by JuanMiguel 123 Replies latest watchtower bible
We treat the OTHER differently the more we know about them.
If we meet a powerful official we act, talk and think differently while in their presence.
This say much more about US than about the other person.
QUESTION: How would we treat GOD differently in the following modalities?
1.God is three persons in ONE
2.God is a singularity of individual personality with a separate "son"
3.God is an intelligence without name or knowable identity
Just curious what your answer would be and WHY.
I once heard a man on television state that when he met the president of the United States he treated him no differently than the man who picked up the garbage from his curb twice a week. He was quite proud of his statement and made the effort to repeat it a few more times during the news interview he was a part of.
I thought to myself that such an attitude is backward. He should be treating everyone as if they were the president of the United States, whether it was the garbage man or the president himself.
Perhaps that just plays with words to some people, but to me one way seems to say I treat everyone the same, no one any better than the other, and the other way says that I treat everyone as if they are deserving of the best.
I least I try. I know I don't always reach my ideal.
This has a lot to do with my own personal views on God. I can't say they have the wisdom of great academics behind it. I don't confess that they've been tested by an independent source and passed to ensure their efficacy.
God is on God's own terms. I can only respond to God as far as my heart has learned to respond, and this doesn't always run parallel with my mind. Often it's behind reason, other times it surpasses it.
If God is Trinity, than our words and definitions still don't capture this precisely. I have to admit that I'm powerless to do anything about what I don't know. If God isn't, I'm still transcended by God. I do not condescend to God. It's the other way around.
It's not an academic exercise. It's like my closest friendships or family ties. I don't fully know anyone to the point that there is nothing more to learn. It seems the ones I am closest to constantly surprise me even though there may be no other souls who know each other better.
While my answers may be a cop-out to some (and believe me I've gone over and over and over this for years), I don't approach or view or believe in God because of what's been proven to me. It's because God found me first and a relationship grew out of that initial (and ongoing) experience that decades later I am what I am.
Because God is all and more of those things you mentioned, there is no difference on how I approach or treat God. I do my best, whatever it is God is, just as in the case of the garbage man and the president. Now I wish I had some mathematical formula or some snapshot to offer in addition, it would sound so much more critical and intelligent, but alas I wouldn't know what numbers to write or where to aim my camera.
Juan Miguel says:
>>"Accurate Even Without Using YHWH in the Text" (in reference to NABRE)
Let's take this further: Let NABRE take Jesus' name away from the NT, and replace it with LORD the nearly 1,000 it appears in the NT. Can we honestly say that NABRE now is "Accurate Even Without Using Iesou' (Jesus) in the Text"? I don't think so!
Is removing Jesus name from the NT text as "bad" as it is for the NWT to add it to the Greek text?
Also, it seems most religious people "babble" some divine name. Jesus' name is being "babbled" about by Catholics and Protestants alike, no less than JWs with the divine name. The question is: Do we see it?
Hey, we all fall short of God's glory!
Since I seem to be doing all the work, let's put the ball in your court. Instead of having me to always prove something, you prove the opposite.
So let's answer first things first.
1. Prove how using the mispelling "Jehovah" shows that one is honoring the Name of God and can in no possible way be considered a dishonor (that God doesn't care if we get his name right or not).
2. Show how the way Jews and Christians handling of the Divine Name is a violation, and explain why Jesus never called God by name in any prayer of his recorded in Scripture (in other words, show Jesus as being wrong and the JW way as better).
3. Demonstrate by example how using a mispelling for YHWH is an accurate rendition etymologically, and explain why treating God's name like any other name is better than the custom of Jews and Christians today.
As for "babble," according to the translators of the NABRE that word is basically the same found in the name of Babylon, the center of false gods and worship. In contrast to the custom of the Jews at the time (not pronouncing God's name), the Babylonians had many gods they called on by their names. None of these saved them on the night Babylon fell.
It was the custom of most forms of heathen worship to "force" the gods into doing favors for humans. By merely knowing and using the name of a god or spirit it was believed that one could have control or at least some "handle" on that entity. It was believed that by uttering the various titles and names attributed to a god or spirit, the entity could be made to do the bidding of the person so controlling of it.
The warning Jesus gives is to avoid "babbling" in the manner of the "pagans" and adopting this view in connection to their prayers. Jehovah's Witness theology is reflected in the poorly translated "do not say the same things over and over again" as this phrase gets rendered in the NWT. That would mean one could not sing the same song in worship or even a song with a repeated chorus (which virtually all songs have). It would also mean Jesus violated his own teaching because in Gethsemane he repeated his prayer over and again (likely because, as some scholars suggest, he was praying some of the psalms by memory) as stated in Mark 14:39. This would also make many of the psalms unusable and even questionable for being included in the Bible because many of them repeat stanzas over and over and over again throughout.--See Psalm 136 in the NWT for one example.
The "babbling" like pagan prayers was this thinking that God could be forced to do something by our mere requests or by constantly uttering God's name. We can't force God to do anything. It is not, however, teaching us we cannot say the same things again in worship. That is a mistranslation of Matthew 6:7.
More Information On "Babble"
The Greek word rendered "babble" in the NABRE, but as "say the same things over and over again" by the NWT in Matthew 6:7 comes from the root word which means, according to the best evidence at hand, "to stutter." It could also mean "futile speech" or "empty, thoughtless" stammering.
Its etymology would be difficult to tie down if it were not for Jesus giving us the context. Jesus doesn't just tell us to avoid ‘saying the same things over and over again,' but to avoid doing so in the way the "pagans," namely those of the Gentiles who worshipped false gods.
"In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them."--Matthew 6:7, 8a.
The pagan practice consisted of using the various names for a deity, stringing them together with peitions and sometimes the adding of words that were believed to carry some "magical" power. The idea was that divine names of deities were magical in themselves. Knowing a god by name and using that name meant a person had gained some leverage with the deity. Like having the direct phone number of a famous person and using again and agian until the person gives up and talks just to gain peace, the deity's names and titles would be repeated in order to badger the god to do the petitioner's bidding.
It should be noted that Jesus is no longer using hypocritical Jews as the pattern to avoid. He now uses the Gentiles and their worship of false gods. Repetition itself or even literally "babbling" is not the point.
It is significant that the New World Translation offer an exegesis based on their own translation, used mainly to counter Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and other liturgical forms of prayer even in Protestantism with repeated formulas in them. "See?" the explanation is often offered, "these religions are not teaching ‘the truth' because they advocate thoughtlessly repeating words and offering this up as prayers to God."
It looks good on the surface, but it is really a "scarecrow" ruse that takes advantage of persons who are usually already uneducated in religious matters to assume that the Witnesses know what they are talking about and must have this "truth" that make claim to.
Repetition in Private and Liturgical Prayers
It was important for Jesus to add that he was talking about babbling "like the pagans" at Matthew 6:7. Some might try (and already have) to twist his words to mean he was against repetition itself, an often key ingredient to the prayer of the Jews and even Christ's prayers.
As explained in my previous post above, texts like Mark 14:39 show that repetition in prayer was not uncommon to Christ's private petitions. It was also, as one example of many, part of the liturgy of the Jews as the use of Psalm 136 repeats the phrase "for his mercy endures forever" (NAMBRE) between every other verse. This is not the only psalm or song in the Bible that uses this type of repetition either, as I am sure many of you are quite aware of.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses, using the NWT rendition of Matthew 6:7 and it usual application against prayers with repetitions in them against the Catholic practice of praying of the Rosary, were asked what that prayer actually was and meant to those praying it--would the Witness give a reply you could take and use to, say, pass a secular college exam on religion or win a contest for defining customs or something where some big money prize was at stake?
If we've never really looked into it, do we oursleves know what the prayer is? How is it prayed? Why are prayers repeated? Why the number of beads? Does it get prayed daily? Are the prayers ever different? Why are certain prayers reserved for certain beads? Are all the prayers memorized? Are there any spontaneous prayers offered?
If We Say It Looks Like a Duck, And We Tell You That Its Walk Is Duck-like, Then Why Believe Anything Else or Investigate Further? We Demand You Accept It As a Duck, Under Penalty of Death
While I won't go into exhaustive detail regarding the prayer, suffice it is to know that the Rosary as prayed by Catholics has different prayers depending on the day of the week on which it is offered. It also has four parts, one part being prayed on specific days of the week, and repeated on a cycle. The cycle itself changes depending on the time of year and how this is celebrated in the Mass liturgically. It consists of 8 different prayers which are recited as well as 20 subjects spread out over its four-day cycle (the subjects are events in the life of Jesus and Mary that are meditated over, five a day, which also open the door to contemplative and spontaneous prayer). The recited prayers are offered much as singing a song is, but without music for the most part, and the mental exercise of meditating over events that make up the gospel message are just as important. One cannot merely pray the recited part without the mental part unless they wish to make the Rosary a vain prayer, at least the way Roman Catholics see it.
Did you know these things about the Rosary? What are the 20 mental exercises? Can we name them? Which days of the week are they prayed? How do these change depending on the time of year and why? If you can't answer these question, then you can't be expected to make a well-educated judgment on the Rosary, can you?
And yet that is what Jehovah's Witnesses do and teach others to do based on just one of their "not-so-accurate-yet-carefully-chosen" renditions in the NWT. And it's more than just Catholic practice they attack. There are quite a few other examples regarding other religious and philosophical practices that show how the JWs rely on persons having on a surface knowledge about certain things in order to exploit them. By ‘judging a book by its cover' in manner that the Witnesses like to judge things like the Rosary, I'm sure very few if any people would ever admit that such a means of rash judgment is beneficial for any case.
Did you know these things about the Rosary? What are the 20 mental exercises? Can we name them? Which days of the week are they prayed? How do these change depending on the time of year and why? If you can't answer these question, then you can't be expected to make a well-educated judgment on the Rosary, can you?
There is nowhere in the bible that we are told to use beads to pray. So why does anyone do it?
Where in the Bible does it talk about the 20 Mental exercises? Does it name them?
I couldn't care less what is involved in the process of holding the beads and praying. It is not biblical.
Here's a mental excercise.....just read the bible and stop playing with beads.
Try just praying, if you don't know what to do with your hands just sit on them or do a jig saw puzzle....(thats what I did when I quit smoking and didn't know what to do with my hands)
1. Prove how using the mispelling "Jehovah" shows that one is honoring the Name of God and can in no possible way be considered a dishonor (that God doesn't care if we get his name right or not).
I agree with you that Jehovah is not the correct spelling and personally I prefer Yahweh as it seems closer to YHWH. But I feel that replacing YHWH with Lord or God removes what should be there. So any attempt to personalize by giving a name that would translate in todays language is better than leaving it out. God or YHWH gave us his name for a reason. So that we would know who he is. Why do we as humans tamper with that? I would be happy with a bible that simply put YHWH where his name should be.
Just as we would not remove Jesus name from the bible. What would Christians think of that?
Show how the way Jews and Christians handling of the Divine Name is a violation, and explain why Jesus never called God by name in any prayer of his recorded in Scripture (in other words, show Jesus as being wrong and the JW way as better).
As above, would a Christian remove Christs name. I don't think so. Why? It would be a violation.
Personally I don't think it is necessary to call Gods name in prayer but sometimes it just fits depending on what you are praying about.
I think it is more respectful to call him Father as Jesus did in his model prayer. But I do think it is necessary to have Gods name there. I think the JW way of repeating his name over and over is shameful and shows no respect.
JuanMiguel I am enjoying your topics. Very thought provoking......loves at ya babe
JV
Are you really that gullible? That story of yours which I read somewhere else means nothing. Just because some in Bethel or outside of Bethel think this is a joke, it does not mean it is a joke.
I have checked the NWT directly against the Hebrew and Greek text numerous times, and it shows the falsity of your claim. You also cite other sources that put the NWT down and the transcripts of a court case in Scotland which people wrongly use to belittle Franz and the WT translators. Other sources do not prove conclusively anything. You have also some sources, to a lesser degree as expected, who side with the WTS. By you repeating this anecdote here shows that you have not taken the time to delve into the subject, and expose yourself to the ridicule of others who have done more research. Stop spreading slander!
The Scotland court trascript has been misquoted, misrepresented by WT antagonists for ages. They should be ashamed of their dishonesty. The only thing that the Scotland trial showed in reference to Franz was that he said, 'he was not going to attempt translating Genesis 2:4 from English to Hebrew which is totally different than what Bible translators are accostumed to... which is translating from Hebrew to English. This is misreported time and again by mostly evangelicals with a mission to destroy, not build.
By the way, ALL bible translators use bible aids when attempting translation, and the court floor is not the place to engage in bible textual exercises in dubious tactics of an examiner with questionable motives. Franz was smart enough not to fall in that trap. If Franz was the translator, there is ample evidence by hundreds of observers, that he was competent in the handling of some languages other than English. If he was capable to teach himself those other languages, and have a command of them, as I can testify, there is no reason to doubt his statement that 'he furiously applied himself to Greek and other languages in private.' Yes, there are countless other people saying he had cero knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, which I know it to be false. Any person can go around the web and check these claims, and how others have exposed their lies, or their many inconsistencies.
By the way, you say that Franz all he did was take the Emphatic Diaglott and rephrase it. Again, this shows you have not done your research. The Kingdom Interlinear is evidence that someone (Franz?) had a command of the Greek. Please don't quote me an evangelical scholar who most likely hate JWs. Don 't you understand, that many folks take religion more seriously than politics and could teach politicians a lesson or two on dishonest campaigning. The Kingdom Interlinear is so different from the ED in their translation principles. And what about the Hebrew portion? The ED did not offer a Hebrew translation.Who did the NWT copy for the Hebrew portion? Tell me, please, so I can check it out.
The truth is that the NWT is closer to the Hebrew and Greek text than it is to other versions. Why don't u take up a course in those languages before you make public unsound stories which cannot be sustained.
I have not been to a Kingdom Hall in 20 years or so, my family avoid me as much as possible because I have expressed sincerely where I do not agree with the WT. However, I sincerely believe the NWT is not the main problem of the WT. Putting aside some theological tendencies evident in the book (as is true of every bible version out there), the NWT is actually a good translation.
What you could do instead, is try to communicate how the "faithful and discreet slave"parable is mishandled by the Society, not because of ignorance, but because they knowingly misuse this scripture to demand loyalty from the JW masses. Now there, you would have a rightful claim.
Blessings!
JuanMiguel
Do not accustom your mouth to oaths,
or habitually utter the Holy Name.
Just as a servant constantly under scrutiny
will not be without bruises,
So one who swears continually by the Holy Name
will never remain free from sin
I am not sure that this supports your ideas. This is not specifically refering to babbling Gods name. It is refering to continually swearing by Gods name and taking oaths.
The chapter goes on to say: 23:12, 13, 14 (Douay)
A man that sweareth much, shall be filled with iniquity, and a scourge shall not depart from his house.
And if he make it void, his sin shall be upon him: and if he dissemble it, he offendeth double.
And if he swear in vain, he shall not be justified, for his house shall be filled with his punishment.
dis·sem·ble (d
-s
m
b
l)
v.dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling, dis·sem·bles v.tr. 1. To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. See Synonyms at disguise. 2. To make a false show of; feign. v.intr. To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
Taking false oaths are bad enough, but throwing Gods name in to falsely support what you are saying is unforgiveable. Much the same I suppose as someone swearing on their childrens lives and lying......disgusting!!! If you want to use that understanding of what is written then 23:10 the Douay Reims says not to meddle with the names of Saints. How do you explain Catholics using Saints names all the time? 10: And let not the naming of God be usual in thy mouth, and meddle not with the names of saints, for thou shalt not escape free from them.
Exact spelling or pronunciation doesn't matter?
1943 hovah ho-vaw' another form for 1942 ; ruin:--mischief.
What a co-incidence!
The irony is, it fits!
