Shiwiii

Thank you for sharing.  I am sure there is more to your experience than what you have told us. My heart aches for you and my anger boils for those who have done these things. 

I will research more about you. I feel that is why you wrote and how you wrote. It is a disgrace when children, or anyone, is violated and people turn a blind eye. I feel those who know but do nothing are just as guilty as those who did the act.

12 hours ago, Colin Thorpe said:

let the bible speak 1Tim 2:5,6

Thank you for your answer. At least someone is willing to give their opinion. 

I am in agreement with your quote. 

Do you see how each of us does have a mediator? 

maybe I need to be more clear. 

You DO have a mediator, but who do you say this mediator is?

Is it Jesus?

Is it the anointed?

Is it the GB?

Is it the org as a whole? 

10 hours ago, Colin Thorpe said:

if you have to ask this you are NOT a JW

Yes, you are right, I'm not a jw. I'm still asking though.

First we have to determine what we know of the first resurrection. The first resurrection is that of the righteous. This is shown to us by a few scriptures. First being Luke 14:14

"And you will be blessed, since they do not have to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous. "

It is talking about the good you do to those who are unfortunate,  the widows and poor, crippled lame and blind.

Philippians 3:10&11 "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."

Paul is speaking about being as close to Jesus as we can, so that will be resurrected to eternal life. 

1 Thessalonians 4:16 "for the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout,  with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. "

Again, those who are righteous are in this first resurrection. Those who died while being in Christ Jesus are who this is talking about.

Now on to your question.  Since we know that the first resurrection is those who are righteous,  not by their own doing, by being in Christ and relying on Him for salvation. We see that none of the supporting scriptures speak of those who are unrighteous,  but we need to make sure if they are not included. Verse 6 of Rev 20 says that these in the first resurrection are blessed and that the second death has NO power over them. They have to ONLY be the righteous, or how could the unrighteous be saved from the second death?

The second resurrection is described in verses 12 and 13. Remember in 1 Thessalonians those who died in Christ were already resurrected,  so who is left? The unrighteous.  They come out of the sea, sheol, hades etc. They were resurrected to judgement,  not a second chance because this second resurrection takes place AFTER the 1000 year reign! Read chapter 20 again. Also note Daniel 12:2 

"Many of those who have sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."

Revelation 20:13 tells us that those resurrected in the second resurrection are then judged according to their deeds and anyone who's name is not found in the book of life was cast along with death and hades into the lake of fire. Done!

That's how I see it, if others have a different view, I'd like to know how and why.

Who is the mediator between you and God/YHWH?

14 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

2 Tim 1:28

There is no 2 Tim 1:28, or a verse 28 in either books of Timothy. 

28 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

 

It's funny how you're offended when I do not respond to foolishness and when I do have pity to respond, provide valuable information and answers, you're annoyed.  That was a mistake as feeling sorry for you does no good and appeasing you has exhausted all common sense.  

In a civil discussion, parties can agree to disagree if they can't come to a meeting of minds on any particular subject, not relent into temper tantrums, jump up and down, get mad and say leave me alone.  Please know the next time you feel compelled to engage in a conversation, a right attitude goes a long way and humility even farther as we can see from Jesus example below.  He refused to answer and then marveled at one woman's faith and humility, therefore granted her request. 

"Leaving there, Jesus now withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Si′don. And, look! a Phoe·ni′cian woman from those regions came out and cried aloud, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. So his disciples came up and began to request him: “Send her away; because she keeps crying out after us.” In answer he said: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  When the woman came she began doing obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, help me!”  In answer he said: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to little dogs.”  She said: “Yes, Lord; but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.”  Then Jesus said in reply to her: “O woman, great is your faith; let it happen to you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour on.  (Matthew 15:21-28)

The agreement to disagree is a disgraceful defeat if it means surrendering the hope of agreement through deeper understanding. 

6 hours ago, JaniceM said:

 

Jesus, "on seeing the crowds he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd."  I also feel sorry for you Shiwii although not in the same way.  Jesus also said:  "It is written, ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.’”  If we have not done so, it would benefit us all to read all of God's words.  (Matt 9:36; 4:4)

 

Jesus spoke even unto Satan and many opponents, but he did not always answer them in a way that satisfied them for their motives were not genuine.  In this way, he did not throw his pearls to swine. 

Matthew 27:11 Jesus now stood before the governor; and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say [it].” 12 But, while he was being accused by the chief priests and older men, he made no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him: “Do you not hear how many things they are testifying against you?” 14 Yet he did not answer him, no, not a word, so that the governor wondered very much. 

Matthew 21:27 So in answer to Jesus they said: “We do not know.” He, in turn, said to them: “Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things.

 

It is not true that no one here has spoken to you or answered your questions.  You just were not satisfied with the answers or quotes of scholars whether Christian or non-Christian sources.  Therefore you reverted back to old conversations and issues without addressing anyone in particular to change the subject, then plead for no one to answer you back; which I do think it is to no avail going around in circles.  "Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him."  (Proverbs 26:4)

 

Yes, I have more important things to do . . .  but I'm willing to butt heads with you a little longer at least through this evening.

It's funny how you have stated that answering me is foolishness and you feel as though you are "casting your pearls before swine ", but yet you continue.  Not only continue, but when presented with context of your "swine" quote and showing you that Jesus didn't dismiss questions,  you want to write three paragraphs in support of you not continuing.  Then state that you will....for the rest of the evening? !? Lol

Nice rabit hole, but I'm not following. 

You have exhausted your position,  I can see that. 

3 minutes ago, JaniceM said:

 

I can understand them 'shaking the dust off their feet' as Jesus would say:  "Why am I even speaking to YOU at all?";   How we spend our time in the vindication of God's name is what's important, not hiding it.  (Matthew 10:14; John 8:25)  However, there other scholarly commentaries and writings available to consult other than the ones quoted above, which is a good thing as you don't have to continually depend upon Jehovah's Witnesses to answer all your questions.  In that regard, I'm not sure whether or not I should be flattered you think we are that important enough to keep asking.

Didn't you say you had more important things to do?

To your quote, Jesus had no problems speaking to anyone, tax collector (Matthew ), devout Jewish leader (Nicodemus ), even Judas. But you seem to believe He excluded those who asked questions.  

Yes,  pass the buck to someone else.  Like I said, usual answer for a jw who needs an escape.  

Jesus’ own name, which we know as “YHWH is Salvation”.

 Jesus name is also Immanuel, "God with us"

1 hour ago, JaniceM said:

 

I do have bigger fish to fry which need my attention without distractions.  However, if you feel a need to do so, I will most certainly respond. 

I think we have adequately defended God's name.  In the words of Jesus:

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open. (Matt 7:6)

Cop out, and a way for you to bow out. No need to respond,  you're much too important for foolishness like this forum.  

It is answers like this that I get all the time from jws that find themselves without a good explanation.  

Good day Janice

" I didn't see a need to respond to foolishness"

Then what are you even doing here? 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be ready to make a response.  It doesn't say if you think it's foolishness don't. 

"The honor is equal as I would not honor my mother less than my father because he is head.  "

Then you should do the same to Jesus.

"For example, we are commanded to love our enemies, but we would not love our enemies the same as we love our family because our family comes first."

I beg to differ, we are to treat our neighbor as ourself. 

You don't have to continue to respond as I can see you have your view and it is in contrast to the Bible I believe in. So we see things differently.  No problem,  good day to you.

I understand your position. However there are scriptures that you cannot ignore.

"If Jesus is 100% God, then why is the Bible always so careful to show that Jesus fully represents God to us, but that he is never called "God" anywhere, with only some possible exceptions in the book of John. "

Do you mean like John 7:37&38? (Isaiah 55:1-3), John 10:11&12 (Psalms 23:1, Psalms 95:7), John 12:41 (Isaiah 6:1), John 13:18 (Isaiah 43:10), John 14:15 (Exodus 20:6). The context of each of these is in harmony with the OT scripture. The account at John 12:41 is undeniable that it is equating Jehovah of the OT with Jesus of the NT.

"Still, even in John there is a kind of hesitation to speak of Jesus as "fully" God: "no man has seen God" but "the only-begotten god... has explained him." To me, it's as if it's saying that -- for all intents and purposes as far as humans can perceive -- the Word is so close to a full representation of God that we can now know God fully through the manifestation of the Son of God, who is not God, but for our purposes, might as well be because he has done such a perfect job representing him."

So there is some degree within you to accept that Jesus is God. Good.

"I, naturally, don't think that we should be blamed for our interpretation either."

I am not blaming,  but rather explaining. There are many who hold your position and many who hold mine, but it IS our job to express our position according to the Bible.

"Therefore, we don't see the conflict in NT writers choosing verses that were originally about YHWH (Jehovah) and using them to tell us something about the Lord Jesus Christ. "

The conflict comes in when the context and subject is changed, and that is my whole point. If the NT is equating something that God of the OT has done or is to Jesus, then the only logical reason is to show us that Jesus is the God of the OT. This is by reason of Isaiah 46:9, "there is no one like me"

Janice-"and it is hypocritical to complain when others try to correct the apparent deception and manipulation of God's word; "

There is no proof for them to correct anything in the NT. I see that it matters not to you.

Janice- "It was not until the 20th century that solid proof was found that God's name was included in the original writings of the OT, therefore, we do not have to wait another two thousand years to realize Jesus also spoke his Father's name when he was on earth, and it wasn't LORD or GOD."

Wow, I can't believe what you just said. You want to take the assumption of man as if it were fact. There is no evidence Janice, none. 

Janice - "Although none of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton, "

Right here is the answer in your quote, you just choose to listen to men instead if the fact that in God's word it's not there.

34 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know you covered a lot of other points, but the original idea of the question, I assumed, was so that this answer from Joel 2:32 could be turned to a question about why the NT of the NWT uses the divine name where Joel was quoted or referenced.

It is, however the quote is applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13. The chapter testifies to Jesus and describes Him as Lord in verse 9. Then goes on to quote the OT and apply it to Jesus in verses 11 and 13. The dishonesty done by the writers of the NWT have changed the text to insert, not just the name, but the Father when He is not who is spoken of here. This is just one of the reasons against the insertion of YHWH.  

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Nicene Creed was also a theory. Yet, because that particular theory was found to have not enough scriptural evidence, someone must have added the following words to the text of 1 John 5:7-8: "There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" and the exposition by the "Church Fathers" on similar expressions have influenced the Trinity Doctrine for over a thousand years now.

you are arguing for something with another topic all together. That doesn't work. You cannot introduce something else that has no relevance to the topic we are discussing, especially if you think it is also a theory, to support this. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see any evidence that the NT ever contained the Tetragrammaton or a version of "Jehovah" in the original.

and this is the point, no one else has found it either! It is inserted by men who WANT it to be there.  That is what this discussion is all about there is no evidence to support YHWH in the NT. There really is no arguing about it. It is inserted by man to fit their theology. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower doesn't claim that any such direct evidence exists either.

then why do they insert it? to fit their theology, not God's.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• Was it by God's purpose and direction that 200 years AFTER the last portions of the Hebrew Bible were written, that superstitious beliefs should begin creeping in that began causing the divine name to stop being pronounced and not be written?
• If it was by God's purpose, does that really mean that Christians are never to read or use the name "Jehovah" again? Even when reading or quoting the OT? Does this mean that the KJV was wrong to include it spelled out several times in their translation? Was it wrong for the Jerusalem translation to use Jahve 6,000+ times, then update it to Yahweh. 
• Is it possible that it was a local Greek language preference because of:
  1. The current need to highlight Jesus as the founder of the Christian religion to people who were not aware of the name Jehovah.
  2. To overcome the difficulty of offending Jewish Christian believers during a time when the name was still steeped in superstition.
  3. The similarity between Jahve and Jove. (And the similarity of pronunciation.)

while I can see your points here, it is still all speculation. On the same note,

Could it be that God proclaimed to the wt to put it there?

Could it be that Satan had the wt put it there? 

Did Genghis Khan ride in and destroy all Bibles and write it himself? 

see these types of questions mean nothing as they are unsubstantiated. Without any historical support these are merely guesses. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it is now even clearer to use a name like Jehovah with reference to the specific "Lord" found in quotes from the OT (even via the LXX). If the meaning is now clear, then its use in translation is proper.

If this is the case and you feel that it is proper, then one MUST adhere to it totally. If bringing the divine name over from the OT it has to be consistent and not when it suits the need of men. See that is where the men who insert it do not want to go. For instance at Romans 10:13 is a direct quote from Joel 2:32, but it is applied to Jesus. If we were to insert the divine name it would say clearly that Jesus IS Jehovah. Men who want to insert the name are reluctant to do it here because it will disrupt up their theology. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In summary, I don't think any JWs are claiming that the NWT is perfect, only that it is a translation that incorporates informed choices, even if those choices might seem incorrect. Those who make the most use of the NWT (Witnesses) are given a lot of research, training and background information to be able to explain those translation choices.

unfortunately they do grasp tightly to this  interpretation (NWT), when they should have stuck with the KJV if anything. The failure of the interpreters to have any sort of Biblical language skills is a disservice to those who hold tightly to this NWT. I do not feel that they even cared, it was only to push their theology upon the rank and file and fool them by pointing to their interpretation of the Bible to prove their case, even though they knew it was erroneous from the start. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The theory goes

This is the point, it is only a theory, there is no support historically for this and until some is found, then it remains a theory. A guess, an assumption and we cannot base the word of God on an assumption. either it is or it isn't there can be no maybe. What we do know is that the pronunciation was lost, how or why is also a guess. Did God allow that? obviously. If it were so important and a matter of true worship according to God, then I would have to believe that God would have preserved it. He preserved the rest of the Bible, why not this one thing?

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see at all where Manuel Boyet Enicola said or implied that at all. In fact he very accurately stated the reason for his position and it matches the point made in the link. (ref'd at end of this post)

My point was that the LXX is not the NT and just because the LXX has it in it doesn't mean that the NT did. The link supposes that because the LXX does then the NT must have. This is the position that Manuel Boyet Enicola has also taken, but it is unsubstantiated. The argument is based on the LXX to support the NT containing YHWH. There is no evidence to show that the NT contained YHWH. 

I do understand your point, and I apologize to you and Manuel Boyet Enicola on that. Nowhere does Manuel Boyet Enicola state that he believed that the LXX is the NT. Rather, Manuel Boyet Enicola believes that because the LXX contained YHWH, the NT must have also. 

I would say it's worshiped. I mean, what do disciples direct folks to? Jesus gathered people to Himself, and told the apostles to point others to Himself. If one is adamant in pointing someone to a website that claims to be the only way to salvation,  then those people are disciples of that website. 

21 hours ago, JaniceM said:

If it is a sin or wrong to add God's name to the New Testament or Old Testament, than the same condemnation would apply to other words, scriptures, verses, chapters, passages or books added to many Bible(s), whether OT/NT.  I still fail to see the same outrage or condemnation.  Persons are concerned for the removal of God's name (the most important name they should know), yet not for the addition of words and verses added to their Bibles to mislead them in addition to the removal of the Divine name being replaced with LORD/Lord, GOD/God.

So what you are telling me is that even though the preface of these Bibles tells us plainly that LORD is placed where YHWH is, that is misleading? Since no one knows the correct spelling or pronunciation of YHWH, it is unacceptable to use LORD in your view? Also, because someone else has done something questionable, it clears the rest who have done worse?  I say worse because YHWH was never in the NT, ever! That is not just replacing, but rather adding. If you want to take adding the word "the" or "and" or whatever as the basis for your case to support that others have "added" to the Bible, I'm sorry but I do not entertain that as being the same. Changing the meaning of a text to support an organizations beliefs is far more serious. The wt is notorious for this in their version of the Bible when the exact words are used of both God the Father and then of Jesus. 

21 hours ago, JaniceM said:

To have better clarity of the verses, I think it is best to know which verses actually should contain the Divine Name whether in the OT or NT as it gives us more insight as to who God is and know him.  The Israelites wanted to know what God's name meant to them, and Jesus said he had made God's name known as he knew him.  It is vital to know God's name and call upon it.

No verses should contain the Divine name in the NT, because it never was there to begin with. If we are commanded to use it, then why didn't Jesus tell us this in His instructions on prayer? Matthew 6:9-13, If this were "vital to call upon the Divine name"  wouldn't this be a great opportunity for Jesus to teach this  since He is giving example on how to pray? Seems to me, Jesus never left out what is vital. 

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

John 12:28. Which name did Jesus refer to here?

If you read further to verse 32, who does Jesus draw people to? 

Himself.

10 hours ago, JaniceM said:

The above quotes were to point out Bibles or holy writings were burned with the Divine name, and that may have included many of the NT writings with the Divine Name.  I'm not understanding the condemnation of including God's name in his Word whereas there is not the same condemnation for the way it was so carefully excluded.  We also still have a short for of God's name mentioned in the NT (Yah/Jah) which is included in the name of many Jews and prophets.

This is assuming that the name was there in the NT at all. You see,  the condemnation is that your writers/leaders have inserted into the Bible a name  that is not recorded to have been found in the NT. Very serious stuff. They insert based on assuming,  not by historical fact. They use the Septuagint as their proof, but most folks know that the Septuagint is just the OT. Going on a maybe or we think so, is dangerous because with out facts to back it up, it is very easy to insert erroneously and thus mislead people. The Bible is very clear not to add or take away. There is no proof that anyone took the tetragramatton out of the NT. If you would like to discuss a scripture or two that addresses Jesus where your leaders have inserted jehovah I can start a thread

Also, this idea that it is disrespectful not to use God's name.... how did Jesus tell us to pray? "Our Father" do you call your father by his name????  That would be disrespectful if you did. You try it with your human father and see his reaction.  The intimacy we have (should have as the scriptures tell us Romans 8:11-15) with the Father tells us to address Him intimately as we do our human father!

9 hours ago, JaniceM said:

I do apologize, I thought I was responding to defender as it seems that chip is still on your shoulder.  To clarify the matter, I understand your main concern is with the NT and not the OT.

There is some proof that the original writings of the NT did contain the divine name, but upon speaking with so many about this issue, it appears they would prefer solid proof like a NT manuscript or fragment of sort that contains the complete tetragrammaton of God's name whereas we only have a short form of God's name in the NT that is also pronounced in the names of many Jews and prophets.  I'm also not quite sure the reason or backlash against JWs on this matter as this argument did not start with JWs, and neither did they make it up.  At any rate, below are some examples or quotes concerning these issues, which I'm sure you may already be aware of, so excuse me for being redundant:

 

1).  HALLELUJAH - (Hal·le·lu′jah). A transliteration of the Hebrew expression ha·lelu-Yah′, appearing first at Psalm 104:35.

 

(Psalm 104:35) The sinners will be finished off from the earth; And as for the wicked, they will be no longer. Bless Jehovah, O my soul. Praise Jah, YOU people! (NWT)

 

Rev 19:1  King James Bible - And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

Rev 19:1 - New International Version - After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,

(Revelation 19:1) After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: “Praise Jah, YOU people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God, (NWT)

 

2.  "Some examples include Isaiah [Jehovah's help or salvation], Jehoshua [Jehovah a helper], Jehu [Jehovah is He]. In the entry, Jehovah, Smith writes: "JEHOVAH (יְהֹוָה, usually with the vowel points of אֲדֹנָי; but when the two occur together, the former is pointed יֱהֹוִה, that is with the vowels of אֱלֹהִים, as in Obad. i. 1, Hab. iii. 19:"^[96] This practice is also observed in many modern publications, such as the New Compact Bible Dictionary (Special Crusade Edition) of 1967 and Peloubet's Bible Dictionary of 1947."  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

 

(Isa'iah) [Salvation of Jehovah]; (Jeremi'ah) [possibly, Jehovah Exalts; or, Jehovah Loosens [likely from the womb]]; (Obadi'ah) [Servant of Jehovah]; (Zephani'ah) [Jehovah Has Concealed (Treasured Up)]; (Zechari'ah) [Jehovah Has Remembered]; Jesus (Greek, I.e.sous’; Hebrew, Jeshua, (Yeshua); Jehoshua (Yehoshua) meaning “Salvation [or Help] of Jah (Yah) [Jehovah/Yehovah].”

 

"The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes, and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah.^[1] The derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appeared in the 16th century."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

 

 

3.  "Origen wrote of the Septuagint: “In the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.” - http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/tetragrammaton-divine-name/

 

4.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament:

A passage recorded in the Hebrew Tosefta, Shabbat 13:5, quoting Tarfon is sometimes cited to suggest that early Christian writings or copies contained the Tetragrammaton.^[5]

Shabbat 13:5

— A. The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim they do not save from a fire [on the Sabbath]. They are allowed to burn up where they are, they and [even] the references to the Divine Name that are in them.^[6]

This same source quotes Rabbi Jose the Galilean (who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the common era): “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.”^{[citation needed]}

Laurence Schiffman^[7] views this as a discussion of whether to rescue section of the sifre minim (Hebrew language texts of Jewish Christians) containing the tetragrammata from a house fire. Another interpretation suggests this is a reference to Old Testament Torah and not the Gospels.^[8]

Although none of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton, scholar George Howard has suggested that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original New Testament autographs,^[9] and that "the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates κυριος and θεος blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ."^[9] In the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Howard states: "There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the OT quotations in the NT when the NT documents were first penned."^[9]:392

Along with Howard, David Trobisch and Rolf Furuli both have suggested that the Tetragrammaton may have been removed from the Greek manuscripts.^{[10]:66–67[11]:179–191} In the book Archaeology and the New Testament, John McRay wrote of the possibility that the New Testament autographs may have retained the divine name in quotations from the Old Testament.^[12]Robert Baker Girdlestone stated in 1871 that if the Septuagint had used "one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N.T. Thus our Lord in quoting the 110th Psalm,...might have said 'Jehovah said unto Adoni.'"^[13] Since Girdlestone's time it has been shown that the Septuagint contained the Tetragrammaton, but that it was removed in later editions.^[14]

You are quoting something NOT the Bible. And when you quote sources of the Bible it is the Septuagint.  Think about that