Talk:Jehovah in the New Testament

message: Quote:
"... since it is well established that the New Testament quotes the Septuagint extensively (and apparently exclusively), the other texts may not be relevant to the text of the New Testament..."
The text above is found in the conclusion of the article as it currently stands. This is simply a fabrication. Paul is (supposed to be) the author of some 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament (NT), yet he almost never quotes from any extant copy of the Septuagint. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes extensive use of the Septuagint, as do some of the Gospel writers. It is demonstrated in the Greek-English New Testament which verses are drawn from the Septuagint. This is done by the use of a symbol like this  in the margin alongside the verse reference.
In Paul's letters, one never find this symbol in the margins, because his quotations are generally from his own translation of the Hebrew text, or at least this is the supposition. This quote should definitely be changed in the text of the article. It is unsupported.
- Yonah mishael 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Translations in the NT

message: Simply put:  YHWH/Jehovah does not occur in the original New Testament.  Its insertion into versions in modern languages is a novelty.  Asserting that this novelty is representative of the original is a deception.
Wikipedia policy is explicit that articles must follow scholarly convention and scholarly consensus.  One cannot make an article on Wikipedia conform to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor may one compel editors to conform their edits to any religion whatsoever.
Convention and the scholarly consensus are quite clear in regard to the use of the word "Jehovah" and official statements from official sites of the Jehovah's Witnesses differ markedly.  This version of this article here is sourced and cited.  It also incorporates the contributions of numerous editors, including that of Jehovah's Witnesses where they may be truthful.
Each Jehovah's Witness is certainly welcome to his own point of view.  The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own websites and there is even a section in this article allowing for discussion of these views.  The overwhelming majority of editors do not follow that religion, but the community has been generous and even indulgent in incorporating these sectarian views in the article.
Thus, in the interests of Policies and Guidelines  particularly Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly urged to cease conforming articles against scholarly convention and consensus.  More importantly, kindly cease from demanding that editors follow sectarian religious doctrine.  Editors take offense at such tactics and are unlikely to comply.  
We consider it rude and it reflects badly on Jehovah's Witnesses.
There are ample websites already owned by Jehovah's Witnesses for followers to contribute to.  All are welcome to contribute here inasmuch as each follows the rules.  - C. dentata  06:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're just going to ignore me?  Admin Stifle's block was unwarranted, the Admin's words on my talk page: "To be clear, I am having no part in this dispute as I am too prejudiced in the issue to be impartial. Stifle 14:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old

message: A visit to http://www.e-sword.net will furnish one with the opportunity to verify the accuracy of quotations shown from translations numbered as 4 & 5 above; one will have to download e-sword, download the bibles and then install all files, including fonts unique to the bible.  
Those listed as #1, 2, 9 & 11 have urls attached to the citation and can be easily verified. 
The Hutter referred to is a well-respected translation and somewhat of a unique bible; copies are called 'Hutters' reasonbly enough and are prized.  Hutter himself founded the movement that is still in existence today and bears his name. For information about him from a modern day perspective, visit this site: http://www.hutterites.org/hutter.htm  (Amanuensis03 2006-02-18 01:46:09 )
:The list is irrelevant.  
:To be fair, if there is a list of obscure modern versions in which Jehovah were added, then there would have to be the 10,000s of translations in which Jehovah was not added.  The original language — Greek — did not use Jehovah or anything similar in the New Testament and it is a major factual error to equivocate!
:NOTE: The list put forward is shown as testamentary evidence in support of a contrarian position; that the versions shown are delineated as different because of using Jehovah or some form thereof in their translation of the NT is, by extrapolation, stating that all or most others do not include it; hence no list in opposition is needed; it is understood to be the universe of others [numbering perhaps 1000 - 2000 in English; no source has been cited for the '10,00s' averred here]. 
   
:The list does not belong here.  - C. dentata  17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: Amanuensis03 deleted my above reply (which I have restored).  This shows bad faith and is dishonest.  - C. dentata  21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long list of Bible versions in article

message: ::NOTE:Castanea dentata has deleted numerous entries posted here, including the list in the article he asserts is irrelevant - it has been deleted half a dozen times, perhaps because it demonstrates that which is not in agreement with the agenda being advanced here.  That about a dozen other translators have opted to to include the name of god in their rendering of the NT demonstrates that not only is this position reasonable, it has been considered by a fair number of translators as a precept they will follow.  In point of fact it started with Shem Tob's version of 1385 - some 620 years ago.  
Further, note that assertion made regarding '10,000s of translations.' If that is meant to be a truthful statement and not hyperbole, then there must be at least 20,000 translations of the NT - a very fanciful number and one that needs some source to be seen as believable. 
Here is the list which he asserts is irrelevant; whether it is relevant or not should be left to the reader to judge; if the reader adjudges the translations shown as irrelevant, then so be it.  How though can they do so if the list is suppressed?   Censorship is not reason.
1. The Sacred Name King James Version  ; 
2. The Scriptures ;
3. Moffat’s translation of the Bible in Tswana [the first complete Bible to be printed in Africa, in 1872]; 
4. The Chinese Union Version, Simplified uses 耶和华 [the chinese equivalent of Jehovah] in Revelation 19.1; 
5. The Chinese Union Version, Traditional [ibid.];  
6. The Chinese Union Version, GB; 
7. The Malagasy Bible, Protestant Version, uses Jehovah in the NT; 
8. The Malagasy Bible,  Catholic version, uses IAVEH at Matt 4.7 & 10; 
9. The Restored Name King James Version  uses the Tetragrammaton itself in the text of the NT and uses YAH for the Hebrew parse of the Tetragrammaton rendered JAH by the KJ and ASV; 
10. The Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages by Elias Hutter, 1599, uses the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew translation of the NT; 
11. The Hebraic Roots Version (NT only) uses YHWH.  
Worse, personally attacking another is a formal error in logic - demonstrating the weakness of the arguments advanced. 
Regarding the citations of LXX in papyrus, note what Professor George Howard stated: “When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.” (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14)
Further, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translators 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 translator of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512
:This is a list of versions of the Bible.  None of these versions show that YHWH/Jehovah was written in the original New Testament, which is what the article has been all about since before you set up your new account.
:Further, lists are unencyclopedic.
:Since they neither prove nor disprove the existence of YHWH/Jehovah in the original New Testament, they are irrelevant.  Besides which, if they were, there would have to be an extremely voluminous list of the far greater number of translations and versions in which the original language was not altered to read "YHWH" of "Jejovah."
:Stating that Jehovah is not in the original New Testament is no "Personal Attack."  That you do not want to read that is no reason to say it an "attack" or to revert articles without comment.  
:The article has been around a while, and your reversions are not part of any consensus.  Worse, they are riddled with major factual errors and obfuscation.
:This is why an administrator asked you to cease and desist, and characterized your reverts as Wikipedia:Vandalism.
:That the facts contradict a principle dogma of your religion is regrettable.  However, Wikipedia is not the place to preach such religious dogmas and I dare say that this manner of proselytizing reflect poorly on your religion.  - C. dentata  01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The actual long list of versions that differ from the original Bible

message: Here's one page talking about all three mentioned scriptures, and some others: http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/hiding.html. It took me about two seconds to find this. Surely I'm not the only one that knows how to use search engines here. You can find enough to read until the cows come home.Tommstein 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good!  Perhaps this should be incorporated into the article?  - C. dentata  18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetragrammaton in reference to Jesus 

message: What do this box in this article? This article is not about any particular god, it is an essay about the use of a name in the Bible. I think this box do not belong to this article. Summer Song 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The box 

message: What is your deal with Jehovah's Witnesses?  You gave me the same nonsense on the Jehovah article with no legitimate basis for your reverts/edits.  I'm trying to make this article better.  I've sourced my facts, removed unsourced information that contradicts those facts, I've removed POV and redundancy and changed the reference system.  My focus is accuracy first, we can work on the rather convoluted prose next.  If there is conflicting sourced information then by all means present it, but the fact stands the previous version of the article was built around the incorrect (and unsourced) assertion that Septuagints didn't contain the divine name.  I have provided indesputable evidence to the contrary.  The most well preserved, oldest (100 B.C!) GREEK Septuagint of the book of Deuteronomy contains 49 identifiable instances of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.  After we get the facts straight we can hammer out the prose, either way:  1 - Please do not revert sourced information per WP:VERIFY without VERY good reason,  2 - A revert war would just move this article backwards, bring your information to the table, we'll sort it out and make a good, well referenced article.  Duffer 07:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Castanea, please, PLEASE stop removing the dispute tag.  We MUST try to reach consensus but you have said nothing on the matter.  I've cited my sources, I've invited you to discuss your objections several times, you've given me nothing.  Don't just ignore me and continue your bad-faith editing style, that is not how to resolve this.  Duffer 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castanea and Totally Disputed tag 

message: The title "Jehovah in the New Testament" implies that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, which is by no means the case. I have therefore redirected the article to the more neutral title Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. Yahnatan 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jehovah" is an ENGLISH pronunciation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, nobody is claiming it is the correct Hebrew pronunciation.  This article is about the use of this English rendering of the Tetragrammaton ("Jehovah") in 237 instances of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures despite no extant manuscript support for the inclusion.  Technically this article is a content fork (really an attack page in it's current form) from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article.  Duffer 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is specifically about the appearance of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures, specifically the "New Testament" (NT). It has nothing to do with English translations but only to do with the appearance of the Hebrew letters of the name of God as they are assumed by some to have appeared in the original copies of the NT books. Therefore, it is completely appropriate for Yahnatan to have redirected this article here. Yonah mishael 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect