RF: The word "must" above is not warranted and misrepresents my arguments. I have pointed out that the NT manuscripts from the second century contain KS as do the LXX manuscripts of the same age.This means that someone changed the NT text in the same way as the LXX text was changed. Therefore, something different from KS was written in the NT autographs. We do not know what that word was, but because KS is a substitute for YHWH in the LXX, most likely it is a substitute for YHWH in the NT as well. Corroborating this conclusion is the fact that the Tanakh says that the name YHWH should be used for ever, and no one have so far presented good reasons for why the NT writers should substitute YHWH with KURIOS in quotes from the Tanakh. Your words about arguing from silence are strange, because everyone must argue from silence. We do not know how the name of God was written in the NT autographs, so also those who believe that the original NT contained KURIOS, argue from silence.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.