will say 'Ayo' which is a name and an English man will say 'Joy' which is also a name.
I've dealt with this in my previous post please to take me back to beginning.

And what is the equivalent of YHWH in English?

English Scholars have not done that...

2. The link I gave was to show scholars who do not agree that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. That was the point there. Don't twist it.

Then you're just another time waster, did I tell you that I don't know?
But the evidence in that link is obviously against you and your organization.

Emusan:


Maybe your post against NL rules.

Don't think so.

Means when Jesus and Isaiah (in Greek) were used by the GREEK WRITERS they used GREEK words that equivalent to their Hebrew words.

Pls show me this greek equivalent. And howvdoes that affect "Jesus" and "Isaiah" we are using today?

Are you saying they are the english equivalent of the hebrew?

I hope u are talking about bible writers, shey?

Are you telling me that Name can't be translated?
In fact TRANSLATE simply means: To CHANGE TEXT from one LANGUAGE to another.
Yoruba man will say 'Ayo' which is a name and an English man will say 'Joy' which is also a name.
I've dealt with this in my previous post please to take me back to beginning.

Which dictionary did u use? Paste it let's see.

Oga, Jesus is not a translation of Yehoshua in English. It is an English man's way of saying Yehoshua.

English Scholars have not done that...

But they have done for "Jesus" and "Isaiah"? And the equivalent is " Jesus" and "Isaiah" shey?

Emusan:


Lame excuse, have you answered my own QUESTIONS? not singular but plural

So if this variations DIDN'T make the BIBLE UNRELIABLE, what does it mean?
Remember as a variations it still includes REMOVING OF GOD'S NAME as your organization claimed Yet DIDN'T make the Bible UNRELIABLE.
If God failed to prevent His own name from being removed from over 5000 manuscripts evidence we have today, how are we sure that every thing is RELIABLE?



All this your side talk won't help.
Why can't you post anything you know about this topic and stop this your nonsense talk.
Your brother posted from a link which I've trashed down yet you're saying another thing here. Which evidence do you have that God's name was removed Than to allude to the THEORY of Howard which I've also trashed in my previous reply to your brother's post.


Answer the question in below chat.

Seems u wanna let it slide. Good!

Emusan:


What did I refer to in my post that is not Greek Bible manuscripts?

I don't know. If don't know what am saying, leave it.

If any honest hearted person here wants to ask question, let him do so. Emusan is not ready to see his error.

JMAN05:
If any honest hearted person here wants to ask question, let him do so. emusan is not ready to see his error.

Please for goodness sake stop mentioning my name on irrelevant issue, if there was an error in my post why can't you highlight it so that people can see it rather than making empty noise?

Yet you haven't answered any of my questions since. mtcheeeee

I don't know. If don't know what am saying, leave it.

And to make yourself more clearer is difficult for you to do.

Seems u wanna let it slide. Good!

And this is coming from someone who have been avoiding my questions since...

Pls show me this greek equivalent. And how does that affect "Jesus" and "Isaiah" we are using today?

What kind of Greek equivalent should I show you?

Kindly explain what you mean by "how does that affect Jesus and Isaiah!

Are you saying they are the english equivalent of the hebrew?

Your situation is pathetic,

So what is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus and Isaiah in English?

Or Do Jesus and Isaiah in English have different equivalent words in both Hebrew and Greek?

I hope u are talking about bible writers, shey?

No! About the Author of the book "What does Bible really teach?"

Which dictionary did u use? Paste it let's see.

Anyway I used the normal English Android dictionary, but are you saying it's wrong or what?

Oga, Jesus is not a translation of Yehoshua in English. It is an English man's way of saying Yehoshua.
But they have done for "Jesus" and "Isaiah"? And the equivalent is " Jesus" and "Isaiah" shey?

What you're implying here now is that NO TRANSLATION HAS TAKEN PLACE in the rendering of Jesus by an English man, and since it's an English man's way of SAYING Yehoshua, that means the word Jesus is still pronounced in Hebrew FORM not in English FORM.

In this case can we classify this as a BORROW WORD in English?

So what is an English man's way of saying the Divine name?

Emusan:


Please for goodness sake stop mentioning my name on irrelevant issue, if there was an error in my post why can't you highlight it so that people can see it rather than making empty noise?

Yet you haven't answered any of my questions since. mtcheeeee

And to make yourself more clearer is difficult for you to do.



And this is coming from someone who have been avoiding my questions since...



What kind of Greek equivalent should I show you?

Kindly explain what you mean by "how does that affect Jesus and Isaiah!



Your situation is pathetic,

So what is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus and Isaiah in English?

Or Do Jesus and Isaiah in English have different equivalent words in both Hebrew and Greek?

No! About the Author of the book "What does Bible really teach?"

Anyway I used the normal English Android dictionary, but are you saying it's wrong or what?

[size=15]What you're implying here now is that NO TRANSLATION HAS TAKEN PLACE in the rendering of Jesus by an English man[/size], and since it's an English man's way of SAYING Yehoshua, that means the word Jesus is still pronounced in Hebrew FORM not in English FORM.

In this case can we classify this as a BORROW WORD in English?

So what is an English man's way of saying the Divine name?

U still use bad mouth when one is about to help u out of ur error.

U can go on to think that "Jesus" is a translation of Yehoshua like "ayo" and "joy".

I ll review those to one who sincerely wants to know.

@ emusan...Wow!

Though I stumbled in here earlier via someone's mischief, I developed quite an interest and just read through this thread post by post. It's quite interesting I must say. There are things that I have not been able to get from you all, after 5 pages of back and forth.

1. If we have in our possession; Greek manuscripts of the NT even dating back as early as 130CE, and up to 5000 in number, yet none contains the Divine name, Where actually did the claim that some people (not the apostles) removed the Divine name come from, and who are the people?

2. If really it cannot be established that Jesus used the Divine name for His father, nor the early Christians who made those 5000 copies, How exactly did the need to restore the Divine name become imperative?

3. If the aim of the NWT translators is to restore the Divine name, and they know there is a name closer to the truth, why continue with the one farther from the truth and still say you've restored the Divine name? Let's assume that He (YAWHEH) actually wants that, the fact that you were enlightened to know which is closer to His name, isn't it an indication that He prefers that?

Syncan:
@ emusan...Wow!

Though I stumbled in here earlier via someone's mischief, I developed quite an interest and just read through this thread post by post. It's quite interesting I must say. There are things that I have not been able to get from you all, after 5 pages of back and forth.

1. If we have in our possession; Greek manuscripts of the NT even dating back as early as 130CE, and up to 5000 in number, yet none contains the Divine name, Where actually did the claim that some people (not the apostles) removed the Divine name come from, and who are the people?

2. If really it cannot be established that Jesus used the Divine name for His father, nor the early Christians who made those 5000 copies, How exactly did the need to restore the Divine name become imperative?

3. If the aim of the NWT translators is to restore the Divine name, and they know there is a name closer to the truth, why continue with the one farther from the truth and still say you've restored the Divine name? Let's assume that He (YAWHEH) actually wants that, the fact that you were enlightened to know which is closer to His name, isn't it an indication that He prefers that?

Syn has difficulty with truth

when I told him I am not interisted in his rc beliefs
and will stick with the truth
he got nasty and the accuser in him came out of the closet

https://www.nairaland.com/2242343/two-things-need-know-jehovahs/4#34484015

Emusan:


You're a liar, the English word was from the Latinized word derived by Martini NOT from the Tetragrammaton itself.



This is another key place, YEHOWAH was form by Martini which YOHOUA later in LATIN later derived from.
Now the point here is, YEHOWAH which was FORMULATED by Martini this word doesn't have any form of NAME EVER USED IN HEBREW.
So deriving the LATIN WORD 'YOHOUA' is inaccurate which later form Jehovah.
Hope you can get it now?



NO! Translator's right MUST NOT against the rule of translation which is the derivatives WORD MUST AGREE WITH THE ROOT WORD.



You're wrong this statement doesn't portray 'MAYBE' but ONE OPTION THAT IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER.



Absolutely!



So the pronunciation is not important to God but any NAME DERIVED IS IMPORTANT, very illogical statement.
Mind you the key point isn't only on pronunciation but THE WORD MORE CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE



I don't have any beef with any translations that used Jehovah BUT my point is how your organization will claim that they want to RESTORE the DIVINE NAME and PURPOSELY USED JEHOVAH just because ("...people's familiarities with it"-PONDER ON THIS STATEMENT) when they know that YAHWEH is more closer to the Original than Jehovah.



You provided answer to this question yourself below in your post which I will point out when I get there.



Ok! Read this from your own Organization,

"Misconceptions about the holy spirit
Fact: The King James version of the Bible includes at 1 John 5:7, 8 the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” However, researchers have found that those words were not written by the apostle John and so do not belong in the Bible. [size=14pt]Professor Bruce M. Metzger wrote: “That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain.”[/size] —A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament." http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-the-holy-spirit/ (Bold mine)

In fact your organization has paraphrase this man's statement because what Dr. Bruce said is "(Because the manuscript evidence of I John 5:7-8, King James Version, is insufficient, this text should not be used. There is, however, abundant proof for the doctrine of the Trinity elsewhere in the New Testament.)" http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html (bold mine)

This is not the FIRST TIME JWs will do something like this you can browse and see how JWs have MISQUOTED Scholars in their work and what Scholars say about NWT.



NO! Words were not JUST FORMED without any RULE(S) guiding them.



I've said this before the same Scholars have criticized the usage of JEHOVAH in KJV.



Now I'll use this to answer your above question about;
A Yoruba man wrote a book and this word was found there 'GBNG' whereas most of the place this word appeared it indicated that it's referring to someone.
So what a Scholar of Yoruba will do are:
1. Understand that this is someone's name
2. Know that something has already missing in those letter, since such word never convey any REAL NAME in Yoruba.
3. Find how to resolve this dilemma by substituting some letters to make it pronounceable and have meaning.
4. So in Yoruba like other languages there's vowel and consonant. So if will begin to insert letters many WORDS will come out, we'll surely get name and some incorrect word i.e [b]GB(e)NG(o), GB(a)NG(o), GB(o)N(e)G, GB(e)N(o)G(a), GB(a)N(e)G(a), GB(e)NG(a) e.t.c
5. From here, I'll only take the two underlined words GB(e)N(o)G(a) & GB(e)NG(a) because the rest isn't even sound as NAME.
6. Now both GBENOGA and GBENGA looks similar but only different with the insertion of the vowel 'O', as a good Yoruba scholar you will know that the INSERTION of vowel 'O' has deformed the PRONUNCIATION and the MEANING of the closest ROOT WORD and every Yoruba man knows that GBENGA is a NAME BUT GBENOGA never convey any true NAME in Yoruba Language.

wow!
Goodwork, its been long since I researched and discussed this topic. If I remember correctly the word jehovah was invented when a funny scholar put the vowels of adonai into the tetragramation.

It was at best a manipulation of words.

Syncan:
@ emusan...Wow!

Though I stumbled in here earlier via someone's mischief, I developed quite an interest and just read through this thread post by post. It's quite interesting I must say. There are things that I have not been able to get from you all, after 5 pages of back and forth.

1. If we have in our possession; Greek manuscripts of the NT even dating back as early as 130CE, and up to 5000 in number, yet none contains the Divine name, Where actually did the claim that some people (not the apostles) removed the Divine name come from, and who are the people?

Now, answer this; do you imagine that Jesus will hold a OT scripture that contains his father's name, yet he won't pronounce it? Do u imagine that the apostles will do so too?

It is possible. A Septuagint of the 4th century was found not containing the divine name, but not long another manuscript of the septuagint was found of an older age which contain the divine name in places where the 4th century Septuagint removed it. What do you think happened?

2. If really it cannot be established that Jesus used the Divine name for His father, nor the early Christians who made those 5000 copies, How exactly did the need to restore the Divine name become imperative?

See above. Who said it has not been established that Jesus used it?

3. If the aim of the NWT translators is to restore the Divine name, and they know there is a name closer to the truth, why continue with the one farther from the truth and still say you've restored the Divine name? Let's assume that He (YAWHEH) actually wants that, the fact that you were enlightened to know which is closer to His name, isn't it an indication that He prefers that?

Correct pronunciation has never been the bane. It is rather, people's familiarity that is. When Paul wrote his letter in Greek, how do you think the Greek man pronounced "Jesus"? And how does a Jew pronounce it?

When you say Yeshua or Yehoshua, you are more correct than when you say Jesus. Why haven't you changed to the correct one?

Ubenedictus:


wow!
Goodwork, its been long since I researched and discussed this topic. If I remember correctly the word jehovah was invented when a funny scholar put the vowels of adonai into the tetragramation.

It was at best a manipulation of words.

You believe he is a funny scholar? Really?

JMAN05:


You believe he is a funny scholar? Really?

Jehovah isn't Gods' name, it is the product of a mistranslation and yes I prefer to use the word "funny" to describe those i'll rather not qualify.

JMAN05:
Now, answer this; do you imagine that Jesus will hold a OT scripture that contains his father's name, yet he won't pronounce it? Do u imagine that the apostles will do so too?

With over 5000 Greek manuscripts available to us if we can't find A SINGLE PLACE where Jesus & the Apostles used the Divine name. I believe JWs are still the one who need to prove to us how they come with their assumption of Jehovah in the NT.

It is possible. A Septuagint of the 4th century was found not containing the divine name, but not long another manuscript of the septuagint was found of an older age which contain the divine name in places where the 4th century Septuagint removed it. What do you think happened?

Is Septuagint a NT book or OT?

If Septuagint of 4th century removed the name, does the Greek manuscripts which also dated back to 1st & 2nd century remove it also?

Let me repeat your organization statement again: "Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of [size=14pt]OLDER Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E.[/size] These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a dependable Greek text IN REFINED FORM." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold & underline-mine)

If we can have a GREEK TEXT dated back to early century and none of these manuscripts ever used the Divine name, where does JWs get the divine name into their NWT NT?

NOTE: I added a chart in my previous post but all you cover your faces as if you people didn't see it. I've attached it again!

See above. Who said it has not been established that Jesus used it?

Who established it? See the inserted Chart below!

[size=14pt]Correct pronunciation has never been the bane.[/size] It is rather, people's familiarity that is. When Paul wrote his letter in Greek, how do you think the Greek man pronounced "Jesus"? And how does a Jew pronounce it?

If correct pronunciation has never been the bane, did Jesus and the Apostles USE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION or not since you're being clamoring they use it?

This another attempt to cover up Watchtower error because if watchtower actually want to restore the Divine name they should have USED THE CORRECT RENDERING instead of following PEOPLE'S FAMILIARITY which means their theory is no more different from people who removed the Divine name.

Greek and Hebrew man will pronounce Jesus in Greek as Yesous and Hebrew as Yehshua respectively, one of the question I asked earlier but couldn't get any answer from you people was did the Apostles wrong in their usage of Yesous in GREEK when they wrote their books?

When you say Yeshua or Yehoshua, you are more correct than when you say Jesus. Why haven't you changed to the correct one?

So you mean both JWs and Christians are using INCORRECT name for Our Lord and Savior...

How because Jesus is an English derivation of the Latinize Greek word Yesous, do you mean Jehovah is an English word of Yahweh?

I'm still wondering how Jehovah Witness got the pronunciation and rendering of Jehovah in YORUBA language.

In fact your organization has erroneously teach that Jehovah is an English word for the Divine name.

JMAN05:
You believe he is a funny scholar? Really?

Whereas your organization also MOCKED him...

Ubenedictus:


Jehovah isn't Gods' name, it is the product of a mistranslation and yes I prefer to use the word "funny" to describe those i'll rather not qualify.

Good u called him funny.

Emusan:


With over 5000 Greek manuscripts available to us if we can't find A SINGLE PLACE where Jesus & the Apostles used the Divine name. I believe JWs are still the one who need to prove to us how they come with their assumption of Jehovah in the NT.



Is Septuagint a NT book or OT?

If Septuagint of 4th century removed the name, does the Greek manuscripts which also dated back to 1st & 2nd century remove it also?

Let me repeat your organization statement again: "Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of [size=14pt]OLDER Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E.[/size] These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a dependable Greek text IN REFINED FORM." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold & underline-mine)

If we can have a GREEK TEXT dated back to early century and none of these manuscripts ever used the Divine name, where does JWs get the divine name into their NWT NT?

NOTE: I added a chart in my previous post but all you cover your faces as if you people didn't see it. I've attached it again!



Who established it? See the inserted Chart below!



If correct pronunciation has never been the bane, did Jesus and the Apostles USE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION or not since you're being clamoring they use it?

This another attempt to cover up Watchtower error because if watchtower actually want to restore the Divine name they should have USED THE CORRECT RENDERING instead of following PEOPLE'S FAMILIARITY which means their theory is no more different from people who removed the Divine name.

Greek and Hebrew man will pronounce Jesus in Greek as Yesous and Hebrew as Yehshua respectively, one of the question I asked earlier but couldn't get any answer from you people was did the Apostles wrong in their usage of Yesous in GREEK when they wrote their books?



So you mean both JWs and Christians are using INCORRECT name for Our Lord and Savior...

How because Jesus is an English derivation of the Latinize Greek word Yesous, do you mean Jehovah is an English word of Yahweh?

I'm still wondering how Jehovah Witness got the pronunciation and rendering of Jehovah in YORUBA language.

In fact your organization has erroneously teach that Jehovah is an English word for the Divine name.

The questions were not for you, but if u are interested, give simple answers to those questions esp the one about whether Jesus skipped the name when he read OT book.

Relax ur pride. Believe me, you know little abt this subject.

JMAN05:
The questions were not for you,

Must the question direct to me before I answer

but if u are interested, give simple answers to those questions esp the one about whether Jesus skipped the name when he read OT book.

Very funny, typical JWs indeed.

Now no room for you again in the NT the only excuse you people have is the OT. SMH...

And I wonder why Jesus who could have used the name in the OT failed to use it nor teach His followers to use it in the NT

Anyway, Jesus can't skip the name while reading the OT but read it in any language the book was written.

Now did Jesus use the actual PRONUNCIATION of the name or the one being used at time?

Relax ur pride. Believe me, you know little abt this subject.

And this is coming from the person who has never refuted any of my questions on this thread.

Emusan:


And I wonder why Jesus who could have used the name in the OT failed to use it nor teach His followers to use it in the NT

Anyway, Jesus can't skip the name while reading the OT but read it in any language the book was written.

Now did Jesus use the actual PRONUNCIATION of the name or the one being used at time?

Of course he used the correct pronunciation. However for other languages, Hebrew names do not sound the same. Those Greeks Paul often write to, and even Romans do not pronounce Jesus as Jews do. That would hold true for the divine name too.

If Jesus read it in the prophets, could Jesus not use it in his everyday conversation? Why would he omit a name that appeared more than 3000 times in the bible he used? How can he not use a name used by Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Samuel, David, Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Micah, I can go on and on. If Jesus didn't use it, then why didn't he? Was he against the use of the name or does he agree with the false tradition that the name shouldnt be pronounced?

If Jesus didn't skip the name, do u imagine that Paul or Matthew will skip it? If they didn't skip it, why do u consider it wrong when we use the name in those places quotations were made from the OT?

The name was removed by xtian copyist, the same way they removed it from the Septuagint.

In a book entitled who was a Jew, Lawrence quoted a Talmud portion that indicate that christians that time used it.

JMAN05:
Of course he used the correct pronunciation.

Then why the Scriptures never documented where Scribes & Pharisees ever accused Jesus for PRONOUNCING the Divine name since it was TRADITIONALLY prohibited?
Why the TRUE PRONUNCIATION lost again if Jesus truly did?
In fact it's an opportunity for them to accuse Jesus for PRONOUNCING the Divine name in public as they were forbidden to do so (even though they might be wrong) but no where do we read such in the scriptures.

However for other languages, Hebrew names do not sound the same.

Does any language also sound the same in their names?

Those Greeks Paul often write to, and even Romans do not pronounce Jesus as Jews do. That would hold true for the divine name too.

When Paul and other NT writers wrote their books in GREEK and used Yesuos for Hebrew Yeshuah, do you mean they didn't use correct Greek word?

This is where we are going the problem of Divine name understanding would have stopped had it been that ANY NT WRITER used it in their work.
But evidence we have today is that NONE OF THEM USE IT.

If Jesus read it in the prophets, could Jesus not use it in his everyday conversation?

At least the only place to seek answer from to your question is the NT both early manuscripts and the translations we have today and since no such place where the NT writers DOCUMENTED the use of the DIVINE name by Jesus Christ in any conversation of His, then JWs should tell us where they get their own MANUSCRIPTS.

Why would he omit a name that appeared more than 3000 times in the bible he used?

Then where did you read it in the NT that Jesus used the name?

How can he not use a name used by Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Samuel, David, Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Micah, I can go on and on.

I will take this serious ONLY if you can give us the VERSE in the NT where Jesus ever addressed the Father with the Divine name

If Jesus didn't use it, then why didn't he?

This is the question I first asked you, you're the one making noise that I know little about this topic YET you're asking the question now.
So answer my question that CHART.

Was he against the use of the name or does he agree with the false tradition that the name shouldn't be pronounced?

If Jesus pronounce the name as it's a TRADITION not to do so, don't you think that the Scribes and Pharisees can use that as an evidence to accuse Jesus more? in case you forget they didn't believe He was the Messiah talk less of coming from God.

If Jesus didn't skip the name, do u imagine that Paul or Matthew will skip it? If they didn't skip it,

Where is the evidence of yours that THEY USE IT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

I won't reply your post again if you keep ignoring this question.

why do u consider it wrong when we use the name in those places quotations were made from the OT?

Using the name by JWs where the NT writers made a quotation from the OT isn't much problem but the main problems are:
1. we observe that THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW the same PRINCIPLE throughout the NT because had it been that they do, it is evident Jesus is Jehovah, so they're bias about it just because JESUS MUST NOT BE JEHOVAH.

2. NWT used Jehovah 237 places in the NT whereas when we check it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote...so where did the remain INSERTION come from?

3. 83 times the New World Translation has included Jehovah with no support from the Hebrew Scriptures

4. Lastly, why would you even use it when there's no evidence in the NT GREEK manuscripts in possession? That means your organization had rewritten their own manuscripts for the blessed Apostles.

The name was removed by xtian copyist, the same way they removed it from the Septuagint.

So you mean as at early as first century God doesn't have power to protect His name from being removed from the Bible.

That means your organization is lying for claiming that "...These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a [size=14pt]dependable Greek text[/size] IN REFINED FORM." Ibis

Please what is DEPENDABLE in a book that God's OWN NAME had been removed?

In a book entitled who was a Jew, Lawrence quoted a Talmud portion that indicate that christians that time used it.

At what time?

Emusan:


Then why the Scriptures never documented where Scribes & Pharisees ever accused Jesus for PRONOUNCING the Divine name since it was TRADITIONALLY prohibited?
Why the TRUE PRONUNCIATION lost again if Jesus truly did?
In fact it's an opportunity for them to accuse Jesus for PRONOUNCING the Divine name in public as they were forbidden to do so (even though they might be wrong) but no where do we read such in the scriptures.

Emusan, since we know that Jesus cant go along with this tradition, is it a good point asking why the pharisees didnt accuse him with that? The bible is not a record of all pharisees accused him of, and it certainly didnt record everything.

That Jesus used God's name is attested to by The Book of Jewish Knowledge, which says that Jesus "made himself master of the secret name of God".

That Jesus cannot go along with such traditiion is the truth. After all faithful servants of God before him used the name severally. So, the only reasonable objection you have is why the name is not found in the xtian manuscripts made by copyist. Thats all. Though I have already addressed that.

Does any language also sound the same in their names?

I dont understand.

When Paul and other NT writers wrote their books in GREEK and used Yesuos for Hebrew Yeshuah, do you mean they didn't use correct Greek word?

My dear we are talking about there pronunciation here. Dont shift the discussion. And how did you arrive at your 'Y'esous?

And who told you that Yeshua is hebrew? IF i say you know little about the subject you may think its an insult.

This is where we are going the problem of Divine name understanding would have stopped had it been that ANY NT WRITER used it in their work.
But evidence we have today is that NONE OF THEM USE IT.

Habah, at least you agree that Jesus couldnt have skipped the name when he read an OT scripture where the name appear. So, if Matthew were to write about those areas Jesus quoted those scriptures, wont he write THE DIVINE NAME?

At least the only place to seek answer from to your question is the NT both early manuscripts and the translations we have today and since no such place where the NT writers DOCUMENTED the use of the DIVINE name by Jesus Christ in any conversation of His, then JWs should tell us where they get their own MANUSCRIPTS.



Then where did you read it in the NT that Jesus used the name?



I will take this serious ONLY if you can give us the VERSE in the NT where Jesus ever addressed the Father with the Divine name



This is the question I first asked you, you're the one making noise that I know little about this topic YET you're asking the question now.
So answer my question that CHART.



If Jesus pronounce the name as it's a TRADITION not to do so, don't you think that the Scribes and Pharisees can use that as an evidence to accuse Jesus more? in case you forget they didn't believe He was the Messiah talk less of coming from God.



Where is the evidence of yours that THEY USE IT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

I won't reply your post again if you keep ignoring this question.

If God's name was used by many servants of Jehovah in the prechristian era, and you dont take it serious as a proof that Jesus used it, then your problem is too much.

Using the name by JWs where the NT writers made a quotation from the OT isn't much problem but the main problems are:
1. we observe that THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW the same PRINCIPLE throughout the NT because had it been that they do, it is evident Jesus is Jehovah, so they're bias about it just because JESUS MUST NOT BE JEHOVAH.

2. NWT used Jehovah 237 places in the NT whereas when we check it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote...so where did the remain INSERTION come from?

3. 83 times the New World Translation has included Jehovah with no support from the Hebrew Scriptures

4. Lastly, why would you even use it when there's no evidence in the NT GREEK manuscripts in possession? That means your organization had rewritten their own manuscripts for the blessed Apostles.

That is a subject of another thread. create one and invite me. And dont think that my response means that you are correct above. You are wrong. I ll tell you when you open a thread. Since you agree the name appeared 76 times, the argument of the name not appearing in the NT is no longer valid. Take note!

So you mean as at early as first century God doesn't have power to protect His name from being removed from the Bible.

That means your organization is lying for claiming that "...These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a [size=14pt]dependable Greek text[/size] IN REFINED FORM." Ibis

Please what is DEPENDABLE in a book that God's OWN NAME had been removed?



At what time?

God protected his name, that was why the Septuagint fraud was detected. And that of the removal by apostate christians had been detected also.

The facts show that the septuagint used in the first century AD had the name in it, so do you think that Paul, Matthew, Peter now chose to remove it from there own writings? Never!

Since it has been decoded that the name was intentionally removed from the septuagint, it is logical that Jesus apostles/disciples included that name in their writings, but apostate Christians removed it.

The book I quoted is talking about the first century AD.

JMAN05:
since we know that Jesus cant go along with this tradition, is it a good point asking why the pharisees didnt accuse him with that? The bible is not a record of all pharisees accused him of, and it certainly didnt record everything.

Imaging the pharisees will accuse Jesus of PRONOUNCING the Divine name and the NT writers will never document it, despite many of Jesus' activities record at the synagogue. Very funny of you!

That Jesus used God's name is attested to by The Book of Jewish Knowledge, which says that Jesus "made himself master of the secret name of God".

So this book is NOW MORE AUTHENTIC than over 5000 Greek manuscripts that we have, right

That Jesus cannot go along with such traditiion is the truth. After all faithful servants of God before him used the name severally. So, the only reasonable objection you have is why the name is not found in the xtian Christian manuscripts made by copyist. Thats all. Though I have already addressed that.

Mind you what I mean by Jesus can't go with such tradition is totally different from your own point, Jesus read the BOOK in any language or WORD that was presented to Him i.e if where the Divine name appeared was LORD or God that's what Jesus read without any CORRECTION if not when He read it and USED the actual PRONUNCIATION (as you claim) the Pharisees would've accused Him of such, which the NT writer(s) will surely document since it isn't JUST ONE TIME that Jesus alluded to the OT in front of those Pharisees.

Do you mean that the Greek manuscripts dated back to First century AD was also a COPY-WRITE?

My dear we are talking about there pronunciation here. Dont shift the discussion. And how did you arrive at your 'Y'esous?

And who told you that Yeshua is hebrew? IF i say you know little about the subject you may think its an insult.

So do you expect that a name written in GREEK will be pronounce the same in Hebrew?

What is the Greek word of Jesus?

What is the Hebrew word of Jesus?

Habah, at least you agree that Jesus couldnt have skipped the name when he read an OT scripture where the name appear. So, if Matthew were to write about those areas Jesus quoted those scriptures, wont he write THE DIVINE NAME?

I've addressed the first part above.

The point here is when Jesus read the OT was the The Divine name is the ONE in the book or another word?

Are you telling us that The NT writers ALL wrote their books in Hebrew?

At least since they used other Greek equivalent of Hebrew in their books if the Divine name appeared in anywhere they would have used its Greek equivalent also.

If God's name was used by many servants of Jehovah in the prechristian era, and you dont take it serious as a proof that Jesus used it, then your problem is too much.

My problem is much or yours is far bigger Show me where Jesus/Apostles used it in the Greek NT manuscripts simple! You're just biting around the bush.

That is a subject of another thread. create one and invite me. And dont think that my response means that you are correct above. You are wrong. I ll tell you when you open a thread. [size=14pt]Since you agree the name appeared 76 times,[/size] the argument of the name not appearing in the NT is no longer valid. Take note!

See excuse, please how does it become subject of another thread And your hands are so heavy to create a thread bah...

Please where did I agree with the bold That's how you people always come with wrong conclusion. My statement was it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote which is what NWT did not in general sense. YET you used "APPEARED" SMH

God protected his name, that was why the Septuagint fraud was detected. And that of the removal by apostate christians had been detected also.

And it was these apostate Christians work that your organization said "...These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a [size=14pt]dependable Greek text in refined from"[/size]

Wonder shall never end, An apostates who removed the name of God were being praised for their work by the Organization who claimed to be the mouth piece of God.

Watchtower delima...

The facts show that the septuagint used in the first century AD had the name in it, so do you think that Paul, Matthew, Peter now chose to remove it from there own writings? Never!

Yet the writings of them which can be DATED BACK TO THE FIRST CENTURY AD also confirmed by your organization that it is a DEPENDABLE GREEK TEXT never included the name. Who do we believe, you or the manuscripts evidence?

Since it has been decoded that the name was intentionally removed from the septuagint, it is logical that Jesus apostles/disciples included that name in their writings, but apostate Christians removed it.

And God intrusted His word into the hands of an Apostate so that the name can be removed without A FAITHFUL servant of God to preserve it. Is that how God work THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE?

Besides, your so called apostate Christians are they Jews or another tribe?

The book I quoted is talking about the first century AD.

And the manuscripts I'm being talking about were written in 21st Century AD bah...

Emusan:


Imaging the pharisees will accuse Jesus of PRONOUNCING the Divine name and the NT writers will never document it, despite many of Jesus' activities record at the synagogue. Very funny of you!

The bible is not a record of all Pharisaic accusations.

So this book is NOW MORE AUTHENTIC than over 5000 Greek manuscripts that we have, right

You see your problem? The septuagint is a living example that the actual write up of the bible was left untouched, but that the divine name was removed. And you are here making noise. Nawah o!

Mind you what I mean by Jesus can't go with such tradition is totally different from your own point, Jesus read the BOOK in any language or WORD that was presented to Him i.e if where the Divine name appeared was LORD or God that's what Jesus read without any CORRECTION if not when He read it and USED the actual PRONUNCIATION (as you claim) the Pharisees would've accused Him of such, which the NT writer(s) will surely document since it isn't JUST ONE TIME that Jesus alluded to the OT in front of those Pharisees.

Again sorry for you. I know you cant see the error in that comment. Try and research before making noise. Let me leave you with that for now.

Hey, during Jesus conversations, he made quotations from the "OT" where the name occured. If you are to be consistent, you will also agree that he didnt skip the name. So why shout that Jesus didnt use the name? Matt 22:44

Do you mean that the Greek manuscripts dated back to First century AD was also a COPY-WRITE?

Which Greek manuscript are you talking about? The name.

So do you expect that a name written in GREEK will be pronounce the same in Hebrew?

If they are not pronounced the same, why is this your noise about pronunciation about?

What is the Greek word of Jesus?

What is the Hebrew word of Jesus?

Your assignment.

At least since they used other Greek equivalent of Hebrew in their books if the Divine name appeared in anywhere they would have used its Greek equivalent also.

Go and do research sir, you are giving me more work here. Go and search which characters were used in Greek manuscript eg the septuagint.

My problem is much or yours is far bigger Show me where Jesus/Apostles used it in the Greek NT manuscripts simple! You're just biting around the bush.

Like seriously? when Jesus quote the OT scripture where the name occur, what happens? Matthew will removed it?

See excuse, please how does it become subject of another thread And your hands are so heavy to create a thread bah...[

When you are serious, and you think your position is strong, open it.

Please where did I agree with the bold That's how you people always come with wrong conclusion. My statement was it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote which is what NWT did not in general sense. YET you used "APPEARED" SMH

Explain this according to the context it appeared:

"NWT used Jehovah 237 places in the NT whereas when we check it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote...so where did the remain INSERTION come from?"

By saying that Jesus didnt skip the name, you ve already agreed that the name occurred in the NT.

And it was these apostate Christians work that your organization said "...These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a [size=14pt]dependable Greek text in refined from"[/size]

Wonder shall never end, An apostates who removed the name of God were being praised for their work by the Organization who claimed to be the mouth piece of God.

Watchtower delima...

I have stated this before, that the context is talking about textual variations, not that there are no omissions. Why pick out of context? is that the only hope your point has for survival? sorry, it isnt a strong one.

Yet the writings of them which can be DATED BACK TO THE FIRST CENTURY AD also confirmed by your organization that it is a DEPENDABLE GREEK TEXT never included the name. Who do we believe, you or the manuscripts evidence?

Name this manuscript that is dated back to the first century AD.

And the manuscripts I'm being talking about were written in 21st Century AD bah...

Until you answer the above. Keep rejecting a first century proof that the christians used the name.

JMAN05:
The bible is not a record of all Pharisaic accusations.

But Pharisees' accusation were listed MORE THAN ONE...isn't it?

You see your problem? The septuagint is a living example that the actual write up of the bible was left untouched, but that the divine name was removed. And you are here making noise. Nawah o!

You're talking about a BOOK here not Septuagint, read what you said and my reply to it...

Again sorry for you. I know you cant see the error in that comment. Try and research before making noise. Let me leave you with that for now

And you can't point out the error.

Hey, during Jesus conversations, he made quotations from the "OT" where the name occured. If you are to be consistent, you will also agree that he didnt skip the name. So why shout that Jesus didnt use the name? Matt 22:44

HE MADE QUOTATION to OT...same excuse since but when addressing The Father He never addressed Him with the Divine name nor teaches His disciples to do so whereas The Apostles make many quotations from the OT and applied it to Jesus.

Which Greek manuscript are you talking about? The name.

John Rylands Papyri

In your TEXTUAL VARIATION of your organization statement, which manuscripts DATED BACK TO EARLY CENTURY were they talking about?

If they are not pronounced the same, why is this your noise about pronunciation about?

What are we saying and what are you talking about pronunciation? Re-read the post again so that you can understand.

Your assignment.

At least you should have prove me wrong be giving us the REAL HEBREW AND GREEK name of Jesus. This shows that you don't know any thing just an empty noise.

Go and do research sir, you are giving me more work here. Go and search which characters were used in Greek manuscript eg the septuagint.

And who told you I don't use to?

Like seriously? when Jesus quote the OT scripture where the name occur, what happens? Matthew will removed it?

Lame excuse, always Jesus quotes the OT but why Jesus never used the name ON HIS OWN? After all Jesus talked about God more than 800 times in the NT.

When you are serious, and you think your position is strong, open it.

I don't need to you can as well open it to prove my posit wrong.

Beside, my point is still within the frame of this thread you just used another style to boycott it.

Explain this according to the context it appeared:
[size=14pt]"NWT used Jehovah 237 places[/size] in the NT whereas when we check it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote...so where did the remain INSERTION come from?"

@bold-make sense even to the unlearn ones...

By saying that Jesus didnt skip the name, you ve already agreed that the name occurred in the NT.

Not only to force me to agree also say I've agree to become JWs.

I have stated this before, that the context is talking about textual variations, not that there are no omissions. Why pick out of context? is that the only hope your point has for survival? sorry, it isnt a strong one.

TEXTUAL VARIATION...this is pointless the context of that statement is so glaring for any open-minded person This is it statement again: "Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to COMPARE but [size=14pt]discoveries of OLDER Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E.,[/size] just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. [size=14pt]These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a DEPENDABLE Greek text IN REFINED FORM."[/size] All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold & underline-mine)

DEPENDABLE GREEK TEXT after the DIVINE NAME HAS BEEN REMOVED

Only perverted someone like you will say this is just about TEXTUAL variation but not to build faith on those manuscripts.

Name this manuscript that is dated back to the first century AD.

See above.

Beside which OLDER manuscripts DATED BACK to early century your organization is talking about in the above quote?

Until you answer the above. Keep rejecting a first century proof that the christians used the name.

Why do you keep rejecting the FIRST CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS evidence in possession today that the Divine name was not used?

Why would Jesus read the Divine name in the OT (according to JWs) but didn't address His Father with the same Divine name just for once during His time?

Emusan:

You're talking about a BOOK here not Septuagint, read what you said and my reply to it...

You imply that the material I presented is no good testimony compared to the 5000 manuscript that omit the name.

The question is, since the xtian copyist removed the name in the septuagint do you view those manuscripts as a good proof that the name was never there?

Again, you and I agree that when Jesus read the OT, he didn't skip the name. But do you know that these manuscripts didn't even include the divine name in this place?

Don't u still get the point that something happened?

And you can't point out the error.

No, just live with it. U can research it.

HE MADE QUOTATION to OT...same excuse since but when addressing The Father He never addressed Him with the Divine name nor teaches His disciples to do so whereas The Apostles make many quotations from the OT and applied it to Jesus.

You don't get the point, do u?

Oga, we agree he used the name while reading the law, and that he didn't stick to pharisaic tradition. Yet, the manuscripts we have never showed the name in these places. It shows that even when Jesus used the name in another place, the copyists will remove it. Get d point bro. They did the same thing in the septuagint.

Note that it was not only in the septuagint that the removed it. The same happened in other manuscripts of the OT copied by 'christians'.

John Rylands Papyri

In your TEXTUAL VARIATION of your organization statement, which manuscripts DATED BACK TO EARLY CENTURY were they talking about?

The name you gave is not specific, but if the manuscript you are talking about is the one mentioned in the All Scripture Book, then it is Rylands 457.

So, how is did you date this manuscript to the first century AD?

What are we saying and what are you talking about pronunciation? Re-read the post again so that you can understand.

Explain:

"I'm still wondering how Jehovah Witness got the pronunciation and rendering of Jehovah in YORUBA language.

In fact your organization has erroneously teach that Jehovah is an English word for the Divine name"

If you ve never argued pronunciation, what do those comments mean?

At least you should have prove me wrong be giving us the REAL HEBREW AND GREEK name of Jesus. This shows that you don't know any thing just an empty noise.

sorry, just carry that one go standard debate. humility will help u know more.

And who told you I don't use to?

So which characters of the divine name appeared in the septaugint?

Lame excuse, always Jesus quotes the OT but why Jesus never used the name ON HIS OWN? After all Jesus talked about God more than 800 times in the NT.

Above should help us ask this xtian copyist that question. From above, you will agree that they removed it wherever the name appeared. So we cant exactly know where. Sticking to where Jesus/others made quotations is a nice decision. dont you think so?

@bold-make sense even to the unlearn ones...

Pardon sir, i dont get you:

"NWT used Jehovah 237 places in the NT whereas when [size=15]we[/size] check it ONLY 76 times is Jehovah included based on a direct Hebrew quote...so where did the remain INSERTION come from?"

You just pointed out that 237 times was a claim by the NWT, but you didnt explain what you are convinced you ve found out.

Not only to force me to agree also say I've agree to become JWs.

Thats simple logic. you agree Jesus didnt skip the name while reading the Law. You are right, will he then skip it while making quotations in his day to day conversations?

TEXTUAL VARIATION...this is pointless the context of that statement is so glaring for any open-minded person This is it statement again: "Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to COMPARE but [size=14pt]discoveries of OLDER Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E.,[/size] just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. [size=14pt]These manuscript evidences provide STRONG ASSURANCE that we now have a DEPENDABLE Greek text IN REFINED FORM."[/size] All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold & underline-mine)

DEPENDABLE GREEK TEXT after the DIVINE NAME HAS BEEN REMOVED

Only perverted someone like you will say this is just about TEXTUAL variation but not to build faith on those manuscripts.

The IT-2 p. 10 said:

"...Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky′ri·os and The·os′"

This shows the our organisation knows that the name was removed. That being the case, your deductions were made out of context of that All Scripture Book.

Beside which OLDER manuscripts DATED BACK to early century your organization is talking about in the above quote?

Where did you see this your first century?

Why do you keep rejecting the FIRST CENTURY MANUSCRIPTS evidence in possession today that the Divine name was not used?

Why would Jesus read the Divine name in the OT (according to JWs) but didn't address His Father with the same Divine name just for once during His time?

Where is this first century manuscript?

He obviously did so, but it was removed. see above. They did it in sinaticus, even vatican 1207 in the OT parts. will the gospels be an exception for them?

JMAN05:
If any honest hearted person here wants to ask question, let him do so. Emusan is not ready to see his error.

Well done bro , just some few minutes ago I came across a thread where a female atheist gave emusan a bible lecture .

Check this thread on pages 4 and 5 https://www.nairaland.com/2392515/did-anyone-ascend-into-heaven/5

If you permit me JMAN05, will it be right to summarize things this way?

1a. A manuscript of the Septuagint was found which is older than the rest manuscript we posses, and it contain the Divine name.
1b. Based on this one manuscript, we now infer that the over 5000 manuscripts we have which didn't have the Divine name are forged.
1c. That the Greek manuscript which dates as far back as 1st and 2nd century must have copied from the forged documents or copied the tradition of the forgers (i.e not adding the Divine name).
1d.That JW now decided to correct this forged documents by restoring the Divine name.


2. That based on perception...and supported by the writing of a Jewish author which says that Jesus "made himself master of the secret name of God"(note the emphasis on secret), JW concluded that Jesus must have called the name when He was reading from the OT during the NT era.

3. That JW chose popularity over correctness in determination of what the Divine name is, though aware that it was a name arrived at out of error, and not a direct transliteration from Greek or Hebrew, to any language.


These are what am inferring from your posts so far with respect to the three questions I asked. Is there a correction or clarification?

You are commended for your words.

Syncan:
If you permit me JMAN05, will it be right to summarize things this way?

1a. A manuscript of the Septuagint was found which is older than the rest manuscript we posses, and it contain the Divine name.
1b. Based on this one manuscript, we now infer that the over 5000 manuscripts we have which didn't have the Divine name are forged.

The emphasis I make on the septuagint is because, that is likely what the apostles and even Jesus used. Not meaning that they didnt use any Hebrew scroll. There were other manuscripts of the OT that they removed the name from.

I didnt say forged. They removed the name of God where it occurred.

1c. That the Greek manuscript which dates as far back as 1st and 2nd century must have copied from the forged documents or copied the tradition of the forgers (i.e not adding the Divine name).

Am yet to see that first century manuscript. Second century? Yes. But the manuscript I mentioned above said nothing about God's name.

1d.That JW now decided to correct this forged documents by restoring the Divine name.

Remove 'forged' above. The name may have been removed cos they cant understand the name anymore. Since Moses, Abraham, Joshua, Solomon, Isaiah etc used the name, do you think we shouldnt use it? and can we not include the name even when NT characters quote a scripture where the name appeared? This NWT did.

2. That based on perception...and supported by the writing of a Jewish author which says that Jesus "made himself master of the secret name of God"(note the emphasis on secret), JW concluded that Jesus must have called the name when He was reading from the OT during the NT era.

I see no need to emphasize "secret". care to tell?

Since the ancient prophets of God used the name, there is no point to the tradition of not pronouncing the name. As such, Jesus used it. unless you believe he agreed with the pharisees.

3. That JW chose popularity over correctness in determination of what the Divine name is, though aware that it was a name arrived at out of error, and not a direct transliteration from Greek or Hebrew, to any language.

People's familiarity has always been the norm, not the correct pronunciation. For example, do you know how many names we pronounce/render a way different from how they are in the original?

CANTICLES:


Well done bro , just some few minutes ago I came across a thread where a female atheist gave emusan a bible lecture .

Check this thread on pages 4 and 5 https://www.nairaland.com/2392515/did-anyone-ascend-into-heaven/5

Honestly, the lady taught him. And he doesnt learn to be civil so that the shame wont be much when disproved. He keeps making noise.