In my concordance, the name Joshua is shown 200 plus times in the old testament. There are no counts of Joshua in the new testament.
In my concordance, the name Jesus is shown 900 plus times in the new testament. There are no counts of Jesus in the old testament.
That seems to make sense since the oldest copy of a bible I have is a copy of the 1599 Geneva bible and it concurs.
But what has happended at some point is there are actually two Joshua verses that have snuck into the new testament, when there were none.
Those two verses are found in acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (at least). Like I said, my concordance does not reference those as Joshua.. there may be more..
Praise Yah, we have at least two witnesses (verses) in the new testament because a matter can not be decided, biblically, on the testimony of just one witness. (Deut 17:6)
In those two verses, they were originally noted as ‘Jesus’ verses.
Over time, translators have decided that those are not to be Jesus verses.
They have changed those verses to Joshua.
Now, it seems innocent enough until one realizes that Joshua is a translation/transliteration from Hebrew/Aramiac and not from the Greco/roman/Latin text.
So, in essence, what the translators did was change a Greek/roman/latin heritage word, Jesus, with a Hebrew heritage word, Joshua..
And to be fair, they didn’t retranslate it.. they simply erased the name Jesus and plugged in the name Joshua.
One could say they substituted the name Joshua for the name Jesus..
The reason why they did it was obvious but the manner in which they did it, is critical.
They read the text and knew it was reference to the Hebrew General that led Israel to the promised land. A Hebrew who was a shadow of the coming Messiah who would do the same thing for His people in the new testament.
The name joshua isnt just used in the book Joshua in the old testament..
In the prophet Zechariah, Hebrew Joshua is shown as High Priest.. and that is exactly the picture in the new testament with the Messiah being our High Priest.
That is the last time the English translated/transliterated name for Yahshua(however one spells it or pronouncess it) is given in my oldest bible.
And that was the case, until newer bible translations have included the name Joshua in Acts 7:45.
Now if translators can just ignore the Greek text and go with what is found in the translated/transliterated English version of the old testament (found a few hundred pages to their left in the bible), what is the point of saying the new testament is translated/transliterated from Greek?
Because it isn’t true for two verses.. and not just any two verses.. two verses that have the name Jesus in them..
The translators haven’t stayed true to the translation.. they have decided that those two verses can be changed..
Now, my question has been- if those two Jesus verses can be changed to Joshua, why not the other 900 verses?
And nobody can give me a good answer..
The only answer is the safest answer-tradition..
The tradition of the name Jesus, December 25 and easter is more important than asking why the name Joshua, an old testament name in their very same bible, can all of a sudden pop up in the new testament and replace the name Jesus...
On the testimony of two scripture witnesses, the name Jesus is replaceable- the translators have done it.
Now considering when one thinks of the name Joshua, one thinks of the Hebrew who leads His people to the promised land and the High Priest of the prophet ZechariYah..
Man, if that doesn’t sound like the new testament promises...
The translators goofed up.. or they did exactly what they were supposed to do because if one reads Joshua in the old testament, one can’t help but see the shadow that is cast of the New Testament Joshua..
Call him Jesus if you want..translators have given us reason to question the name Jesus on the testimony of two (scripture) witnesses..
People usually don’t start by questioning the name.. they question the holy days around the name. (December 25 and easter particularly)
When those days stop lining up with scripture, the only thing people can cling to is the name.
And the name Joshua, pulled from the Hebrew/Aramaic side of the bible, has zero to do with December 25 and easter..
Christendom starts falling apart..
I know Joshua loves me this I know, will never take off..
And black Friday and Christmas are too important for the world’s businesses.
There is no dividing Jesus from December 25 or Easter because those days are not going to be given up by the mother.. that leaven isn’t going anywhere.. it is baked in..
The only option is what scripture tells us to do when we see it:
Come out of her.. it very well means living or dying and worshipping The Way, Truth and Life or worshipping a clever,but evil, lie..
May He bless your journey out of Babylon more than He has mine..
Well! How utterly pagan of them right? After all, there is no J in the Hebrew right?
>>The translators haven’t stayed true to the translation..<<
Say what?? Surely you must be joking. It can't possibly be Joshua. You said so yourself. There is no J in Hebrew.
>>or they did exactly what they were supposed to do because if one reads Joshua in the old testament<<
No, no, no that can't possibly be true. "One" can't possibly read Joshua in the Old Testament. Your Old Testament must be wrong. There is no J in Hebrew remember?
>>May He bless your journey out of Babylon more than He has mine..<<
I am long out of Babylon. It's the sacred name people who would "keep the same language for all" as in the days of Nimrod and Babylon who need to "come out of Babylon" along with those who practice the Babylonian paganism.