jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
All any JW need do is read the NWT appendix, among other publications.
The Watchtower presentation is very difficult to follow, because they make it appear like the J manuscripts are original writings. Only the most astute JW would see through the obfuscation.
The people for God's name at Acts 15 are Christians. The chapter is about Jesus. It seems you never got past the Watchtower Arian understanding of the NT. You are starting to sound like a JW apologist.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
jwfacts I appreciate you believe the evidence is not strong enough. JWs and a number of non-JW scholars feel otherwise
A number of scholars do, a number don't. I prefer the don't position, but if more solid evidence came to light I would have no problem updating my position. Either way, it would have zero relevance to what I think about Watchtower teachings.
JWs ... feel otherwise
99.9% of JWs don't feel otherwise, because they don't have an opinion. As a JW, I had no idea that Watchtower had added the word Jehovah to the NT, and I have never known any other JWs that were aware of this either. They assume it appears in the discovered NT manuscripts, in the same way that it appears in the OT manuscripts.
JWs are not evidence based, they are faith based, and that faith rests solely in what the GB state. That is why I would like to know why you think this topic is important. Evidence of the divine name in the NT is no more important than evidence of Jerusalem's fall in 607. JWs believe it regardless of any evidence.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
You misrepresent Howard, because he presents it as a hypothesis, whereas you say he "obviously" believed it. I already addressed this comment of yours. Your use of obviously is as hollow as Watchtower's use of clearly when they make a comment that has no support.
Would almighty God have allowed this group of Christians to champion his name at this crucial time if they did not enjoy his blessing and support?
The reason this can never be a big issue with JWs is because of the "elephant in the room." If using the name Jehovah is a requirement of salvation, Jehovah would not have allowed it to be removed. At the very least, in "this crucial time" of the last days, he would have allowed some NT fragments to be found with the Divine name. If over a century after the last days started there has not been a single fragment discovered, and nothing more than a handful of lone scholars hypothesising about this theory, it cannot be of any importance to Jehovah at all.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
SBF - I'm still waiting on a number of answers from you.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
And I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out that a number of scholars support JWs on the divine name in the NT
Except that the general consensus of scholars, such as Watchtower'a beloved BeDuhn, do not support the Divine name in the NT. You have cherry picked the couple you agree with. It is always possible to find a scientist or scholar that goes against the majority, regardless of topic, be it Global warming, creationism and most conspiracy theories.
In addition, you are misrepresenting Howard at least, who is not dogmatic that the Divine name was in the NT, but suggests it as a possibility.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
But the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of Jehovah's name. I'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of JW events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
They are only ahead of the curve if it eventually is proven that the divine name was used throughout the NT, until then they are not ahead of any curve. Neither is this a phenomenal success. JW growth is just a fraction of that of Pentecostals, whom number over 100 million. I thought you were joking with this introduction, but it seems you were serious.
I would like to understand is why you think finding YWHW in a NT fragment would have any significant affect on JWs. I have presented why I think it would make little difference.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
I would hate to have you on a jury. Evidence it was in use at the time is not evidence it was in the NT, it is circumstantial evidence at the very best. What I see is a list of rhetorical fallacies - straw-man arguments and arguments from authority.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
It should be "obvious" that a scholar who argues for a position agrees with the position he is arguing for.
Not at all. It should be obvious people set out to make a name for themselves, and presenting a theory with the hope that it may later be proven is how scholars and scientist set themselves up to make that name for themselves.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
The divine name was in use in certain circles in the first century, but as yet there is no evidence of the divine name being in the New Testament. SBF, this has always been an important topic to you, yet as I mentioned, it is irrelevant to Watchtower longevity. There will be little more than a ripple if a fragment of a NT book is found with the divine name in it, partly because JWs are not aware of how dishonest Watchtower has been in propping up this doctrine.
jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.
but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .
i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.
jwfawcts much has been made of the fact George Howard presented his idea as a "theory". It's true he wasn't dogmatic, he didn't need to be. He wasn't a JW and his faith didn't depend on it. But did he believe he was correct about the divine name in the NT? Well obviously he did or else why make the argument and assemble all the evidence to make his case? Plus his later work continued the theme as he attempted to demonstrate that an early form book of Matthew in Hebrew used the divine name.
jwfawcts - Is that a lisp, or a Boston accent?
Using the word "obviously" to support an assumption makes that sound like a Watchtower paragraph. Howard was not that dogmatic, he presents this as just a hypothesis, as per his following quote.
"The above examples are, of course, only exploratory in nature and are set forth here programatically. Nevertheless, the evidence is sufficiently strong to suggest that the thesis of this paper is quite possible. We have refrained from drawing too many conclusions due to the revolutionary nature of the thesis. Rather than state conclusions now in a positive manner it seems better only to raise some questions that suggest a need for further explanation."
