ANOTHER DISHONEST QUOTE FROM CHRIST'S BROTHERS!

by DATA-DOG 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  The context of the paragraph clarifies the point:

  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

  The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin;

  For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version

  ----

  "It would not matter much to me if in the OT the one and only was referred to as personal name"

  ----

  Isn't this similar to WT's reasoning? As long as fudging doesn't bother us, we're okay with picking-and-choosing what's acceptable?

  It's no different than saying, "even though the WT calls god "Ralph" in the OT, and I know god's name isn't really" Ralph", I'm okay with it. But, when it also calls god "Ralph" in the NT, now I've got a problem with it!"
• 

  JeffJ

  Bromac and Shirley. I see both your arguments although I didn't understand yours at first Bromac. I think you are saying it is understandable (although with the mis-translation of YHWH not grammatically correct) that someone could use a name in the OT because there was only one instance of a God or higher power but the error gets greatly compounded because they then use that name in the NT to change the readers' understanding of who the scripture is applying to, YHWH or Jesus.

  If I have that correct I think it is a good point that I never thought of before. It does show why the WT is so adamant about using a personal name for God. It allows them to change the meanings of what is written in the NT in a very subtle yet profound way.

  Jeff
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  DATA:

  In further support of your topic, here's yet another example of WT making false claims Re: god's name. Note that this WT quote claims "Jehovah" is Hebrew. Patently false !

  7 What a vital point that clergyman missed when he quoted Jeremiah 31:33, 34: "‘No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord" [Hebrew, "Know Jehovah"], for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ says the Lord [Hebrew, Jehovah]." The translation that he used omitted the distinctive divine name, Jehovah. — Psalm 103:1, 2. - W 12/1/02, p.20, par.7

  ---

  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
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  JeffJ: It allows them to change the meanings of what is written in the NT in a very subtle yet profound way.

  ---

  I agree. WT has inserted the name "Jehovah" into the NWT, new testament, 237 times. The only problem: not one manuscript has been found which contains that name anywhere in the text!

  The Jews understood that when adonai (Lord/LORD) was contained in a passage that it was referring to the one god they believed in, Yahweh. This tradition was carried into Christianity, as is reflected in most translations.

  Of course, "Yahweh" is also questionable, although closer to YHWH than the impossible rendering of "Jehovah".

  The WT must retain that name, as it has become more of a "brand recognition" for them as anything else. Simply calling themselves "Christians" is not good enough.
• 

  JeffJ

  Don't Call me Shirley, It is amazing that they would try that. As I understand it there was no J or V in Hebrew, let alone vowels. I wonder if when I was in a blatant lie like that would have registered with me. Probably not. But it was learning the origin of the name Jehovah that finally removed all doubt for me about the WT.

  Jeff
• 

  Vidiot

  AndDon'tCallMeShirley - "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?"

  'Cause that would be tantamount to admitting they were doing it wrong, and that is an anethema to any authoritarian high-control goup.

  And/or maybe 'cause "Yahweh's Witnesses" sounds... weird?

  It's funny; even when I was In and Active, I had a tendency to use "God" far more often. I didn't know why; it just felt awkward to regularly use "Jehovah".

  In retrospect, I think if was because my parents emphasized the "loving father" aspect of God, and I never called my Dad by his first name, any more than I would address the Queen of England "Elizabeth", or the president of the US "Barack" (hell, even his opponents refer to him as "President Obama").
• 

  Vidiot

  AndDontCallMeShirley - "...not one manuscript has been found which contains that name anywhere in the text!"

  The early WT fathers made a lot of assumptions that I suspect they assumed would be confirmed after the fact by science and history, rather than refuted.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  vidiot: The early WT fathers made a lot of assumptions that I suspect they assumed would be confirmed after the fact by science and history, rather than refuted.

  ---

  The WT uses this same lame argument when it comes to supporting their 607 BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

  They have said they're confident that some yet-to-be-discovered archeological evidence will surface someday that will exonerate the WT's hopelessly untenable dates.

  Must be nice to make fantastic claims, force millions of people to believe it as fact, then prop those claims up by saying that someday you hope things will swing back in your favor.

  As scholarly critics of the WT have often said, WT starts first with the belief, then makes everything fit the belief- no matter how absurd the explanations have to be to make that happen.
• 

  Vidiot

  In the Information Age, history no longer favors the victors.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Let's correct this:

  7 What a vital point that clergyman missed when he quoted Jeremiah 31:33, 34: "'No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord" [Hebrew, "Know YHWH"], for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' says the Lord [Hebrew, YHWH ]." The translation that he used omitted the distinctive divine name, Jehovah.-Psalm 103:1, 2. - W 12/1/02, p.20, par.7

  ADCMS,

  You are correct. Adding " Jehovah " like it is an original Hebrew word is a lie.

  Pixel,

  You asked:

  " 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. "

  I would have to research this one further. I assume they are saying that the Jewish people never said something like, " YHWH GOD" or " YAHWEH GOD ." It's redundant and uneccessary. YHWH was their GOD. They didn't say " GOD GOD." They didn't need to. Everyone knew who YHWH was.

  Maybe ADCMS will chime in on this.

  Peace,

  DD