What IS Gods name anyway? (page 2)

detective

I'm thinking it's Roger.

but I could be wrong...

Oroborus21

Howdy Alan,

Well I don't know if there is an alternative that is both more accurate while not being awkward for modern times.

I personally am not against the use of the name Jehovah.

My position is more focused on the aspect that Witnesses too often trumphet the use of the name as (one factor) which marks them as God's only approved organization or congregation today.

My point is that the use of the name is an error-even one which official Witness publications acknowledge--and for that reason alone there is no call to make such a showy display of the use of the name. Not too mention that general decency and humility should require that one not think too highly of himself or the group that he or she belongs to. That seems to me to be more Christ-like.

But as we know the very Witness culture including the various doctrines, especially the major foundational doctrine of the FDS which emphasizes that they have the only real truth and are the only divine channel of communication today--all of these factors contribute to an air of superiority and confidence. (and the claim of special use of the Divine Name is just another additional factor)

Anyone who has ever been a Witness has felt that way at one time or another and it is sad really because Jesus, though at times ultimately confident in his truth, never appears that way in the Scriptures--certainly he never walked around poking fun or feeling smug at others lack of their knowledge of God. No, to those who taught the Law and should have known God, he called them on the carpet for their error and especially for their mistreatment of others. And for everyone else he was nothing but a beacon and a welcoming place for them to come to learn about God from him.

Christians should imitate his example. I think worrying about the small things, such as the correct pronunciation of God's Name is exactly the kind of thing Jesus was talking about as being an error of the religious leaders. True those religious leaders felt such small things were divinely important, even necessary to salvation (so strain those gnats, etc.) but Jesus showed us what was really more important.

-Eduardo

gumby

Do you think Jehovah, or yahweh, was first......the God of the Jews? First to Moses, by his NAME right?

Did you know that a group BEFORE the Israelites existed........worshipped Yahweh, or Jehovah?

They were called the" Ugarits". They dwealt around the mediterranian sea too. The Jews adopted their God and is the God most call God today, and id the God of the bible. Problem is......the "Ugarits God Yahweh.....was a lesser God and a warrior God. The gnostics in Jesus day still believed this about Jehovah being a lesser warrior God. This would explain why this Jehovah slaughtered women babies and children by the millions in the bible.........and a whole bunch more men.

If you want to see if it's true.........type in Ugarits in your a address bar and look it up yourself.....cuz I'm too damn lazy to do it for you

Gumby

Edited by - Gumby on 22 January 2003 18:40:38

Mary

Isn't it George Burns?

Elsewhere

the "Ugarits God Yahweh.....was a lesser God and a warrior God.

Wow... that would certainly explain the frequent use of the phrase "Jehovah of armies" in the OT.

AlanF

Howdy Eduardo,

: Well I don't know if there is an alternative that is both more accurate while not being awkward for modern times.

I don't either. So given the absence of a better alternative, I see nothing wrong with anyone using "Jehovah". Or "Yahweh" or whatever is generally recognized as being uniquely a form of the divine name. Therefore, saying that "Jehovah" is "wrong" or whatever, is incorrect. I've seen plenty of people say this, especially Evangelicals, but they never offer an alternative, and they don't use any form of the divine name. Yet such critics have no problem using "Jesus" even though everyone knows that it's "wrong" and that almost exactly the same arguments can be brought against its use as against using "Jehovah". I think that's just plain hypocritical.

Of course, I think you and I will agree that the real reason Evangelicals and others dislike use of "Jehovah" is because JWs have misappropriated the name for themselves, and have besmirched it by their stupid doctrines and evil practices such as DF'ing and covering up child molestation.

: My position is more focused on the aspect that Witnesses too often trumphet the use of the name as (one factor) which marks them as God's only approved organization or congregation today.

Exactly.

: My point is that the use of the name is an error-even one which official Witness publications acknowledge--

But it's not an error, any more than using "Jesus" is an error. Names are sometimes transliterated or even translated from one language to another. So long as the native speakers all agree that such usage is conventional, it is by definition correct. This is so even if there is little resembance between the forms of the name in the various languages. For example, "William" in English is translated into "Guillermo" in Spanish. Not much resemblance there. The point is that convention determines correct usage. This is so even when a translated name was initially done incorrectly. Long usage defines what is correct.

: and for that reason alone there is no call to make such a showy display of the use of the name.

I agree that they should not make such a showy display, but not for that reason.

: Not too mention that general decency and humility should require that one not think too highly of himself or the group that he or she belongs to. That seems to me to be more Christ-like.

Precisely. The fact that the Watchtower Society originally used the generic term "Jehovah's witnesses" (note the lowercase "w") rather than the label "Jehovah's Witnesses" proves that its leaders deliberately set out to tell the world that they and only they had "the truth" and were uniquely approved by God. This gross display of arrogance is thoroughly unchristian because it's diametrically opposed to the Christian doctrine that only God decides who is faithful. It's also deceptive, because the Society has often used the generic term to say things like, "Jesus was one of Jehovah's witnesses and in fact was his greatest witness".

: But as we know the very Witness culture including the various doctrines, especially the major foundational doctrine of the FDS which emphasizes that they have the only real truth and are the only divine channel of communication today--all of these factors contribute to an air of superiority and confidence. (and the claim of special use of the Divine Name is just another additional factor)

Absolutely!

: Christians should imitate his example. I think worrying about the small things, such as the correct pronunciation of God's Name is exactly the kind of thing Jesus was talking about as being an error of the religious leaders.

Right, which is why I think that making a big deal over whether "Jehovah" is correct is silly. Critics ought to focus on the real issues as we've discussed above.

AlanF

freedom96

We can go on forever wondering how to pronounce his name, spellings, etc. It is no secret in many religions that the modern day pronouniation of His name is Jehovah, and there have been a few variations.

The problem I have is this. The WTS uses it too much. Number one, could it be disrespectful? On earth here we have titles and such for people in positions of authority. You would never go to a judge and call him by his first name. Or even last. Your Honor, etc, is what is acceptable. How are we supposed to justify calling the Supreme Being by his first name?

I think too, that the witnesses use it so much, it totally takes away from the meaning, its worth.

I just think it is disrespectful.

Sargon

Is his name really as important as the WTS would have everyone beleive? Supposedly faith in him is the most important part. What was his response to Moses... I am what I am, or something like that.

A rose by any other name...

Farkel

Jesus didn't use God's actual name in his model prayer in Matthew 6, so why should anyone else? He used "father in Heaven?" How many different "father's in Heaven" do you think you have? Do think God would think you were disrespectful for using that term, when that's exactly what Jesus did? Do you think God would think you were referring to some other "father in heaven" if you used that expression?

Or, if you address God as the Creator or my Creator, do you think you were praying to baal, or a group of aliens, instead of God himself?

Let me let you in on a little secret: Joseph Rutherford concocted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and his insistence on using "Jehovah" in prayer and nearly everywhere else for two reasons, and neither of them were good reasons: 1) He wanted to distinguish his little pet Cult from the old Bible Students, and 2) He wanted his little pet Cult to stand out and look to be different from all other Christian religions. Most of the current Governing Body either worked personally with Rutherford or remember him, and they are just too stupid or too lazy to un-do most of the crap that Rutherford brough into the religion, including the silly emphasis on gettings God's name right. God knows his own name, and that's good enough for me. He also knows who's praying to Him alone and who isn't. The name "Jehovah" isn't some sort of "password" that let's prayers from folks pass the scrutiny of his secretary then get forwarded on to Him.

Farkel

Warrigal

I agree with Farkel....if the prayer that Jesus prayed is counted as the "model prayer" then we shouldn't presume to use the personal name of God, whatever it is. I personally prefer Heavenly Father or Great God. Warrigal

What IS Gods name anyway?

Share this