For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. The Lord is Jesus. It is Jesus we confess with our mouth.
It is Jesus we call upon. Jesus is the Lord of both Jews and Greeks, and they are all to confess Him. This is the consistent and straightforward teaching of the text. Joel was talking about the one true God of Israel. Thus, the plain reading of Romans 10 is that Jesus is the one Lord, the same Lord whom Joel told us to call upon. Still, any translation that is going to be closest to what was originally written and what was originally meant is bound to bring its readers closer to God, wouldn't you agree?
Do you find that offensive? Should you? I wonder how does that make God feel? I simply want the truth as God intended us to have it, don't you? One might call it an audacious, even presumptuous move by translators. Some people are adamant about sticking with the Bible they were raised on. The suggestion that the Holy Spirit bowed to some anti-Biblical tradition of not using the divine name is just not worth consideration to serious Bible students!
Hebrew original of the gospel of Matthew is a myth Scholars reject that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew: click here. The best and only argument JW's can come up with for inserting Jehovah into the New Testament is that the gospel of Matthew, unlike the other 26 books of the New Testament, was written in Hebrew.
Even if Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, it would still mean Jehovah's Witnesses change the other 26 New Testament books that were originally written in Greek.
You see, Jehovah's Witnesses believe the entire New Testament has been corrupted. The fact remains that there is absolutely no evidence of a Hebrew Matthew. There has never been found any copies of a Hebrew Matthew, all were written in Greek, just like the other 26 books. So JW's are found to be liars. JW's argue that the text of the Bible as we have it is corrupted and that it did originally contain YHWH, at least in Matthew, but it was removed.
This is entirely different than saying Bible's mistranslate the Greek underneath, because in this case, it is missing from the Greek. Of course this kind of simple logic is too much for the average JW to comprehend and they will argue in one breath that YHWH was lost from the Greek, then in the other breath say it is adding to the word of God if someone insists the word trinity is found in the Bible.
Go to our trinity in the Bible section for more details. Isn't that convenient! They say Matthew was written in Hebrew Statements by the "Church Fathers" do not prove a Hebrew Matthew: Anyone who has studied the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" knows that they are quite unreliable. Papias C. Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
Remember, this was quoted by Eusebius in AD, years after Papias died. Ireneus C. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. Irenaeus; Against Heresies Origen c.
The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. Eusebius c. Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
Eusebius; Eccl. They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. Epiphanius; Panarion Jerome C. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.
I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's epistles.
These "church fathers" claim that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate: Clement of Alexandria - C.
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle.
Scholars reject a Hebrew original of Matthew: Scholars reject that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew: click here. By this we mean, these men believe in the "Q Document" theory where each of the four gospel writers copied from each other and this Phantom "Q Document" for which there is no evidence of its existence.
The apostolic fathers who make reference to a Hebrew Matthew are simply not reliable witnesses as any one knows who has studied these uninspired writings. Any early reference to a Hebrew Matthew my in fact be a Hebrew translation of the original Greek text of Matthew into Hebrew. What JW's won't tell you is that George Howard is almost alone in the world today in his views which have been universally rejected because they are based upon speculation and guesses and no solid proof.
Howard's theory has never found any support in any New Testament manuscript. Howard and JW's must both claim that the New Testament has been lost altered and corrupted as you will notice below. If there was a Hebrew original of Matthew something we deny and the Christians did not retain the name of God in the Greek translation, this could only be because they did not think it was important to do so.
JWs are deliberately confused by the watchtower organization into thinking we have Hebrew originals of the New Testament where YHWH or some form of the Tetragrammaton is used. What they don't tell you is that these medieval translations date later than AD and were actually translated from Greek originals. The average Jehovah's Witness is simply too poorly equipped to see the utter deception being played upon them by the Watchtower organization and just accept we actually have Hebrew manuscripts of New Testament books.
Of course, there is no evidence of this and the charge is false. But don't take our word for it, listen to the Watchtower organization yourself in their famed, "Aid to Bible Understanding" "Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or the so called 'New Testament'?
The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, Watchtower publication, Jehovah's Witnesses, , p16 Jehovah's Witnesses argue for the divine name in the New Testament based upon wishful thinking, driven by false doctrine and call into question the reliability of the text of the New Testament. It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you. They stopped all mention of him. Jesus condemned the man-made tradition of the Jews.
Powis Smith and Edgar J. The idea was that if you said the name of a deity he or she would notice you. The pagan practice of ineffability was further reinforced by Greek Hellenization. According to Dalman l. Marduk was, therefore, a very important god of Babylon. The Greeks avoided the names of their deities and preferred to call them by the titles Kurios and Theos. Koster; pp. This reasoning is merely an excuse and not a reason at all.
Many Hebrew names are written in the Bible — which are not as they were in Hebrew and yet we do not remove them. Therefore this reasoning is truly invalid.
Examples of Jewish names in the Bible which are translated into English — much differently than their original Hebrew couterparts — are : Jesus, Jeremiah, Jonah, Joel, Jerusalem, Joshua, etc.
0コメント