mr. bla

Dear L.P.

Unfortunately your latest response seems to have taken a bit of a turn. You
say that I wish to close my eyes to this "evidence". Have you actually
looked at jpegs of these do***ents? I have. Who indeed is closing his eyes?
Close my eyes to the evidence I looked at it in a depth that you probably
never will. I would be willing to bet that you would not even recognize the


in! You then go on to ask me am I going to use "my W&H." Are you kidding?
YOU USE THAT TEXT! That is the very text on which the New World translation
is based. Think about it, that means the New World translation committee no
doubt sat down before their translation process and thanked God for the work
of W&H and you now malign them publicly. You publicly disgraced these men
who brought you the very Bible you hold in your hands.

I think unfortunately you went into ludicrous mode after this.
You state that all the translations of the Old Testament in the early 1900s
had the name Jehovah. Are you kidding? When was the King James translated?
When was the Douay-Rheims done? Do they have the name? And strangely enough
the King James is the very translation used by the watchtower organization
up until the New World translation was done. And you didn't even make it as
simple as saying MOST, you said ALL! Who told you this? Did you bother
looking this up to verify it? Do you have any idea how embarrassing this is
to you? You simply trusted someone on this point despite the fact that it
was completely against common sense, despite the fact that this is an easily
verifiable lie.

You talk about faith being necessary. What you are exhibiting is not faith,
it is blind trust. Faith is belief in that which has proved itself to be
believable. But someone has told you that Jehovah allowed his word to be
altered. If you had put your faith in Jehovah you should've known that this
was a lie because Jehovah told you he would never allow this. But instead,
you trusted someone who told you Jehovah lied to you and you believed him.
You actually stated that all of the historical translations were INSPIRED.
You didn't even say they were good, or scholarly, you say that they were
inspired! And then in just a short number of days you make a statement that
all of the translations prior to 1900 had the divine name. Then, you state
that all of the modern "inspired translations" systematically removed the
divine name. So then, that means that modern translations are inspired by
God to remove the name! Do you not see that this is circular reasoning?
What you're saying is a paradox. It cannot exist in real truth. You can't
have God ordaining the removal of his name, when he said that he would never
do that, and then align yourself against these translations which you once
stated were inspired. This is almost like that famous logic puzzle:

Everything I say is true.

The prior sentence was a lie.

These two assertions cannot coexist. What you have done is this same
thing. You have made an assertion for inspired originals, inspired
translations, and the very purpose of God guarding his word. You then go on
to claim that God's name has been systematically removed from translations,
as well as the current texts of the New Testament. All this while God
promised he wouldn't do that.

You have definitely reached a logical impasse. You saw a trap
in those things that I was saying to you. The strange irony is that, in all
clear conscience, I was not setting a trap for you. I expected my first two
questions to be preliminary only. I expected you to simply say that you
agreed with the inspired originals, and that you believed in the authority
of the current texts. If I was going to be setting a trap for you it
clearly was not in the first two questions. The strange irony is that the
Gordian knot you've tied was something you made yourself. You have painted
yourself into a logical corner. And unfortunately now that you are in that
corner you are beginning to become irrational. You are beginning to make
assertions that are completely ludicrous. Clearly anybody can look up the
translations done in the 1600s-1900s and easily validate that your claim is
completely and totally false. You bring dishonor on the name of Jehovah by
making such false assertions.

You claim to be a witness of Jehovah. And then this is the
manner in which you behave. You lie, and you do it under the title of
Jehovah God himself. You deceive others by transmitting the same deception
given to you. I'm not speaking about specific watchtower beliefs, I'm
talking about the fundamental principles of the very word of God. You
contradicted yourself so many times it is difficult to really know what you
believe. At one moment you stalwartly state that Jehovah's purpose was to
guard his word, and in fact, there are inspired translations today. And
then in the next breath you state that his name has been systematically
removed from all of the Greek manuscripts, and post 1900s english
translations. You do this against the very stated purpose of God. And you
also believe that, in spite of the fact that there is absolutely, positively
no evidence for it. In fact there is 100 percent ironclad evidence against
it.

Many people in life have desired to be anonymous so as not to
bring glory to themselves. You however have stood up and publicly
proclaimed something which is absolutely impossible. A number of times you
have, in the name of Jehovah, told things that were flatly untrue. This is
not to your praise, this is to your embarrassment. Do you think Jehovah God
will hold you blameless for bringing his name into public reproach such as
this? Do you think he will hold you blameless for slandering the men who
brought you the text of your own Bible? Men who spent their lives trying to
bring the best Greek New Testament to light? Do you think Jehovah God will
hold you blameless for lying regarding translations in the 1900s? You know
that what you said was false, and yet you still said it. This is so easily
verifiable all I had to do was get up from the coffee table and go grab a
King James Bible. And yet you purport this lie in a public forum. In
essence, it would've been better for you to remain silent rather than open
your mouth and bring dishonor on Jehovah's name. Do you believe you can
"lie someone into the kingdom"? Do you believe it is proper to use
deception, and disinformation in order to bring someone into Jehovah's
light? Don't you see how the Devil is using you? You stand up in Jehovah's
name and lie publicly bringing reproach on him before the world.

The only positive regarding all of this is the fact there is
f****veness for you in person of Jesus Christ. You have publicly, and
openly told untrue statements for the purpose of deception. This is called
lying. This is the thing that the Bible tells you you must not do. This is
the very reason that Jesus Christ had to die the death he did, was to
f****ve you of your sins. This f****veness is not automatic, it requires
your repentance. It requires that you turn away from your sin. You are
sinning publicly, you are bearing false witness against people who brought
you the word of God.You claim all of the pre-1900 bibles had the divine name
when you know this is a lie. I don't know but I would be tempted to think
that you believe this to be okay because the greater purpose of Jehovah will
be served by propagating these lies. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Your sin will not advance his kingdom.

Metanoia; repentance, this is what you must embrace. You must
make an alteration of your thinking. "By this we know that we have come to
know him, if we keep his commandments. The one who says, I have come to
know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is
not in him. But whoever keeps his word, in him the love of God has truly
been perfected. By this we know that we are in him".

Repent Mr. Perez because what you are doing is sin. Stop fighting against
Jesus, You cannot lie in the name of Jehovah and be held without blame.
This type of repentance may cost you everything. It will definitely cost
you your pride, it may cost you your job, your congregation, and even your
very family. This repentance, however, is necessary. Jesus himself is
calling you to repent, what will you do? Will you continue to sin? Or will
you fall at the feet of Jesus and ask for f****veness?

Looking forward to your next reply

Sincerely Mr. Bla

l perez

I realize that is your claim...

I would be willing to bet that you would not even recognize the

did I truly?

yes


And strangely enough


only if people let you tell them what to think. Obviously I meant "all" of
the ones I've seen (about 25 different translations) I realize there are
some I haven't seen.


You simply trusted someone on this point despite the fact that it

is it truly?

Has not the divine name been removed from translations of the OT in the
latter half of the 20th century?


If you had put your faith in Jehovah you should've known that this

Jehovah can not lie. You are blaspheming in your feeble attempt to put words
in my mouth.


you'll have to find that quote from me in the archives or you have just
proven yourself a liar

yes... I am glad it is *your* reasoning and not mine!


please show me where YHWH says He would not allow translators to remove His
name? I have never seen such a scripture. I'm beginning to doubt you are the
scholar you pretend to be.

great band BTW


you've tied was something you made yourself. You have painted


<to the readers> that previous Bla statement is clinically called
'projection' by psychologists


You are beginning to make


are you completely sure?


You bring dishonor on the name of Jehovah by


<whew> I sure am glad I have you to tell me what I believe because I dont
recall saying all that!


are you insane? I'm beginning to wonder...

Do you think he will hold you blameless for slandering the men who

are you accusing me of writing the things in that link I posted?


Do you think Jehovah God will

well, now we have quite a quandry dont we Bla? Here in my lap is a KJV Bible
and it is open to Exodus 6:3 and it clearly has the name Jehovah printed
there. So please tell me who *really* is the liar here? But then you may not
be a liar if as I suspect, you are insane.


In


called


see above


This is the thing that the Bible tells you you must not do. This is

name


is it truly? all of the ones I've seen do!


I don't know but I would be tempted to think

will


<snip>
my, dont we ramble...

mr. bla

Wow! was that interesting!
1id you malign the name of 2 people called scholars by the watchtower, by
circulating a link to unsubstantiated rumors about them?
Yes http://www.touchet1611.org/WescottHort.html
This isn't a lie, this is only bearing false witness. Remember your bible is
from the text THEY COMPILED.

2id the KJV, and the douay rheims have the divine name?
KJV=about10 cases out of thousands of tetragrammaton instances, Douay=0 (i
don't have a D/R exhaustive but the verse you listed doesn't have the name)
Remember your quote was ALL TRANSLATIONS

"Did you know that in the early 1900s the name Jehovah was in all
translations of the OT? "
Your quote, remember?
Oh wait, you repaired the quote! I didn't realise ALL meant all that you
have read. So for future reference all only applies to your realm of
experience! (good thing you weren't speaking presumptiously!)

3:you'll have to find that quote from me in the archives or you have just
proven yourself a liar
"So just as He made the original writers
write it perfect He would therefore make each translator translate it
perfect."
Therefore, if the original manuscripts
(which unfortunately dont exist, making this whole debate moot) are inerrant
by the power of YHWH then the subsequent translations are also inerrant by
the same power. Why would He guide the original writers only to allow
corruption of His Word during the translation process?

Woops! I guess that WAS what you said. You do remember when you say stuff
don't you? you aren't just making this up as you go?

4lease show me where YHWH says He would not allow translators to remove
His
name? I have never seen such a scripture. I'm beginning to doubt you are the
scholar you pretend to be.
Do you have any idea what the concept quoting is? I am not claiming that,
YOU said the translators were innerent and that YHWH wouldn't allow
corruption of his word by improper translation.If YHWH can't allow
corruption of his word (your claim), and if the translators are innerent
(your claim), and if YHWH's name should be in the OT/NT (your claim as seen
in other posts) then YHWH can't allow translators to remove his name. Or
were these "inspired ommisions"

once more: "He would therefore make each translator translate it perfect."
"Why would He guide the original writers only to allow corruption of His
Word during the translation process?"

5:are you accusing me of writing the things in that link I posted?
No, You didn't lie in this instance. This was only bearing false witness.
Have you validated these claims? Realize, quoting a site and then claiming
"I didn't write it" is intellectual cowardice. You are responsible for the
truth or lies of data you present. This assumes the data isn't frankly
plagarized because you were in a rush.

Lets look over the info so far
1:you believe in innerrent originals
2: you believe in "innerrent translations"
3: You believe the very purpose of God is to guard his word against
corruption.
4: you believe all 6000 current MSS/fragments of the NT have had The hebrew
divine name erased from them over 40 years and 1000 miles
5: all means, only all that you have seen

I wonder what guard means in your vocabulary?
gaurd; V. 1.to sit by and allow damage to occur.2. to sleep 3. to be
distracted 4. to be too busy
( realize I am not mocking God only someone foolish enough to believe that
God would sit back and let his word be corrupted when he promised us he
wouldn't)

You dont have the bible when you have a do***ent so riddled with holes that
the divine name has been deleted completely ( as you have claimed in prior
posts). If you can't trust the NT to have the divine name because it was
deleted and replaced with another word, how can you trust the rest of
matt-revelation. How do you know what might have been changed other than the
name? If only superstition was enough to motivate them to mutilate the
do***ents, what could they have done out of greed, or lust, or pride as
their motive?

You love to quote the word and yet you believe the foundation of that same
bible is hopelessly and systematically flawed.

So I ask again; Why didn't Jehovah protect his word? Why were the copyists
allowed to change the words as they saw fit? When did his purpose of
protecting his word change?
If 237 instances of the divine name in the NWT were all ommissions from the
Greek manuscripts, how much else of the do***ents was changed 1%, 10%,
50%90%

You are believing a fairytale L.P.
You want to believe Jehovah protected his word, and you are 100% right. But,
you can't believe this, espouse a philosophy of 100% obliteration of the
divine name from all NT do***ents, and still claim any shed of intelligence.
Those who would feed you this line of lies bear greater guilt than you. They
have called God a liar by ascribing an action to him that you yourself said,
more than once, he wouldn't do. You are right ! he wouldn't do that, and HE
DIDN'T DO IT. whoever told you the oppossite is lying to you. Don't believe
the lie of the lazy god who slept through his name alteration. That god is
not the god of the bible.

Look to Jesus L.P. Stop believing what you know in your heart IS NOT TRUE.
ask yourself tonight in the quiet of your heart " do I really believe God
abandoned the protection of his word and allowed his name to be erased?"
Look to Jesus L.P. These are myths. This isn't YHWH. He COULD NOT ALLOW the
corruption of his word.
Look to Jesus L.P. Do you really think someone can lie to you about YHWH
allowing his word to be corrupted, and then be trusted for other things.
Just look to Jesus L.P.

As our discussions get more heated emotion can get away from us. If I have
sinned against you I apologize. If I trample your feelings under foot it is
because of my sin. If I behave inappropriatly I will bear the guilt. As such
I apologize to you now, without excuse, for any thing I have said which was
not according to the spirt of love the lord commanded us. Please accept my
humble apology.

Sincerly
Mr. Bla

seeker

Mr Bla:
You have been systematically puting down LP it seems
you are trying to do your best to break his moral by your so called
knowledge and saying how he is sinning against
Jehovah and how he is lying etc....and to turn to Jesus.

This ridiculous exchange of so-called replies by you to him trying to trick
him and making it like you are the Greatest, your Christian modesty is
showing::-)
Repeating your knowledge of Greek Koine and Hebrew,
and he does not know anything.
You came on this NG pretending you wanted a discussion with a basis to start
etc... and here your point
till this day was what???

We as JWs beleive the Bible is GOD"s inspired word
end of story. We Believe Jehovah is the Almighty GOD
and Jesus is his Son. DO YOU belive it or do you Believe JESUS is GOD
simple question?
Besides which denomination or church do YOU belong to? Perhaps you have
some knowledge of KG ,I have been living in Greece for over twenty years,why
do I say so ? because of the verse in JOHN 1:1 which taken as it is does not
in any way prove any TRINITY any one with a basic knowledge of Greek can
understand that "theos"
there is not the ALMIGHTY GOD ,but English translation give's it the meaning
that theos there is meant
GOD almighty JEHOVAH. by the Trinitarians and those not familiar with
Greek(have replied to you on 24th).

I do commend LP for standing up to your downgrading
him , and your so called (Accept my humble apology)


Please note I am not defending LP as he surely gave you replies to your
downgrading and can hold the fort himself
and if according to you he has made some errors in anything does that make
him any less faithful to GOD?

You would have been better defending your stand by producing Scriptural
proof of your Trinitarian belief
directly from the Scripture instead of repeating how
LP knew nothing and that he has been told lies etc...

I ask you is theBIBLE inspired yes or no do YOU believe it? Do you accept
that JEHOVAH is the Almighty
GOD? Jehovah being known in English to be GOD's name or pronounced as so?
How can he be called Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures
and now in the NT suddenly is called Jesus? I will not go on and on as I
will be rambling as you had done with LP.
Please dont start with such Scholar said that and this,
If you want to know after the Apostles died later Apostasy set in and thats
how the TRINITY came into play,I think you already know that. Anyone who
knows the TRINITY is false and continiues to believe and teaches it is the
one who is sinning, no shred of evidence
in Scripture to uphold such belief , yes I know some verses are brought to
prove it , BUT are they compatible
with all the BIBLE proving that there is a so called TRINITY and those
believing it keep repeating like parrots what some are saying or taught in
seminaries
of Bible Instruction.
As I have read enough in your own words with LP
I do not wish to reply to any follow up. Each one will carry his own load.
Please accept my humble apology If I have offended you.
SEEKER

l perez

oh Bla... what a classic blunder you have committed!
I notice that you didn't quote the accusation you made that caused me to
write "you'll have to find that quote from me in the archives or you have
just
proven yourself a liar" now why oh why would you be hiding that???

ah, here it is... you accused me of this "You actually stated that all of
the historical translations were INSPIRED." with inspired in caps no less...


but I never said *anyone* was INSPIRED so now we see that you are indeed a
liar and a twister of words, not to mention that you quoted me out of
context which was refuting your assertion that all English translations were
"not the Bible that was delivered"

oh look, when *I* say you said something it is *actually* what you said!!!
not my twisting of your words... imagine that?


indeed and I stick by the fact that as I have said from the beginning (even
though you didn't wanna hear it) that the big picture (remember me writing
that in one of my first responses to question 1?) the overall message of
God's Word was preserved even if the individual words were changed.

Bla, you are proving yourself quite tedious. I can not continue a discussion
with someone who continually tries to twist my words! Are you insane?!?

I presented two opposing viewpoints within one hour of eachother as I was
surfing for info on W&H. Now you wish to attribute me with the writing of
those viewpoints? You *are* insane!


the purpose of God?!? Now you want to say I'm trying to state the purpose of
God?!? oh, my Bla... you are a sad case...


Bla, I have clarified this but apparently you chose to ignore that in your
quest to put words in my mouth. You are really becoming tedious with this
mode of attack.

If you can't trust the NT to have the divine name because it was

what about the divine name having been removed from the OT in less than 100
years? oh, that's right, you dont answer questions, you just throw around
accusations.

How do you know what might have been changed other than the


you tell me... why have they removed the divine name from all modern
translations?

more of your attempts to put words in my mouth...

ya know what Bla... I'm done with you

This article was published on the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year
XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186.
JHWH. The tetragrammaton in the New Testament

For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in
Hebrew written with the letters YHWH/JHVH (which recurs over 6800 times in
the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not appear in the original
writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers
of the New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it
seems that such an opinion is wrong. Here below are some factors to
consider:


1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint
(LXX).

One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that
the LXX substituted YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the
equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they
met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading.

However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in
the LXX YHWH with KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with
the beginning of that version. As a matter of fact, the older copies of the
LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text.
(See App. 1)

Girolamo, the translater of the Latin Vulgate confirms this fact. In the
prologue of the books of Samuel and Kings he wrote: "In certain Greek
volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God's name expressed in ancient
characters". And in a letter written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God's
name is made up of four letters; it was thought ineffable, and it is
written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he (YHWH). But some have not been
able to decipher it because of the resemblace of the Greek letters and when
they found it in Greek books they usually read it PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo,
Le Lettere, Rome, 1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia
Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430.

Further confimation comes from The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, that says: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea
that the translaters of the LXX have rendered the Tetragrammaton JHWH with
KYRIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available have
the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was
custom preserved by the later Hebrew translater of the Old Testament in the
first centuries (after Christ). Vol.2, pag.512.

Consequently, we can easily deduce that if the writers of NT in their
quotations of the OT used the LXX they would surely have left the
Tetragrammaton in their writings the way it recurred in the Greek version of
the OT. To confirm the correctness of this conclusion it is interesting to
note the following declaration made before the finding of the manuscripts
proving that the LXX originaly continued the Tetragrammaton:

"If that version (LXX) would have kept the term (YHWH), or had used the
Greek term for JEHOVAH and another for ADONAY, such a use would have surely
been followed in the discourses and in the reasonings of the NT. Therefore
our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalms, insteand of saying: 'The LORD has
said to my LORD' could have said: "JEHOVA has said to ADONI". Supposing that
a Christian student was translating in Hebrew the Greek Testament: every
time that he met the word KYRIOS, he should have had to consider if in the
context there was something that indicated the true Hebrew correspondent;
and this is the difficulty that would have arisen in translating the NT in
whatever language if the name JEHOVAH would have been left in the Old
Testament (LXX). The Hebrew scriptures would have constitued a standard for
many passages: every time that the expression "the LORD's angel" recurs, we
know that the term LORD represents JEHOVA; we could come to a similar
conclusion for the expression "the LORD's word", according to the precedent
established in the OT; and so it is in the case of the name "the LORD of
armies". On the contrary, when the expression "my LORD" or "our LORD"
recurs, we should know that the term JEHOVA would be inadmissible, when
instead the words ADONAY or ADONI should be used". R.B.Girdlestone,
Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p.43.

For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor
George Howard, of the University of Ge****a (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the
Septuagint Version that the New Testamental Church used and quoted,
contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New
Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations".
Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14.

Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the
quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted,
for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andrè Chouraqui, in Efik,
and Malgascio languages.

2)The Tetragrammaton in Hebrew version of the NT.

As many know, the first book of the NT, the gospel of Matthew was written in
Hebrew. The proof of this is found in the work of Girolamo De viris
inlustribus, chap. 3, where he writes:

"Mattew, that is also Levi, that became an apostle after having been a tax
collector, was the first to write a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew
language and Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those who where
cir***cised that had believed. It's not know with enough certainly who had
then translated it in Greek. However the Hebrew one it self is preserved
till this day in the Library at Cesarea, that the martyr Pamphilus collected
so accurately. The Nazarenes of the Sirian city of Berea that use this copy
have also allowed me to copy it". From the Latin text edited by
E.C.Richardson, published in the series Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschicte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol.14, Lipsia, 1986, pp.8,9.

It is therefore natural to conclude that when Matthew quoted passages from
the OT in which the Tetragrammaton appeared (thing that occurred both in the
Hebrew OT and in the Greek one then available) he would have surely left
YHWH in his gospel as no jew ever dared to take away the Tetragrammaton from
the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures.

To confirm this there are at least 27 hebrew versions of the NT that present
the Tetragrammaton in the quotations of the OT or where the text requires
it. (see note 11)

3) The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the
Babylonian Talmud.

The first part of this Yewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it
contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done
of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical
manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:

"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the
Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one
must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and
burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them
toghether with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them".
From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.

The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very
probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The
expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could
have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim"
where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this
word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears
in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the
Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."

So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage
of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of
Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their
Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take
the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon
said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would
burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues
reasoning that here "Minim" is refered to Hebrew Christians.

And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians.
It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in
the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the
passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story,
regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to
parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a
clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their
Gospel and their writings.

Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the
writers of the New Testament reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely
inspired work.

such

was


well, unfortunately that last paragraph doesn't make up for you twisting my
words. I can not hold an intelligent, respectful conversation with someone
who is in the habit of twisting others words when it is convenient to win an
argument. I told you from the start that you are too hung up on words and I
was afraid that 1 Timothy 1:4 and 6:4 and 6:20 and 2 Timothy 2:14 and 2:23
and Titus 3:9-11 and Romans 1:28-32 had application to you but now you have
proved that suspicion correct. I f****ve your trespasses against me but now
admonish you to repent or find someone else to engage in "contradictions of
the falsely called knowledge" because I will no longer suffer it! If your
next post to me is of the same word twisting I will put you in the 'block
sender' file with the rest of the slanderous antis. I am sorry but I must
obey Proverbs 13:20 so please repent so we can continue our discussions.

LP

><> ><> | <>< <><

===================
I see your FACE IS RED! Stop claiming everyone is "twisting" your words.
All he did was prove a few things to you you didn't want to face!
HYPOCRITE!
--
Then Perez
Whined, cried, and screamed out to one and all....
BEWARE! HELP!!! There are HONEST people on this newsgroup who are here to
EXPOSE
the ungodly TRUTH about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any
alternative
organization for me to hide in and feel safe, to have friends... but I
know this is true:
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in
horror. 'But what ****NIZATION
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal (the
WTS) has ****ed the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you
ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire -
==========================================

><> ><> | <>< <><

** Mr Bla is simply pointing out things to L Perez that are true! Why
doesn't Perez want to learn anything? Mr Bla is extremely knowledgeable and
I'm enjoying his posts tremendously. :-) Aren't you?

** Mr. Blas discussions are more interesting than the usual blather on this
NG. Why not just relax, enjoy and learn from him?

** And here the JWs claim they "examine" everything. Why not allow Mr Bla
to educate you and others here who are interested in what he has to say?

--
Me & Them.......
The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 27
" Fight Against Independent Thinking . Yet there
are some who point out that the organization has
had to make adjustments before (1975 fiasco etc), and so they argue:
'This shows that we have to make up our own mind
on what to believe.' (Which all people should do.) This is (dangerous)
independent thinking.
Why is it so dangerous? Such thinking is an evidence of pride." (Not pride
but intelligence).
When JWs start to THINK for themselves and ask questions they end up leaving
the WTS.
================================================== ============

seeker

HELLO IS YOUR NAME VOLTAIRE:-)
SEEKER

lperezdancer

Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The
Concordances of Furst ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and
Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly
agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is
found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction
with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the
name generally by "Lord" (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of
Adonai—usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.

According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah
ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according
to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it
appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction
of the Temple. The Mishna refers to our question more than once:
Berachoth, ix, 5, allows the use of the Divine name by way of
salutation; in Sanhedrin, x, 1, Abba Shaul refuses any share in the
future world to those who pronounce it as it is written; according to
Thamid, vii, 2, the priests in the Temple (or perhaps in Jerusalem)
might employ the true Divine name, while the priests in the country
(outside Jerusalem) had to be contented with the name Adonai;
according to Maimonides ("More Neb.", i, 61, and "Yad chasaka", xiv,
10) the true Divine name was used only by the priests in the sanctuary
who imparted the blessing, and by the high-priest on the Day of
Atonement. Phil ["De mut. nom.", n. 2 (ed. Marg., i, 580); "Vita
Mos.", iii, 25 (ii, 166)] seems to maintain that even on these
occasions the priests had to speak in a low voice. Thus far we have
followed the post-Christian Jewish tradition concerning the attitude
of the Jews before Simeon the Just.

As to the earlier tradition, Josephus (Antiq., II, xii, 4) declares
that he is not allowed to treat of the Divine name; in another place
(Antiq., XII, v, 5) he says that the Samaritans erected on Mt. Garizim
an anonymon ieron. This extreme veneration for the Divine name must
have generally prevailed at the time when the Septuagint version was
made, for the translators always substitute Kyrios (Lord) for Jehovah.
Ecclus., xxiii, 10, appears to prohibit only a wanton use of the
Divine name, though it cannot be denied that Jehovah is not employed
as frequently in the more recent canonical books of the Old Testament
as in the older books. It would be hard to determine at what time this
reverence for the Divine name originated among the Hebrews.

l perez

more info I found in my research...

The following scriptures show that Jesus must have used The Divine Name:

Matthew 6:9 (ASV) "After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art
in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."

John 5:43 (ASV) "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if
another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

John 10:25 (ASV) "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the
works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me."

John 12:28 (ASV) "Father, glorify thy name. There came therefore a voice
out of heaven, [saying], I have both glorified it, and will glorify it
again."

John 17:3 (ASV) "And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the
only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ."

John 17:6 (ASV) "I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out
of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have
kept thy word."

John 17:11, 12 (ASV) " ... And I am no more in the world, and these are in
the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which
thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we [are]. 12 While I was
with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded
them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the
scripture might be fulfilled."

John 17:26 (ASV) " ... and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it
known; that the lovewherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in
them."

Acts 15:14 (ASV) "Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles,
to take out of them a people for his name."

Acts 15:17 (ASV) "... That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And
all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, ..."

Hebrews 2:12 (ASV) " ... saying,I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In
the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise."

3 John 1:7 (ASV) " ... because that for the sake of the Name they went
forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles."

Revelation 3:12 (ASV) "He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the
temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon
him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new
Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new
name."

Revelation 14:1 (ASV) "And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount
Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name,


Revelation 15:4 (ASV) "Who shall not fear, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for
thou only art holy; for all the nations shall come and worship before thee;
for thy righteous acts have been made manifest."

Revelation 22:4 (ASV) " ... and they shall see his face; and his name [shall
be] on their foreheads."

These references from Holy Scripture, clearly do***ent the sacred importance
and emphasis associated with the use of The Divine Name by Jesus (and the
apostles).

Jesus' (Hebrew, Yeshua) own name means "Salvation [or help] of Jah
[Jehovah]" or "Jehovah is Salvation;"

Jesus stated: "I have come in the name of my Father" (John 5:43);

Jesus taught his followers to pray: "Our Father in the heavens, let your
name be sanctified" (Matthew 6:9);

Jesus said his works were done "in the name of my Father" (John 10:25); and,

Jesus made his Father's name known to his disciples and said he would
continue to make it known (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26).

Based on the preceeding references, when Jesus quoted or read from the
Hebrew Scriptures he most assuredly used The Divine Name! Note the
following references:

The Divine Name in Jesus' Reference to OT

OT Reference
JESUS' quote in NT

Deuteronomy 8:3; 6:16; 6:13
Matthew 4:4, 7, 10

Deuteronomy 6:5
Matthew 22:37

Psalm 110:1
Matthew 22:44

Isaiah 61:1, 2
Luke 4:16-21

No doubt Jesus' disciples, including the inspired writers of the Christian
Greek Scriptures, would follow his example, using The Divine Name in their
writings.

Why would the early copiests substitute kyrios (Lord) or theos (God) for The
Divine Name?
From 66 CE to 135 CE there were:

Several Jewish revolts fostered much persecution by Roman authorities upon
any who appeared Jewish;

After the apostle's deaths, there was a great falling away from the true
faith. (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:3);

Most Jewish Christians were killed by the Roman authorities, leaving mostly
"Gentile" Christians. These Gentile Christians wanted to appease the Roman
authorities and gain approval amongst Romans, in general, and therefore may
have developed a propensity to discard almost anything that made them look
Jewish, including The Divine Name.

Greek philosophies were put on par with the Holy Scriptures. (2 Timothy
6:20, 21)

Under these cir***stances, we can see how most scriptures containing The
Divine Name could have been destroyed, leaving only copies that contained
the substitutes, kyrios or theos. Therefore, those who replaced the
Tetragrammaton with "kyrios "in the both the OT and NT copies, were NOT the
early disciples of Jesus; they were persons of later centuries, when the
foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of
Christian teachings.--2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1.

Therefore, in the days of Jesus and his disciples The Divine Name very
definitely must have appeared in copies of the Holy Scriptures, both in
Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts.

The Sovereign Lord of the universe does not want to be anonymous.
The proliferant use of The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures alone
certainly says something about the value attributted to it by God. Almighty
God inspired the Bible writers of the Hebrew Scriptures or OT to record the
Tetragrammaton, %&%* (YHWH in English), about 6,972 times, and stated
emphatically:

"And God said moreover unto Moses, 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever,
and this is my memorial unto all generations.'"--Exodus 3:15, ASV.

The third of the Ten Commandments states:

Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."--Exodus 20:7, ASV.

Near the closing verses of the OT Almighty God, himself, spoke of the
importanceof His Name:

"Then they that feared Jehovah spake one with another; and Jehovah
hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for
themthat feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name.--Malachi 3:16, ASV.

Jesus emphasised the importance of adhearing to the Divine Will:

"Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 2
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash
not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them,
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil
of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, whosoever shall
say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been
profited by me is given [to God]; 6 he shall not honor his father. And ye
have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites,
well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people honoreth me with
their lips; But their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain do they worship
me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men.--Matthew 15:1-9, ASV.

--
BEWARE! there are people on this newsgroup who are only here to slander and
lie about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any alternative
organization... as a matter of fact, some are admitted atheists (Matthew
12:30; John 8:44-47) I have all of their posts filtered out because they can
not hold an intelligent conversation and often resort to lies. They claim to
be quoting from Watch Tower literature but these are *NOT* exact quotes,
they change words and quote things out of context. I don't respond to
spurious fabrications. The moment I find out that a person is fabricating
information in order to win an
argument, I put them in the 'block sender' file. Hence I no longer reply to
these people. They exist here only to destroy (1 Corinthians 10:6-11) They
speak not as Christians (Ephesians 4:31-32) I do not need to name them for
by their fruits you will recognize them (Matthew 7:16-20) The most important
thing to remember with people like this is what Christ taught us at Matthew
5:10-12