Cleaning Up Scripture...

[Soulgazer]

It is not "well established that the pastorals and 2Peter are second century forgeries", except only in your mind. Second Peter was written around 64 C.E. by the apostle Peter, while 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus was written by the apostle Paul between 61 and 65 C.E. Marcion was not born until about 100 C.E. and did not espouse his "doctrines" until perhaps some 40 or more years later. How could therefore the "pastorals and 2Peter" counter Marcionism since it did not exist for until at least 75 years later ?

Already in the 1st century, gnosticism was infiltrating the Christian congregation, for both Hy·me·nae´us and Alexander "experienced shipwreck concerning [th)

I tell you the truth and you would rather believe fabrications. Once again, Timbo me lad, the Pastorals and 2peter are second century forgeries. This has been known by almost everyone but yerself.

Here, read, really read, and drop the wishful thinking:

Information on 1 Timothy

1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
​

The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 379-80):

. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.
​

In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):

The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.
​

And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.

earlychristianwritings

 

[timbo3]

The gnostic Marcion, was raised in a "Christian" family and who as a rich young man, accepted only that which he liked, rejecting the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament), like a buffet at a restaurant, and discarding the rest, like the churches have done. Would he be considered a viable witness ? To the contrary, his acceptance or rejection of anything has no merit whatsoever, but should be discarded, like putting something in a trashcan.

According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century.” (Pagans and Christians, 1988)

And the "information on 1 Timothy" is biased, picking on how many words and what words Paul used, as well as his literary style. I am an auto technician by trade, but, in many cases, use words from physics, astronomy, medical field, etc to provide or clarify a point. I also use whatever tool is needed within my shop to accomplish the task of repairing a vehicle. Paul likewise used different literary styles and words to firmly support Bible truth.

The apostle Paul was personally selected by Jesus Christ; hence providing inescapable evidence that Paul was assigned "to a ministry" (1 Tim 1:12) by Jesus Christ and thus inspired by his heavenly Father, Jehovah God.(1 Tim 3:16) Paul wrote 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy to give Timothy fatherly advice, encouragement, and direction on certain procedures to be followed in the congregations.

He used the necessary words to direct Timothy spiritually. In fact, the words he uses provides a sound basis of how to keep the Christian congregation in accord with "the healthful teaching"(1 Tim 1:9, 10) or spiritually clean.(1 Tim 1:3, 4, 6, 7; 4:7)

Paul's inspired counsel is invaluable, both then when gnostics were trying to infiltrate the Christian congregation, causing some to "experience shipwreck of their faith" (1 Tim 1:19) and now when the Bible is being attacked even by those who claim to accept it, such as Norman Perrin and Werner Georg Kummel, who sides basically with Marcion, in accepting and rejecting certain portions of the Bible, altering it to fit their thinking.

Both 1st and 2nd Timothy harmonizes with the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly, though inaccurately, called the New Testament). Paul further said concerning those who were "subverting the faith of some", such as Hymenaeus and Philetus whose "word will spread like gangrene", saying that "for all that, the solid foundation of God stays standing, having this seal: “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and: “Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.”(2 Tim 2:19)

Paul thus took a stand against those who wish to "violate what is holy"(2 Tim 2:16), "renounc(ing) unrighteousness" that was against Jehovah. He further quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, and where God's name of Jehovah was, he used it, whereas Marcion did not, nor do the churches.

Prejudice against certain books of the Bible is not uncommon. Of the letter to Titus, Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) says "Paul's authorship was undisputed in antiquity, as far as known, but is frequently doubted today. It was probably written about the same time as the First Epistle to Timothy, with which it has many affinities."

Whether you accept these or not, is your decision, but true Christians accept 1 and 2 Timothy as inspired from God, written by the hand of the apostle Paul and is "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."(2 Tim 3:16, 17)

 

[Unix]

He abreviated Lk, and we have a fragment of that, only a fragment unfortunately. It looks to me that, Marcion wanted the Scripture left over after his editing, to appeal to men.
The extensive "Lk" we have suffers from a difficultly discernible mixture of authentic material and later stories. As far back in time as Marcion lived, he still had some hope to discern between those.
The question is did he do any good?
We don't know of the exact quality of his work since we don't have surviving extent manuscripts.

But what is likely, is that he converted to Christianity some who wouldn't have been convinced / started to believe from the embroided "Lk".

The gnostic Marcion, was raised in a "Christian" family and who as a rich young man, accepted only that which he liked, rejecting the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament), like a buffet at a restaurant, and discarding the rest, like the churches have done. Would he be considered a viable witness ? To the contrary, his acceptance or rejection of anything has no merit whatsoever, but should be discarded, like putting something in a trashcan.

 

[Soulgazer]

Whether you accept these or not, is your decision, but true Christians accept 1 and 2 Timothy as inspired from God, written by the hand of the apostle Paul and is "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."(2 Tim 3:16, 17)

Look, Timbo, it's not my job to persuade or dissuade. I've told the truth, backed it up with solid evidence free of bias or wishful thinking. It's accepted fact by historians and scholars all over the world.

The problem with believing lies, pious or otherwise, is that in the end they fall apart. It's very common for churches to point at scholars and claim "bias". Well, sorry to disappoint, but scholars make their living ripping each other apart, not religious beliefs. They have no interest in targeting beliefs. They target falsehoods in each others writings. It's how they make their living. It's how we benefit, because if one screws up, another is sure to find it. The ones who have the right to scream "bias" are the scholars, who have to put up not only with each other, but a four hundred year old tradition from people going "no...don't look there....I don't care about facts...I've got my eyes closed".

I choose to overlook your implication that I am not a "true Christian" because I refuse to believe in lies, pious or otherwise.

 

[Soulgazer]

He abreviated Lk, and we have a fragment of that, only a fragment unfortunately. It looks to me that, Marcion wanted the Scripture left over after his editing, to appeal to men.
The extensive "Lk" we have suffers from a difficultly discernible mixture of authentic material and later stories. As far back in time as Marcion lived, he still had some hope to discern between those.
The question is did he do any good?
We don't know of the exact quality of his work since we don't have surviving extent manuscripts.

But what is likely, is that he converted to Christianity some who wouldn't have been convinced / started to believe from the embroided "Lk".

That's the catholic stance. The Marcionite(still a few around) stance is that Marcion introduced the letters of Paul, the church modified them to reflect catholic dogma, and silenced the protest of the Marcionites by labeling them "heretics".

The historical stance, is that Marcionism dominated other forms of Christianity for at least two and possibly as many as three centuries. That's by numerical advantage. Roman records don't show them condemning "Christians" but "Chrestians" which is how Marcionites referred to themselves. The Romans did not differentiate between sects, but went with the name they heard most. Marcion was the Billy Graham of his day, and established churches throughout the Mediterranean basin and beyond. While the seeds of catholicism were just being sown, it is estimated that Marcionism compromised about 80% of all christianity. Not diminishing the sacrifice of the other Christian Martyrs at all, but Marcionites made up the "lions share".

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

Even some of the post crucifixion writings of the Apocalyptic sects such as "Revelation" never gave up hope that the Messiah would come back and overturn Rome. They just could not let go of the wargod.

This has pretty much been my impression of Revelation. (However part of me still wonders how much of it may have been a fever/narcotic induced dream/hallucination).

To me the idea of Christ literally returning as a sword swinging WMD is a really disgusting image. However the idea that the second coming is a final triumph over evil in the physical world is one I still find endearing.

Are there any specific competing "apocalypses" that you find more satisfactory? Or is our likely endgame simply being re-absorbed into the Pleroma at some point?

 

[Unix]

4 Esdras, an OT visions book. Can be read from the REB Apocrypha (chapters 3-14 in 2 Esdras).

Are there any specific competing "apocalypses" that you find more satisfactory? Or is our likely endgame simply being re-absorbed into the Pleroma at some point?

 

[Unix]

Awesome insight, Soulgazer, did You work that out Yourself or read it somewhere, anyhow good thinking!

And well like I said good that Marcion converted many to Christianity, I don't have any problems with that.

How come only a tiny fragment of his writings survived? I know of the burning of his writings. Were the abreviated Scriptures read that much that they wore out or what?

Roman records don't show them condemning "Christians" but "Chrestians" which is how Marcionites referred to themselves. The Romans did not differentiate between sects, but went with the name they heard most.

 

[Unix]

Talking about 2 Pt, I believe it was penned by Jude. Now I know what You are going to say that the Epistle of Jude was of second century origin, but I don't believe that - why would they STILL have been such newbies as to hold Enoch as Scripture, I mean with all the solid NT writings set.

It's accepted fact by historians and scholars all over the world.

 

[Soulgazer]

Talking about 2 Pt, I believe it was penned by Jude. Now I know what You are going to say that the Epistle of Jude was of second century origin, but I don't believe that - why would they STILL have been such newbies as to hold Enoch as Scripture, I mean with all the solid NT writings set.

If you go to Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
They have an awesome amount of free information, as well as bibliographies for further study. I think Jude is at the end of first century, whereas 2Peter is second. "Scripture" is difficult. The second century "Titus" approves of all scripture--- What most modern Christians don't realize is that the author was saying ALL "scripture", including the sybiline oracles, and Homer. This was again in direct response to the Marcionites, who held that only their canon was scripture.
The surprising thing about new testament Epistles, is they are always directed against other forms of Christianity, so once scholars figure out the target, they can locate the date range.

Other than a few of the Pauline epistles, most are pseudopigraphic, as the various schools sought to produce evidence that they alone were "the one true church".

"Enoch" was used by Jewish Christians, but the idea of the prophets and kings being hired shepherds who would steal from God was antithetical to catholic thought, so .................

 

[Unix]

I've been reading earlychristianwritings 8 years ago, didn't remember it said Jude is from 1st century. My mind is settled about which books of the NT are Scripture and which ones not, not that difficult to discern.

For example Hebrews was written by an apostle, not Paul but someone of the 12. Therefore we have it in our Bible even though it's a bit controversial Epistle indeed.

I would recommend You to get James, by Richard Bauckham, Routledge, 1999 Amazon link
The price of the item has went up horrendously, I got mine for $10 ~August 2011. Lucky cheese.

Clarification needed here, are You saying all but a few of the Pauline Epistles are Scripture out of all of the NT Epistles, or just within the Pauline corpus?

Other than a few of the Pauline epistles, most are pseudopigraphic, as the various schools sought to produce evidence that they alone were "the one true church".

 

[Soulgazer]

I've been reading earlychristianwritings 8 years ago, didn't remember it said Jude is from 1st century. My mind is settled about which books of the NT are Scripture and which ones not, not that difficult to discern.

For example Hebrews was written by an apostle, not Paul but someone of the 12. Therefore we have it in our Bible even though it's a bit controversial Epistle indeed.

I would recommend You to get James, by Richard Bauckham, Routledge, 1999 Amazon link
The price of the item has went up horrendously, I got mine for $10 ~August 2011. Lucky cheese.

Clarification needed here, are You saying all but a few of the Pauline Epistles are Scripture out of all of the NT Epistles, or just within the Pauline corpus?

Now, just because they are pseudepigraphic does not mean they aren't suitable as "scripture". But yeah, other than a few letters of Paul, that's about it.

In the case of Hebrews I would suspect more than one author; The extensive use of Torah writings suggest at first glance a Messianic Jew.... Except that the suggestion that if there were nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for the second. Which by itself is not very weighty, but coupled with 2:2 suggesting that the Law was delivered to Moses via Angels(A stoning offense blasphemy) strongly suggest that the core writer was in the Pauline camp, and the plethora of Torah verses were added latter, something the Pauline schools avoided like the plague. The Law delivered by "angels" is very much Pauline, and is a direct dig at pharisee Judaism that insisted every word was dictated by God, and in subsequent Pauline schools Angels are untrustworthy at best, being subverted by "the god of this world".

Of course, the reverse could be true. It could be a Messianic Jewish text jazzed up by a Pauline follower. There are definitely two schools of thought intertwined though.

 

[cupid dave]

I've been reading earlychristianwritings 8 years ago, didn't remember it said Jude is from 1st century. My mind is settled about which books of the NT are Scripture and which ones not, not that difficult to discern.

For example Hebrews was written by an apostle, not Paul but someone of the 12. Therefore we have it in our Bible even though it's a bit controversial Epistle indeed.

I would recommend You to get James, by Richard Bauckham, Routledge, 1999 Amazon link
The price of the item has went up horrendously, I got mine for $10 ~August 2011. Lucky cheese.

Clarification needed here, are You saying all but a few of the Pauline Epistles are Scripture out of all of the NT Epistles, or just within the Pauline corpus?

Remeber that one Gpspel has a history of 1770 years of being preached over all the world.
It is a little late to start trying to re-canonize that Gospel.

And, for the 1000 years of the kingdom when only Jesus reigned over all the Western World no other gnostic gospels were even allowed to be preached.




Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;

 

[Unix]

I don't follow You two. When speaking of Scripture, one means what one BELIEVES. Everyone gotta build up a faith, I started with believing in fewer books an gradually built my faith. Aint got much to do with canon

Now, just because they are pseudepigraphic does not mean they aren't suitable as "scripture".

Remeber that one Gpspel has a history of 1770 years of being preached over all the world.
It is a little late to start trying to re-canonize that Gospel.

 

[Soulgazer]

I don't follow You two. When speaking of Scripture, one means what one BELIEVES. Everyone gotta build up a faith, I started with believing in fewer books an gradually built my faith. Aint got much to do with canon

LOL, I use the word "believe" in it's first century connotation of "trust enough to follow". It's Christ I am trusting not scripture.

Christ taught us to seek out the truth. In fact, he said that if we followed Him he would give us the spirit of truth. Spirit, not as an entity, but lower case, as in a deep yearn. I've definitely got it; because every truth is just the tip of the iceberg for the overall connectivity to every other truth. So I Trust Him more, not less. What I don't trust is the anti-spirit, that says "this is it, because you can't be a Christian if you don't believe it". I'm too old for emotional blackmail.


When I look at what is written, I say, "ok, this is what this guy believed". "why?". Once I can figure out the why's, I know if it is valid or not. Eternity last too long to trust it to just tradition, or religious dogma.


In any case, these writings represent the highest of human spiritual aspirations. Some authors aspired higher than others depending on their background and prejudice. Some writings are interlaced with contemporary church politics. I either avoid these like the plague, or I go hunting for the little pearls that they contain.

People say that you can't know the mind of God. I will agree with the intellect, but the nature of God? Jesus had the nature of God. Anything that disagrees with that, goes on the scrap heap.

 

[Unix]

People are different. I need more material before my eyes than You do, for the same result in belief.

I've overcome the worst of the so called dilemmas in the parts of the Bible I read. Took me ~1 year.

 

[Soulgazer]

People are different. I need more material before my eyes than You do, for the same result in belief.

I've overcome the worst of the so called dilemmas in the parts of the Bible I read. Took me ~1 year.

Yup. People are different, both in their ability to grasp and their ability to understand just what they are holding onto.

I don't know if you use more material than I do. I use material from ancient schools, such as the Mandaen, Valentinian, Sethian, as well as the bible. Then are all of the textbooks I had to know, to know who wrote what and why. It took me eight years.

But none of the text are worth the paper they are printed on, if they disagree with the indwelling Christ. I can read "forbid not the little children from coming unto me", and the indwelling Christ agrees. I read where Elijah had bears eat kids who were picking on his bald head, and the indwelling Christ is shaking His head as to why anyone would believe that His Father was behind that.

Christ called the followers of Jewish scripture children of Satan, because they placed so much faith in it that they were no longer of God. Paul said that for Christ sake, he counted his Jewish education in the Law, "Skubala", which means, literally "sh*t".

Hebrews says "[SIZE=-1]6:1[/SIZE]Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, [SIZE=-1]6:2[/SIZE]of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. [SIZE=-1]6:3[/SIZE]And this will we do, if God permit.

Meaning, once you have the foundation, if you keep resting on it, you can't build higher. I have the foundation of the Gospel. I build on it, putting on the Mind of Christ, or as Philip says: "It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become."

 

[Christian-Catholic]

People are different. I need more material before my eyes than You do, for the same result in belief.

I've overcome the worst of the so called dilemmas in the parts of the Bible I read. Took me ~1 year.

Unix, everyone has a different path to Christ, as long as we are seeking for the truth. I had looked into other denominations a long time ago and understood that if I tried to interpret every part of the bible myself, what would stop me from having a different interpretation then everyone else. Did Jesus have anything to say about that? I would say he did and that is why I attend mass every sunday today

 

[The Gnostic]

Peace,
I see the bible as edited. Words missing, some added...

What verses do you feel have been added or altered?
(Besides the johannine comma)

I believe the stories of Jesus cursing the tree and his fit of rage in the temple court are altered to seem like Yahweh and Jesus akin.

Grace be with you.

3 books were added for sure.Samuel,Kings and Chronicles were one single text but due to their length they made them 2 books,thus 3 books added.

Minus these 3 books from the Bible(which generally have 66 books) and we then have 63 books.If 7 is the number of God then one would think that there must be at the very least 70 books for the Bible.These means that once you make Kings,Samuel and Chronicles into one book instead of 2 each then with 63 from 70 you are left with 7.One could say that with 7 missing from the 70 that God was taken out of the Bible.

The Bible mentions books which are not in the present day Bible so that ought to say something.

Just a thought.

 

[timbo3]

Peace,
I see the bible as edited. Words missing, some added...

What verses do you feel have been added or altered?
(Besides the johannine comma)

I believe the stories of Jesus cursing the tree and his fit of rage in the temple court are altered to seem like Yahweh and Jesus akin.

Grace be with you.

In the original Hebrew and Greek, God's name of Jehovah (meaning "I Shall Prove To Be What I Shall Prove To Be", Ex 3:14 and rendered as Yahweh in the Jerusalem Bible) was there over 7000 times. However, in the vast majority of Bibles, it's either there only a few times, such as 4 times in older editions of the King James Bible (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4) or none at all.

It's like a person writing their autobiography and then turning it over to the publisher, only to find out later that the publisher took an unauthorized liberty, removing the owner's name and replacing it with "the man". How would the owner feel ? Agreeable with the publisher ? Hardly ! Most likely, the owner would file a lawsuit against the publisher, seeking damages.

Our Creator, Jehovah God, feels the same way, even outraged. Institutions and individuals have altered, erased, added words in his word, the Bible, and replacing his unique name - Jehovah - with Lord or God. The name Jehovah is in the original Hebrew and Greek more times than the titles "Lord" and "God" combined.

The New World Translation places Jehovah wherever it was located in the original Hebrew (6,973 times) or Greek. The American Standard Version also does a commendable effort of putting the name Jehovah where it rightfully belongs in the most of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament).

While most Bibles have supplanted Jehovah with Lord or God, departing from this wrong practice, the translation committee of the American Standard Version of 1901 stated: “The American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. . . . This personal name [Jehovah], with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.”—AS preface, p. iv.

God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original Hebrew text about 7000 times, but the New International Version (NIV) fails to mention it even once. When asked about this, Edwin H. Palmer (1922-1980), Th.D.(Doctor of Theology), Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:

"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you."