Does yhwh translates into kurios?

Participant

“TO ALL:
The name “YHWH” indeed translates into “kurios” ALWAYS!”—Kangaroo Jack

He further states:
“let . . . David explain why the author to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 102:25-27 from the Septuagint in Hebrews 1:10. The original Hebrew says “YHWH” but the Septuagint says “Kurios” and the apostle quoted the Septuagint.” (Underline added for emphasis)

This was from the 'Matthew 28:19, what does it prove' thread, page 27

I am very curious if other trinitarians agree with Kangraoo Jack on this.
I am curious if any thinking person anywhere agrees with him.

Is 1:18 and WJ, this is a question to you: Are his words correct?

May 30, 2010 at 9:43 pm#193078

Participant

I wonder if they will answer. To your discredit, kangaroo, they probably will not defend you on this point.

MY POSITION (and the obvious truth):

Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E.
It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky′ri·os (Lord) or The·os′ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.

More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.

One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts that Kangaroo must be referring to.

May 30, 2010 at 9:51 pm#193082

Participant

Commenting on the fact that the [oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says:

“We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more.” (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222)

I think this substitution largely took place following the death of the apostles (during the fortold apostasy)

In Aquila’s Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters.
Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures:
(1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by
(2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of
(3) Aquila,
(4) Symmachus,
(5) the Septuagint, and
(6) Theodotion.

On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: “In Origen’s Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by ΠΙΠΙ; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters.” (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159)

May 30, 2010 at 9:57 pm#193083

Participant

Interestingly, Origen himself stated that “in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”

Anyway, to try to make this a little more simple, let's consider how Deut 32:3,6 differ over time.

The Hebrew manuscript (Aleppo Codex) of De 32:3, 6 contains the divine name.

The Greek Septuagint translation (P. Fouad Inv. 266, in center) of the same passage also contains the divine name in Hebrew characters

But the name does not appear in those verses in the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century C.E.

CONCLUSION:

The divine name was removed. It was not translated into a Greek equivalent but was replaced with an abbreviated form of the Greek word Ky′ri·os (Lord).

May 30, 2010 at 10:09 pm#193086

Participant

It was long believed (and still is by some, I guess) that the Tetragrammaton did not appear in copies of the Septuagint.

Thus, it was argued that when the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, they would not have used the divine name in their writing.

A series of discoveries made over the last hundred years or so revealed that God’s name did appear in the Septuagint. Says one source: “So great was the desire to preserve intact the sacred name of God that Hellenistic Jews, when translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek, copied the actual letters of the Tetragrammaton in the midst of the Greek text.”

Take for example, a fragment found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, and assinged the number 3522. This scrap dates back to the first century C.E. It measures about 2.5 by 4 inches and contains a passage from Job 42:11,12. And the Tetragramaton appears in Hebrew characters.

So, then, did the divine name appear in early copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Says scholar George Howard: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.” It appears that shortly thereafter copyists replaced the divine name with surrogates, such as Ky′ri·os (Lord) and The·os′ (God).

The mistake some make (I think KJ being one of them), is that they only consider the newer manuscripts which came several hundred years later, and which obviously had surrogates injected into them, given the evidence that the earlier manuscripts of the Septuagint definitely contain the divine name.

May 31, 2010 at 8:54 am#193171

Participant

Hey im the first to comment other than your debate with yourself!
how is that going?

Whos winning, you or you?
lol

I was reading from the greek in jude i think where its mentions lord, and i got Kurion. which is the same has Kurios right?
What do you think?

May 31, 2010 at 3:51 pm#193218

JustAskin

Participant

That's SF for ya… “So Funny”

SF, I agree…

David… I think it is because the answer is SO OBVIOUS everyone thought it embarrassing to respond.

David, don't lose heart – you are right!

June 1, 2010 at 6:53 am#193395

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ June 01 2010,02:51)

That's SF for ya… “So Funny”

SF, I agree…

David… I think it is because the answer is SO OBVIOUS everyone thought it embarrassing to respond.

David, don't lose heart – you are right!

lol….
JA left me “Typeless”

June 1, 2010 at 1:39 pm#193458

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 31 2010,19:54)

Hey im the first to comment other than your debate with yourself!
how is that going?

Whos winning, you or you?
lol

I was reading from the greek in jude i think where its mentions lord, and i got Kurion. which is the same has Kurios right?
What do you think?

Hi SF,

David is clearly winning this debate! But in case his Posts are hard to understand, here's “the knock-out punch”!
[Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs means “Lord” and is akin to the Hebrew word [אדני] Âdônây meaning “Lord” or “Owner”.

“Kang” CANNOT argue with this “Bible Truth”! (LORD: means Owner)
The AKJV Bible uses: Lord for [יהשוע] (Jesus) and LORD for [יהוה] (YHVH).
I will orchestrate my explanation (for all) around “the term” “Owner”.

Technically Jesus is: “Owner” but is NOT “THE OWNER”!
This can be clearly seen and understood using the word “Owner”!
(The meaning of both these word's [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs and [אדני] Âdônây is Owner)

Jehovah(YHVH) is “The Owner” and Jesus is The Son of “The Owner”.
Jehovah CANNOT DIE, so Jehovah will ALWAYS remain “The Owner”!
A Son can 'only' become become fully “The Owner” if the Parent's die,
which in JEHOVAH's case CANNOT happen; because GOD CANNOT DIE!

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 1, 2010 at 7:06 pm#193516

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,00:39)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 31 2010,19:54)

Hey im the first to comment other than your debate with yourself!
how is that going?

Whos winning, you or you?
lol

I was reading from the greek in jude i think where its mentions lord, and i got Kurion. which is the same has Kurios right?
What do you think?

Hi SF,

hi ed j,

1. You didnt respond to what Kurion means.. that what i got in jude.

2. Jesus is the son of the owner.
God has nothing to do with death, for he cannot die, so than an intertance does not exist, so therefore God is the God of the living not of the dead.
We cannot compare mortal costumes to immortal inhertance.
For i never claimed that Jesus became full owner if Jehovah died.

explain your reasoning with more scripture please.

June 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm#193540

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 02 2010,06:06)

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,00:39)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ May 31 2010,19:54)

Hey im the first to comment other than your debate with yourself!
how is that going?

Whos winning, you or you?
lol

I was reading from the greek in jude i think where its mentions lord, and i got Kurion. which is the same has Kurios right?
What do you think?

Hi SF,

hi ed j,

1. You didnt respond to what Kurion means.. that what i got in jude.

2. Jesus is the son of the owner.

3. God has nothing to do with death, for he cannot die, so than an intertance does not exist, so therefore God is the God of the living not of the dead.

4. We cannot compare mortal costumes to immortal inhertance.
For i never claimed that Jesus became full owner if Jehovah died.

5) explain your reasoning with more scripture please.

Hi SF,

1) What verse in Jude are you talking about?

2) Do we agree on this point?

3) What do you mean? 'an intertance does not exist'

4) Why can't we?

5) Do you mean: Explain how GOD remains”King” and Jesus remains “Prince”(Son of the King)?

God bless
Ed J

June 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm#193545

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,06:49)

Hi SF,

1) What verse in Jude are you talking about?

2) Do we agree on this point?

3) What do you mean? 'an intertance does not exist'

4) Why can't we?

5) Do you mean: Explain how GOD remains”King” and Jesus remains “Prince”(Son of the King)?

God bless
Ed J

hi Sf,

1)Kj, mentioned this one in another thread. this is how the whole kurious thing started.
jude1:4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
2) Son of God/Son of Man
3)No, im saying we have an inhertance in heaven, but its based on the death of Jesus and ressurection. in other words what i mean, is that you made an analysis on God, by saying in other words “Well you see when a father dies the son becomes the full owner of his possesions, but since God cannot die, this cannot happen to Jesus”
This analysis is well… flawed, becuase your comparing Us, to God. I think you need to elaborate more, and use more scripture so that i can understand what your saying.
4) i just answered that question, your anaylsis doesnt realy link with scripture, qoute some scripture and lets talk about it.
5) Jesus is the king of peace, Jesus is the king of everything, Scripture provides that he is the King of the Jews. Only God can be King. the God of everything.–<my point.

Explain your position more clearly. its confusing.
with scripture pls.

June 1, 2010 at 8:12 pm#193546

Participant

i meant hi Ed…aghh editing rights…i need it……

June 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm#193560

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 02 2010,07:11)

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,06:49)

Hi SF,

1) What verse in Jude are you talking about?

2) Do we agree on this point?

3) What do you mean? 'an intertance does not exist'

4) Why can't we?

5) Do you mean: Explain how GOD remains”King” and Jesus remains “Prince”(Son of the King)?

God bless
Ed J

Hi Ed,

Explain your position more clearly. its confusing.
with scripture pls.

Hi SF,

1) According to “Strong's Concordance it's [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs.

2) Son of God(HolySpirit) (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35) /
Son of Man(Mary) (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35 / Acts 1:14)

3 & 4) To do this I will use the words “prince” for Jesus and “King” for YHVH; as it's God's “Kingdom!
Rev. 1:5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of
the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Psalm 10:16 [YHVH] is King for ever and ever: the heathen are perished out of his land.
Psalm 29:10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, [YHVH] sitteth King for ever.

5) Your blurbing a lot of things together here; we need to first separate each of these ideas; OK?

If you mean explain my views better: It would help if you would ask a question; OK?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 1, 2010 at 9:37 pm#193566

KangarooJack

Participant

ED J erroneously said:

Quote

David is clearly winning this debate! But in case his Posts are hard to understand, here's “the knock-out punch”!
[Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs means “Lord” and is akin to the Hebrew word [אדני] Âdônây meaning “Lord” or “Owner”.

ED J,

Here is the “knock out punch” that takes you down. The word “Adonay” ALWAYS refers to God. You should look it up before you reply or else you will embarasss yourself more than you already have.

Kangaroo Jack

June 1, 2010 at 11:44 pm#193613

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,08:37)

ED J erroneously said:

Quote

ED J,

Kangaroo Jack

Hi Kang,

Your forgetting [אדני] Âdônây also applies to [יהשוע] YÄ-shü-ă!

Psalm 110:1-2 The LORD (יהוה) said unto my Lord (יהשוע),
Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The LORD (יהוה) shall send the rod of thy (יהשוע) strength (Holy Spirit)
out of Zion (Rev.19:11-16): rule thou (ED J) in the midst of thine enemies.

Your swinging at air, Kang!
Ed J (Isaiah 54:17)

June 2, 2010 at 12:04 am#193619

KangarooJack

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,10:44)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,08:37)

ED J erroneously said:

Quote

ED J,

Kangaroo Jack

Hi Kang,

Your forgetting [אדני] Âdônây also applies to [יהשוע] YÄ-shü-ă!

Your swinging at air, Kang!
Ed J (Isaiah 54:17)

Wrong ED J! Psalm 110:1 is not “adonay” but “adon.”

“When adon appears in the special plural form, with a first common pronominal suffix (adonay), it ALWAYS refers to God, TWOT p. 13 All emphasis mine

See Strong's# 136: “proper name for God only.”

Give an example where Adonay is used of anyone other than God. I have already done the research. I guarantee that your searching will be in vain.

So your whole premise for saying that David has won fails big time!

the Roo

June 2, 2010 at 12:31 am#193623

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,11:04)

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,10:44)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,08:37)

ED J erroneously said:

Quote

David is clearly winning this debate! But in case his Posts are hard to understand, here's “the knock-out punch”!
אדון âdôwn means “Owner” same as [אדני] Âdônây [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs means “Lord” and is akin to the Hebrew word [אדני] Âdônây meaning “Lord” or “Owner”.

ED J,

Kangaroo Jack

Hi Kang,

Your forgetting [אדני] Âdônây also applies to [יהשוע] YÄ-shü-ă!

Your swinging at air, Kang!
Ed J (Isaiah 54:17)

Wrong ED J! Psalm 110:1 is not “adonay” but “adon.”

“When adon appears in the special plural form, with a first common pronominal suffix (adonay), it ALWAYS refers to God, TWOT p. 13 All emphasis mine

See Strong's# 136: “proper name for God only.”

Give an example where Adonay is used of anyone other than God. I have already done the research. I guarantee that your searching will be in vain.

So your whole premise for saying that David has won fails big time!

the Roo

Hi Kang,

אדון âdôwn means “Lord” or “Owner”, same as [אדני] Âdônây which also means “Lord” or “Owner”.
The AKJV was translated correctly here as well. What gives with you? Learn “Bible Truth”!
This is the same 'futile argument' you keep making about [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs!

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 3, 2010 at 2:44 am#193785

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,11:31)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,11:04)

Quote (Ed J @ June 02 2010,10:44)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,08:37)

ED J erroneously said:

Quote

ED J,

Kangaroo Jack

Hi Kang,

Your forgetting [אדני] Âdônây also applies to [יהשוע] YÄ-shü-ă!

Your swinging at air, Kang!
Ed J (Isaiah 54:17)

Wrong ED J! Psalm 110:1 is not “adonay” but “adon.”

“When adon appears in the special plural form, with a first common pronominal suffix (adonay), it ALWAYS refers to God, TWOT p. 13 All emphasis mine

See Strong's# 136: “proper name for God only.”

Give an example where Adonay is used of anyone other than God. I have already done the research. I guarantee that your searching will be in vain.

So your whole premise for saying that David has won fails big time!

the Roo

Hi Kang,

[אדון] âdôn means “Lord” or “Owner”, same as [אדני] Âdônây which ALSO means “Lord” or “Owner”.
The AKJV was translated correctly here as well. What gives with you? Learn “Bible Truth”=117!
This is the same 'futile argument' you keep making about [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs!

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

For The “Kangaroo”(the thinking man) (1Cor:2:14)
No response to this Post; Kang? (1Thess.5:21)

Ed J

June 4, 2010 at 8:23 am#194051