by Listener 17 Replies latest watchtower bible
''Isn`t the very name JEHOVAH in error ? Isn`t it more correct to say that the pronunciation of God`s name is more likely YAHWEH or even YEHOWAH or some such thing ?
Certainly not JEHOVAH. ''
It speaks volumes when a borganization who claims to speak for God,,,gets the Divine name wrong.
If they get the name of their 'God' wrong,,,,,then you wake up and realize if that is wrong,,,,then how many other things they get wrong.
ie,,,,the cross, last days, generation what not, the list is endless.
I was under the impression that we can't really know the exact spelling of the Hebrew God's name, since the way they wrote it was abbreviated for any manuscripts that we have found. And the ancient Hebrew language did not have the letter "J", so any name that uses that letter in English is 'wrong' in the same way that "Jehovah" is wrong. Is any of this incorrect?
I would think that there is a bigger concern with promoting the idea of a God who wants a personal relationship with us, but doesn't seem to care if we get His name right. Or maybe that's the point: God is God, the name doesn't really matter because He knows what you mean when you speak of Him.
This article was studied in congregations this weekend.
The OP is right. It's pretty bizarre they had an entire article with a theme about "The Way... of Holiness" and completely skipped over the link to first century Christians and, you know, that chap Jesus Christ!
Jesus said he himself is "The way... and the truth and the life", and at Acts 9 it shows that for the first Christians, their course of life was known as "The Way". They could've at least referenced these points in a couple of paragraphs to show "The Way of Holiness" being progressively revealed. But no, not a single mention of Jesus and the establishment of Christianity in the first century in this article.
Yet there were several paragraphs about three 19th century men who happened to have a few theories, and then a whole box about stuff the early Bible Students and then JWs got wrong "refined"!
Amazing.
The old GB's studies used to be odd enough at times, but it seems the GB2.0 have given up even trying to appear 'scholarly' or thorough in covering scriptural topics.
1927-1928: Christmas is understood to be a pagan celebration
1928-1936: The use of the cross is gradually discontinued
Strange that according to them only JW's were workers on the roadway receiving instruction from Jehovah here in the United States. Fifty years prior to this my great-great grandfather was a minister of some note in England, even traveling an annual circuit to preach sermons to remote congregations. He was already preaching about Christmas and the use of the cross then, and that the soul was not immortal. He was what was termed as a "dissenter" against the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Church of England. Some time worn writings in his own hand state how in the late 1800's he traveled to Pennsylvania, USA to meet with others who had similar beliefs.
But of course the governing body has proclaimed that they, and ONLY they are the channel of Bible teaching. I would like to hear them explain why it was only the U.S. that had their "truth"?
Oddly enough there was quite a bit of discussion of the 'Highway of Holiness' in the Studies in the Scriptures. I forget which volume of the Studies it was, but if I remember correctly it was an entire chapter. I don't have the patience anymore to go look for it, but I am a bit curious to know what old Chucky had to say about it.
I don't have the patience anymore to go look for it, but I am a bit curious to know what old Chucky had to say about it.
"Ask, and it shall be given you" as it says somewhere!
http://www.thestudiesinthescriptures.com/Pages/English/Eng%20V1/Eng%20Vol%201%20Ch%2011.htm
Thanks for putting me on to that!
"You would think that those who proclaim to be his witnesses would get the pronunciation of his name correct wouldn`t you ?"
Define correctness?
And how would that correctness be reached or known?
"1956: The sanctity of marriage is clarified"
What do they mean here?
What are their examples of"non-abhorrent pornography"?
