ANOTHER DISHONEST QUOTE FROM CHRIST'S BROTHERS!

by DATA-DOG 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  JeffJ:I wonder if when I was in a blatant lie like that would have registered with me. Probably not.

  ---

  Once a JW steps away from the WT and looks objectively at it's teachings in light of facts, only then does a person realize how much you accepted (or unconsciously dismissed but had no choice) as "truth" simply because the GB/WT demanded that of you. I accepted things I couldn't explain from the Bible because the WT "said so".

  I didn't realize how many doubts/questions I had about WT until I faded and then had the freedom to explore those questions without fear of retribution from the cong.

  ---

  vidiot: In the Information Age, history no longer favors the victors.

  So true.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  DD: 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.

  ---

  Data, you are correct.

  The Jews came to adopt the view that the Divine name was too sacred to pronounce. So, whenever the tetragrammaton (YHWH) was encountered when reading verse, instead of saying "Yahweh", the person reading would say "adonai"- Lord.

  Since the Jews only had one god, Yahweh, then anyone reading that verse would understand that "Lord"/"adonai" meant Yahweh.

  The Revised Standard does not use the name "Jehovah" at all, and instead uses "Lord",(adonai). When the quote you posted says,"entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church", it means they were reverting back to the Jewish tradition of not seeing a need to specify the Christian's one God by any proper name, and especially by the fictitious proper name of "Jehovah". And, as the quote said, even the proper name of "Yahweh" is not unquestionably accurate, as the original vowels the Jews actually inserted into YHWH has been lost forever. So, when a person is reading scripture and sees "Lord" with a capital or LORD in all capitals, it is understood as referring to God; lord refers to Jesus.
• 

  therevealer

  The point of the thread as I see it is that "THEY ARE BLATANT LIARS". They are using a small part ot the material and twisting it on purpose. They are liars. They are a cult that lies. In line with this thread there really is no need to argue symantics. It simply proves that they are a lying cult.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  They are using a small part ot the material and twisting it on purpose. They are liars.

  ---

  Yes.

  No one is arguing semantics. Just clarifying some points.

  There was a question about the second point in the Revised Standard comment.

  The WT was only partially quoting the RS introduction to make it appear that no other Christians besides JWs honor god's name. When the quote is read in context, it shows just the opposite.

  The scholars translating the RS wished to be as accurate as possible. The WT chooses to go with what's popular, no matter how inaccurate it may be.
• 

  Ding

  If you check the originals of what the WT quotes from outside sources, most of the time you will discover that what the WT left out with their "..." is far more significant than what they left in.
• 

  BU2B

  Good catch DD! The whole article is a lie, because they go on the premise that Jesus used the divine name, even when there is no evidence he ever said anything other than Father. The evidence shows that the Divine name was never spoken centuries before Jesus Birth. In the article they say that the name was used until apostates removed the name after the death of John, and that apostate Christians were the ones who forbade the divine name, when in reality, Christians never used the name and its use was discontinued hundreds of years before. The burden is on the WT to prove otherwise but they cannot because they have no evidence.

  I would post the exact quotes but my cut+paste isnt working
• 

  BU2B

  And they again use the mistranslation of Romans 10 that All those calling on the name of Jehovah will be saved, meaning only them, even though the context of the chapter clearly shows that it is speaking about Jesus, of whom it is said that there is not another name under heaven by which men can be saved! Yet their translation of romans 10 directly contridicts this
• 

  pixel

  Thanks for explaining point (2). "Always check your sources" doesn't go well with the WT.
• 

  leaving_quietly

  I must be dense. I get the point you're trying to make, Data-Dog, and I, too, check all quotes these days for the very same reason you do. In this case, the "..." is taking out information that really doesn't add or take away from WT's stance. I don't see a misquote per se. Either way you look at the quote, the point I get in both cases is that the RSV translators feel that using God's name is entirely inappropriate.

  As far as "as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished" . . . well, there was Baal, Chemosh, Rimmon, etc.

  (I have a feeling I'm gonna get flamed. LOL!)
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  leaving_quietly: taking out information that really doesn't add or take away from WT's stance. I don't see a misquote per se.

  ----

  Well, if the omitted information isn't that important, then why would WT leave it out? There's always a reason why WT does this.

  Whenever you see "[ ] " or "...." in WT literature, that's a virtual guarantee that they've taken something out of context to support some erroneous position.

  The omitted sentence changes everything. By omitting it the WT is implying that because other translations do not use the name "Jehovah", they are disrespecting god and not measuring up to the (false) standard that WT uses to judge who is, or is not, a true Christian. The WT is trying to claim that, because JWs use the name "Jehovah" they are the only true religion.

  The reason WHY these scholars did not use the name "Jehovah" is very logical once you consider the sentence WT purposely left out:

  "as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and "

  This statement, along with the more important point #1, IN CONTEXT, makes all the difference in the world.

  The scholars are saying,

  1. Jehovah is not a Hebrew name (true) and was not invented until many centuries after the Bible was written (true). Therefore, no Jewish or Christian writers used that name because it was impossible for them to use that name (true).

  2. Since to the Jews there was only ONE true god, and to the Christians there was only ONE true god, using Yahweh was redundant. He did not need to be distinguished from gods they did not recognize in the first place.

  3. Since the correct pronunciation of God's name is lost forever (true), the scholars felt no need to get bogged down with semantics (unlike the WT, which doggedly hangs on their own views despite the fact that evidence shows they are wrong). These scholars are actually showing great humility (unlike the WT) and are trying to be as accurate as possible (unlike the WT).

  As far as "as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished" . . . well, there was Baal, Chemosh, Rimmon, etc.

  The Jews did not recognize these as their gods, so there was no futher explanation needed when they encounterd "Lord" in the scriptures.

  Either way you look at the quote, the point I get in both cases is that the RSV translators feel that using God's name is entirely inappropriate.

  Not true, for the reasons stated above. They had no desire to promote something that cannot be proven with evidence. You must look at their statement in context!