ANOTHER DISHONEST QUOTE FROM CHRIST'S BROTHERS!

by DATA-DOG 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DATA-DOG

  They " evidently " have not learned their lesson. Here we go.

  WT March 15th 2013

  Honor Jehovah's Great Name

  1) By and large, Christendom's churches have distanced themselves from God's name. For example, the Revised Standard Version states in it's preface: " The use of any proper name for the one and only God.....is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."

  Here is the surrounding context and the full quote.

  A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English wordLord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). The ancient Greek translators substituted the work Kyrios (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

  Peace,

  DD
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Yet again, the "evil" churches of Christendom have it right, "god's sole channel of communication" has it wrong... and must misquote source material to support their wrong position.

  "evidently", "[ ]", and "...." - the Watchtower' s best friends.

  Great catch, DATA-DOG!
• 

  BroMac

  Point 2 is profound. Jah needs a personal name other than Lord, Father, Adonai , Elohim because he needs to be identified from all the other One & Only Gods.

  Its as if "God" is not enough.
• 

  BroMac

  I can give WT that one. in the OT if they want to use "Jehovah" fair enough. But they're taking the piss with the NT. .
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I can give WT that one. in the OT if they want to use "Jehovah" fair enough

  ---

  How? The name "Jehovah" is grammatically impossible in Hebrew. It was the invention of a 14th century A.D. monk, therefore could not have been used by the Israelites.

  The WT has openly admitted in it's own publications that "Yahweh" is the more correct rendering of God's name. So, if "Yahweh" is the more correct rendering, why does WT use "Jehovah" instead?

  The quote above is correct: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew;

  "Jehovah" is a fiction.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Jah needs a personal name other than Lord, Father, Adonai , Elohim because he needs to be identified from all the other One & Only Gods.

  ----

  Additionally, this point is highly significant:

  the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism

  ---

  Since the Jews were monotheistic, it would be completely unnecessary to have a distinguishing name for god, as they only had one god. Being that they only had one god, when any verse said "LORD", everyone reading it would know who was being referred to.

  As the quote highlights, this same approach is equally as applicable to Christianity.

  Since a Jew or Christian recognizes only one god, He doesn't "need" a personal name.

  Re-read the quote !
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Point #1 is completely accurate. No one said Jehovah in Hebrew. We really don't know how to pronounce YHWH in Hebrew or English. If GOD thought that it was important for us to know, then it would have been preserved.

  The real point is not the pronounciation, but the way the WTBTS consistently misquotes sources of information. It's dishonest. Why should I have to wonder if GOD's " one true channel " is being honest or not? Why should I have to check every quote that I see in their publications?
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  The real point is not the pronounciation, but the way the WTBTS consistently misquotes sources of information.

  ---

  And that is exactly the point.

  If source material has to be cherry-picked, and then certain information is strategically eliminated, it undermines the foundation of the original argument and calls into question the validity of the position.

  Truthful arguments require no cherry-picking.
• 

  pixel

  Thanks for this DATA!,

  So, let me see if I'm correct: The WT says that Christendom's churches hold the view that we should not use the proper name of God, they say it's inappropiate,

  But

  the real quote says that the what is inappropiate is (1) the use of the made-up name "Jehovah".

  But I don't understand the point (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

  What is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church? The use of the name "Jehovah", the use of God's name, or the discontinuation of the name by the Jews?

  Thanks!
• 

  BroMac

  By using Jehovah in the OT, WT doesn't complicate matters with the one and only because there is no Jesus yet. However in the NT by inserting Jehovah into places that should be Lord they do, as I say take the piss. It would not matter much to me if in the OT the one and only was referred to as personal name: Dont Cal Me Shirley.

  But the point really here is the selective quoting to make a point that is opposite to the true context.