Warlock! you left us hanging....what did WT say happened? Yeah it is surprising it aint there....and it sure is a surpise we added when it was never there!!!........give a little more info.................oompa
How do JW's react when learning that Jehovah is not part of Christianity?
by oompa 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Warlock
Just get a Divine Name brouchure and read the section entitled "Gods Name and The New Testament".
I can't seem to copy the rest of it.
Warlock
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
As a JW, we would be expected to accept everything 100%, including any inclusions of "Jehovah" in the NWT where it may not have originally appeared. Not 99%, and certainly not 98% acceptance. If you didn't accept everything exactly as stated, you would be destroyed by both Jehovah and Jesus and never get to enjoy your pet lion in paradise.
Now that I don't accept everything 100%, or even 98%, I question the validity of most of the Christian Greek New Testament Scriptures.
-
Watkins
With the Christian Greek Scriptures, the "New Testament," the situation is different. Manuscripts of the book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible) have God's name in its abbreviated form, "Jah," (in the word "Hallelujah"). But apart from that, no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God's name in full. Does that mean that the name should not be there? That would be surprising in view of the fact that Jesus' followers recognized the importance of God's name, and Jesus taught us to pray for God's name to be sanctified. So what happened?
What happened was the wtbts's translators, under instruction to do so where necessary, added to the scriptures. Pretty plain. Instead of following up on how Jesus really taught his followers to pray to 'our Heavenly Father', they went down another path away from what's truly stated in scripture.
Oompa, dear, dear man -
I feel your angst, your pain, your need for reality and truth. I've been there and just now finally seeing a light at the tunnel's end.
We don't need religion of any sort to come to know God. Take a step back and see how the Big Picture reveals religion's representatives have historically been an excellent anti-witness for Him and for Jesus Christ. The most heinous atrocities you could never think up are under the cloak of religion and 'in God's Name'. Something's up when so many religionists claim to use the same Instruction Manual and have such fanatically diverse doctrines and traditions. I've wrestled with this too, and the OT examples of unimaginable events attributed to Almighty God. A KKK-er preaches Arianism, Baptists preach hellfire, Catholics teach Mary and saint worship, Protestants preach trinity, Jews disprove Jesus' merit, Mormons & JW' s teach a whole other gospel, and they ALL pound on their own versions of the Holy Word of God! That can't be right!
I momentarily doubted my faith in God at all, but upon deep reflection, to me, that evidence is conclusive. So how to justify, or even dignify every bit of the Bible as we know it today? I can't - some of it just can't be right - I won't. So, it seems to me that it must have to do with the writers' personalities being displayed, and their viewpoints - times they obviously wrote from their own perspectives and not God's. Perhaps all the writers were inspired by God to write certain things down for posterity, but not ALL of what they wrote was directly inspired by Him. Some of it has to be their own viewpoint of history as they saw it. Everything that happened, whether by by man's cunning or natural devise, they saw as coming directly from YHWH. There is, imho, much Bible lore that is just that - stories, myths and legends. But some of it is true, verifiable, provable. As you're seeking to know God you learn to discern accordingly. If we look for a mistake we'll find it; if we want to find the Breath of God, we'll find it. Does it sound like it comes from a God Who 'is love'? If not, it probably doesn't.
It's tough to let go of what we took pride in knowing for the sake of Knowing, but that's what this 'awakening' is all about Oompa! What IS truth? I can only testify to my own experience, but if you seek Him you'll find Him.
I doubt I could admit this anywhere but JWD : Once you reach at certain point of maturity, I don't think you need the Bible. I got that idea from the Bible(is that an an enigma?) where it says 'He will write His laws upon hearts and not tablets of stone'. It makes sense to me. Say you get a new camera - you read the instruction book and figure out how to work it. As a novice you might have to refer back to the book a time or 2 for specifics, but you don't have to read it again everytime you pick up the camera. You don't forget! So what is it that we need to be told over and over about just being a good person? Do we need to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to get the meaning? Do we need to dissect every syllable to understand the basic message? I think we should reach a point of not having to be constantly reminded, after we've first learned the basics. Which as xjw's we have to re-learn those basic tenants of Chritianity that we were never taught in the first place. It was a long hard study to displace WT theology. I'm not studying anymore, I graduated. How many former students continuously pour over their old course books to make sure they've really 'got it'? Properly trained, they would be sharing their knowledge, putting it into action and having some success. Being a Christian is the same - read, learn, do. If we have to keep referring back to the instructions, have we really learned it yet? It simply cannot be that complicated!
Religion and religionists divide humanity. They over-complicate YHWH and give Him a bad name in the process. It breaks my heart.
I truly love you, Oompa - I see myself in you so much.(or maybe it's your avatar - it really tugs at my heartstrings. I love Marty's "Eye-gore'! )
a friend, watkins
-
blondie
I used to be told that "Jehovah" was inserted only where the OT was being quoted in the NT and the tetragrammaton would have been in that scripture.
*** it-1 p. 443 Christian Greek Scriptures ***Examples are drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures by all the inspired Christian writers. (1Co 10:11) These Christian writers undoubtedly employed the divine name Jehovah when they were quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures.
*** si p. 176 par. 7 Bible Book Number 40—Matthew ***It is reasonable to believe that Matthew used the divine name Jehovah in the form of the Tetragrammaton when he quoted from parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the name.
But they also insert "jehovah" where there is no quoting from the OT........................
-
oompa
Wow Watkins....what a post! You have a very calming perspective on truth, knowledge, and I bet life too. I will chew on these thought awhile. i do not have a calm heart or a very good compass on life right now.....................oompa
-
oompa
blondie:
I used to be told that "Jehovah" was inserted only where the OT was being quoted in the NT and the tetragrammaton would have been in that scripture.
*** it-1 p. 443 Christian Greek Scriptures ***Examples are drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures by all the inspired Christian writers. (1Co 10:11) These Christian writers undoubtedly employed the divine name Jehovah when they were quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures.
*** si p. 176 par. 7 Bible Book Number 40—Matthew ***It is reasonable to believe that Matthew used the divine name Jehovah in the form of the Tetragrammaton when he quoted from parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the name.
But they also insert "jehovah" where there is no quoting from the OT........................Me too Blondie....But ohhhh those clever Word Wizzards at WT......what you will never see in WT print though is that they "ONLY" restored the name when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures......They lead you to believe that, but even that is "adding to" the scriptures. All you really have to look for is "" marks and a cross reference....there are dozens of places the have "INSERTED" the name Jehovah with zero quote of the OT.....like every use in Revelation.....I have a well researched letter I sent WT about this if you want it......
The real nugget I found though is that there is only one sentence in one publication in 58 years that admits to doing this.....so sit down if you missed it.........this talks about the ridiculus J-versions we all have copies of and "mystery missionary translations"...load of crap....It should be up to every reader to determine which LORD is being referred to without re-writing the Bible............oompa.....give me an AMEN!
***
w82 3/15 p.26 par. 26 Loyally Advocating theWord of God***26
The New World Translation also uses the name "Jehovah" in addition to where the name appears in quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. Why? So as to help the reader to know whether Jehovah God or Jesus Christ is referred to when "Lord" (Kyrios) appears in the Greek text. Is there any good precedent for doing so? Yes, for in some 20 Hebrew versions of the Greek Scriptures we find this to be the practice. Also, there are many missionary translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures that do the same. For example, one of the earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Japanese freely uses the name "Ehoba" (Jehovah).
-
dogisgod
Wow Outlaw, where do I find that?
-
dogisgod
I guess I'm revealing the extent of cool aid I drank but I thought it was the Tetragramitin YHVH that was God's name but the scribes etc felt it was too holy to write so they replaced it with LORD, GOD, etc and someone came up with putting the vowels from ELOHIM in between the consenants. (Why you would just go ahead and do that and say UREKA! is a little presumptous...don't cha think). If the Catholics came up with it why don't they use it.
-
Watkins
You get an "Amen!" from me! I'm not always balanced, I only have my moments....
If I'm not mistaken, there's also a quote in the blue 'All Scripture is Inspired' book about translating the Name. I remember reading somewhere a quote that stated that although 'Yahweh' was probably the closest to the ancient pronunciation of the tetragramaton, since 'Jehovah' was so widely recognised, they were sticking with the most popular - truth be damned!
Did that article contain any references for : " some 20 Hebrew versions of the Greek Scriptures we find this to be the practice. Also, there are many missionary translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures that do the same." ?
I have a well researched letter I sent WT about this if you want it......
Oh yes, please! I was going to ask you before if you'd share it, but I got to talkiing... lol. If you don't want to post it on the board, will you pm me please? Thanks!
Romans 10:13 has always been my beef with their insertion of 'Jehovah' where 'Lord'(Jesus) should be - have you seen that? Read it in context and compare other translations with an interlinear. To me it's blatant that they mishandle the Word of God, son of snakes.
*** it-1 p. 443 Christian Greek Scriptures *** Examples are drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures by all the inspired Christian writers. (1Co 10:11) These Christian writers undoubtedly employed the divine name Jehovah when they were quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures.
*** si p. 176 par. 7 Bible Book Number 40—Matthew *** It is reasonable to believe that Matthew used the divine name Jehovah in the form of the Tetragrammaton when he quoted from parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that contained the name.
That can't be right! - the letter "j" wasn't even invented until long after the "Christian writers" had died. And as Blondie has pointed out numerous times - "undoubtedly" and "reasonable to believe" is WT-speak for "we don't know"!
watkins