so i was doing research on yhwh in the hebrew scriptures.
i see that the wt admits that yahweh is a more accurate hebrew pronunciation of yhwh.. but, is jehovah an acceptable way to translate yahweh into english?
if not, what is the best way to translate yhwh into english?.
@james_woods
you said:
It is remarkable the the WTBTS actually admits that the english Jehovah is not authentic, though.
I did see in the reference NWT that they admit Yahweh is more accurate. However, isn't Yahweh what the name would be in HEBREW, and not English? I can see the reasoning of translating it to english if that is the case.
so i was doing research on yhwh in the hebrew scriptures.
i see that the wt admits that yahweh is a more accurate hebrew pronunciation of yhwh.. but, is jehovah an acceptable way to translate yahweh into english?
if not, what is the best way to translate yhwh into english?.
So I was doing research on YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures. I see that the WT admits that Yahweh is a more accurate Hebrew pronunciation of YHWH.
But, is Jehovah an acceptable way to translate Yahweh into english? If not, what is the best way to translate YHWH into English?
Freeminds.org says the following:
The Watchtower counter-argument, which holds some weight, is that it does not matter how you pronounce the name, since in every language the pronunciation of the same name will differ, sometimes far from the original, but that you use the name. The name "Jesus" is cited as an example, as is "Joshua" and "Jeremiah." since in Hebrew these names were pronounced more like "Yeshua," "Yehoshua" and "Yermiyahu." They argue that we do not fail to say "Jesus" just because it was not the way his name was actually pronounced. They charge those who do not use "Jehovah" with being inconsistent, since these same ones use the name of Jesus. So far, the Watchtower argumentation is logical.
So, if the Bible is going to have an English translation of YHWH in it, would the best choice be Jehovah (from Yahweh)?
And...spare me any TROLL statements. I've been posting on here for a while now. I'm just trying to find truth for myself.
i was reading the following page:.
http://ajwrb.org/currentwtpolicy/callingsociety.htm.
can a jw still be df or da for taking a blood transfusion, if they are not "repentant"?.
So, with what happened in Bulgaria...
Is there chance that the Bulgarian government will realize what really happens when one takes blood?
best site for refuting blood doctrine?
can everyone give their input?.
i have read jwfacts and it is real good..
Best Site For Refuting Blood Doctrine? Can everyone give their input?
I have read jwfacts and it is real good.
is the obedience the fds expects from jws the same obedience that jw wives owe their jw husbands?.
if yes, would this mean that a jw wife should submit to any medical direction that came from her husband, even if the consequences were serious?
would this mean that it would be right for a jw husband to tell his wife if blood fractions, organ transplant, etc.
Is the obedience the FDS expects from JWs the same obedience that JW wives owe their JW husbands?
If yes, would this mean that a JW wife should submit to any medical direction that came from her husband, even if the consequences were serious?
Would this mean that it would be right for a JW husband to tell his wife if blood fractions, organ transplant, etc. were acceptable for her? Perhaps the wife knows that her husband has changed his mind in the past, many times, concerning "acceptable" medical procedures for the entire family. And, perhaps she has personally prayed and studied the Bible, discovering that she sees nothing wrong with the medical procedures he forbids.
Of course, disobedience would not be grounds for the husband to divorce her. However, would she not be rejecting God's arrangement and taking an independent course by disobeying? (Liken to disfellowshipping)
What should she do?
i was reading the following page:.
http://ajwrb.org/currentwtpolicy/callingsociety.htm.
can a jw still be df or da for taking a blood transfusion, if they are not "repentant"?.
I was reading the following page:
http://ajwrb.org/currentwtpolicy/callingSociety.htm
Can a JW still be DF or DA for taking a blood transfusion, if they are not "repentant"?
you can cut & paste all the excerpts from articles you want...you can leak all the boe letters, you can pretend to be witnesses and come to the conventions and meetings...but.
no other organization can begin to rival the success and magnitude of the prophecy found in mt 24:14. so apostates....don't waste your time spending countless hours digging up articles and reading books to convince yourself to turn away from jh's organization.
no matter what "evidence" you find you cannot ignore the obvious fulfillment of matthew 24:14.. .
The first thing I would ask the OP is:
"At what point would, or what would the FDS have to do/teach, to show you that they did not have God's full approval?"
the proclaimers book (published by the wtbts) contains a very interesting statement:.
on page 709, paragraph 1, it states:.
it should not surprise us that in modern times too, jehovah has often led his people as a progressive organization, gradually enlightening them as to bible truths.
The Proclaimers book (published by the WTBTS) contains a very interesting statement:
On page 709, paragraph 1, it states:
It should not surprise us that in modern times too, Jehovah has often led his people as a progressive organization, gradually enlightening them as to Bible truths. It is not the truths themselves that change. Truth remains truth. Jehovah’s will and purpose, as outlined in the Bible, remain fixed. (Isa. 46:10) But their understanding of these truths gets progressively clearer “at the proper time,” Jehovah’s due time. (Matt. 24:45; compare Daniel 12:4, 9.) At times, because of human error or misguided zeal, their viewpoint may need to be adjusted.
Why is this statement so interesting? The WTBTS usually steers away from stating that new doctrine is due to "human error". To admit that a past teaching is due to human error may cause a person to come to the conclusion:
Since you were wrong once, you could be wrong again.
However, JWs are told:
"We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s approval." Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 p.24 Simplified English Edition
"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14
"We will be saved only if we obey instructions from God's Word and organization." Watchtower 2012 April 15 p. 26 (caption).
"The point is that Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization." Watchtower 1974 July 15 p.441
"Avoid questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization . some who point out that the organization has had to make some adjustments before, and so they argue: "This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe." This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous?" Watchtower 1983 Jan 15 p.22
***w117/15p.28par.17God’sRest—WhatIsIt?***
On the other hand, if we minimized the Bible-based counsel that we receive through the faithful and discreet slave class, choosing to follow an independent course, we would be placing ourselves at odds with God’s unfolding purpose. This could endanger our peaceful relationship with Jehovah.
Therefore, regardless of how serious the consequences of obeying may be, JWs are told that they must obey the FDS, even if they are later found wrong due to simple human error.
So, if a person rejected a certain medical procedure, based upon past "understandings" (albumin, organ transplant, etc.) and suffered/died, it is explained as "human error"? Is this correct?
this post was inspired by rory-ks' post at http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/224582/1/so-lets-kick-this-revolution-up-a-gear.. a general strike?.
in response to an open ended innocuous call like:.
"if you are not 100% satisfied with everything you see, hear and experience within the congregation please join your brothers and sisters in communicating this to the powers that be by means of a general worship at home strike starting from 21 dec 2012 until all your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed via www.jwconcerns.com"?.
This site provides confidential documents via being leaked on sites like sendspace.
do i have this right?.
jw are to be completely obedient to the fds.
they are not to question, speak against the teachings of, or disobey the fds.. however, the fds's teachings change and many past teachings are now seen as incorrect.. still, though, jws are to completely and unquestionably obey all teachings of the fds, no matter if they personally believe such are wrong or if they carry severe consequenses.. .
You said
Steven Unthanks' legal case in Victoria, Au named the "faithful and discreet slave" as a possible defendant, but the Watchtower legal eagle came back and indicated that the FDS is not a real person, group, or legal entity, but only "a theological concept." That was a lie.
Are there court documents that confirm the WTBTS said this? I would love to see them as confirmation.
Thanks
