Spike,
I must be honest, that sound quite, well...horrid.
Cold, impersonal, lacking in love...
can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.
is this correct?.
.
Spike,
I must be honest, that sound quite, well...horrid.
Cold, impersonal, lacking in love...
can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.
is this correct?.
.
Spike,
While I appreciate and agree with your post, it doesn't answer my question.
Not to be an ass but, does the WT teach that uttering the name Jehovah is needed for salvation?
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Possible-san,
What is the UBS ?
if a paedophile commits a crime against a junior there has to be, according to the watchtower two witnesses for action to be taken.. if one party of a marriage commits adultery, does there have to be the same, (two witnesses) before action is taken?.
if not........................ kt.
.
While I think that the "rule" of multiple witnesses is a good one, it should not keep from the investigation into allegations of ANY Crime being commited.
Also, there is the fact that hearing were public when that rule was created, is that the case also in the WT ?
Are accused or people on "trial" able to request a public trial with their accusers present?
I know that is not desriabel in all cisrcumstances, but I think in terms of disfellowhip issues, it shoudl be policy.
I don't think itneeds to be applied to crimes or allegations of crimes, that is the police and courts Job.
i just have to share that my twins are 28 today.. we are planning a birthday party for them, my daughter , i and their friends.. .
i have not done anything for their birthdays since they were small boys.. i just got very sad for all those birthdays we never had.. .
they are great kids, it's going to be a great party!!!.
Happy Birthday to your little ones !
My Sofia just truned 6 and Marisa is turing 2 on July 30.
Two beloved blessing in my life that I thank God and Jesus for everyday !
i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.
why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.
in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .
Spike,
LOL !
It has nothing do do with boxing, bro, it has to do with covering the matchbox before striking a match !
I boxed too, western and Muay Thai, good fun, well, expcet for getting hit, LOL !!
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Spike,
I can understand that you would think that the "Is the name YHWH in the New testatment" makes the most sense, because it says what you have said before, but id doesn't prove it.
Now, that siad, like I have mentioned before, the use of YHWH in the NT in regards to OT passages that are being quoted is something that NO ONE argues with, if of course the tetragrammaton was there to begin with and IF it does NOT change the context of the passage/verse/chapter.
That is truly the big issue more than any other.
Also, the continued reference to the passges that mention the word "NAME" or show Jesus saying the word "NAME" don't ADD to your argument because, as we know NAME has far greater meaning than the actual name AND because Jesus Says the word NAME and DOES NOT say the actual NAME !
how could god have always existed since it plainly says near the end of that verse before me there was no god formed?.
here is the quote from the nwt and i also looked it up on numerous other translations and they all used the word before.. .
isaiah 43:10. you are my witnesses, is the utterance of jehovah, even my servant whom i have chosen, in order that you may.
Spike,
There is one God, there is one begotten Son of God, through whom all was created, there is the Holy Spirit of God the flows through Jesus.
While OT scripture like to throw the term "god" around a bit too much, probably a big reason why they were always in so much trouble ;), lets be clear that angels are inferior to God and Jesus and lest not forget that, according to Paul, "we will be judge of Angels".
They are not Gods and it would do us well to respect the NT in noth throwing the term "god" around so losely as they did in the OT.
i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.
why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.
in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .
Spike,
Cover box before striking match.
;)
can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.
is this correct?.
.
lezeelem,
The JW's made an issue of the name of God, no one else did, they proclaim that they are the true organization based on, amongst other, fact that they use the Lord's name when, in fact, it is NOT the Lord's name and is, at best, a translation of YHWH and Adonai.
Its not a question of God wanting his name used or not, name has far more to it than the letters that comprise it, it is the fact that the use of the term Jehovah is MADE an issue by JW's, now I ask this:
Is the use, or non-use, of the name Jehovah basis for salvation, yes or no?