Thank you all.
Newly Enlightened
JoinedPosts by Newly Enlightened
-
45
If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.
-
-
-
45
If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Giordano: Well that was a lot of weight to get 'Off my chest" I don't need anymore there. LOL
-
45
If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Thanks everybody.
First thing Mikey said to me this morning after he watched my video was "Man, for someone who used to break out in a rash when she had to give a talk Thurs night or talk at the door this is weird because now you're talking to the ENTIRE world."
I told him but its' what I'M feeling, not what someone else WANTS me to say.
-
45
If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Thank you all.
-
45
If anyone is interested in my 'Coming out' video on Youtube....
by Newly Enlightened inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hx5mghrvbs.
-
-
-
49
What is happening in Mexico?
by ILoveTTATT ini have heard that a lot of the english congregations in mexico are shutting down... they are condensing 5 congregations into one, or in some areas even disbanding the only english congregation.
jw's who have been living in mexico for many years and probably were sheltered by being in the english congregations will now have to move to spanish congregations.... .
ilttatt.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
I have a friend in Hague Netherlands [Holland], that told me the branch there is selling off their 2 large assembly halls and building 1 smaller one and they are closing down ALL of their foreign speaking congregations INCLUDING the English ones. They will only have the Dutch congregations. Interesting.
-
19
Seeing the name "Jehovah" was a catholic invention of the 13th century and was popularised by Apostates because of its usage,"Aid Book",will new light reveal another name in the future ? Maybe Yahweh ?
by smiddy inthe witnesses say the apostacy took place after the last of the apostles died off , the name jehovah was invented by a catholic monk in the 13th century and because of its popularity among christendom (apostates ) it became acceptable.
and they have adopted it ?.
are the jehovahs witnesses following along with apostacy ?
-
-
Newly Enlightened
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
Was also in the 1980 WT 2/1 pg 11-13:
The
DivineNameinLaterTimes
THAT the divine name was used in early history is beyond question. But what about later times? Why have certain Bible translations omitted the name? And what is its meaning and significance to us?
THE
NAME“JEHOVAH”BECOMESWIDELY
KNOWN
Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book PugeoFidei, published in 1270 C.E.—over 700 years ago.
In time, as reform movements developed both inside and outside the Catholic Church, the Bible was made available to the people in general, and the name “Jehovah” became more widely known. In 1611 C.E. the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible was published. It uses the name Jehovah four times. (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4) Since then, the Bible has been translated many, many times. Some translations follow the example of the AuthorizedVersion and include the divine name only a few times.
In this category is AnAmericanTranslation (by Smith and Goodspeed) with a slight variation of using “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” Yet, one may ask: “Why have the translators done this? If using ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Yahweh’ is wrong, why put it in at all? If right, why not be consistent and use it every time it appears in the Bible text?”
Against the preceding historical and factual background, let us now examine what the translators say in answer.
THE
TRANSLATORS’
ANSWER
Says the Preface of AnAmericanTranslation: “In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh.’ ” But by following “the orthodox Jewish tradition,” did the translators realize how harmful it can be to ignore God’s clear determination that his ‘name be declared in all the earth’? Moreover, Jesus condemned man-made tradition that would invalidate God’s word.—Ex. 9:16; Mark 7:5-9.
The Preface of the RevisedStandardVersion states: “The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows . . . thelongestablishedpracticeinthereadingoftheHebrewscripturesinthesynagogue.... For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, wasdiscontinuedinJudaismbeforetheChristianera and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Italics ours.)
The translators made a great mistake in following the example of the KingJamesVersion and Jewish tradition. Did they really think it was God’s will that his name should be kept in the background? IsthedivinenamesomethingtobeashamedofsothatitshouldbeleftoutoftheBible?
RELIGIOUS
PREJUDICE?
An interesting fact is that the AmericanStandardVersion, published in 1901, uses Jehovah’s name right through the Hebrew Scriptures. In contrast, the RevisedStandardVersion, published in 1952, makes only a very brief reference to the Tetragrammaton in a footnote (at Exodus 3:15). During that period, Jehovah’s Witnesses were proclaiming God’s name world wide. Could it be that the omission of the divine name in certain translations was caused by prejudice against their witnessing activity?
That this could be so in some cases is indicated by the following statement appearing in the KatholischeBildepost (a Catholic magazine of Germany): “The name of God, however, which they [Jehovah’s Witnesses] have changed to ‘Jehovah’ is simply an invention of the sect.” (August 24, 1969) This statement smacks of religious prejudice. It also reveals poor research since, as already mentioned, the first writer to use the term “Jehova” was a Catholic monk—obviously not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses!
DOUBLE
STANDARD
“The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” says the Preface of the RevisedStandardVersion. But what word does “accurately represent” the divine name in Hebrew? Some prefer “Yahweh,” others “Yehwah,” others “Jave,” and so on. The problem is that when writing ancient Hebrew only consonants were used, and even experts admit that it is a matter of conjecture as to which vowels made up the complete divine name.
One could also ask those objecting to the form “Jehovah” why they do not object to other names such as “Jesus” or “Peter.” Why do these critics not insist on using the original Greek forms of those names (Iesoús and Petros)? Are these individuals not guilty of applying a double standard in rejecting “Jehovah”?
OTHER
TRANSLATIONS
Many translations, of course, do use “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or some other representation of the Tetragrammaton. Moreover, there are about 40 vernacular translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”) that use a vernacular form of the Tetragrammaton such as Iehova (Hawaiian) and Uyehova (Zulu).
The
BibleinLivingEnglish (by Steven T. Byington) also uses “Jehovah” right through the Hebrew text. In his Preface, Byington says concerning “Jehovah”: “The spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important. What is highly important is to keep it clear that this is a personal name.” Yes, the name of the most exalted Person in the universe is unique, exclusive, incomparable, sublime.
WHAT
DOESTHISUNIQUENAME
MEAN?
To answer this, a historical flashback is appropriate. When he was commissioned by the Most High to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, “Moses said to the true God: ‘Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, “The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,” and they do say to me, “What is his name?” What shall I say to them?’ At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.’ And he added: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.”’” (Ex. 3:13, 14) This means Jehovah would carry his own grand purpose to completion in vindication of his name and sovereignty, and this helps us to understand the memorial name “Jehovah,” given in verse 15. According to the Hebrew root of the name, it appears to mean “He Causes To Become” (or, “Prove To Be”) with respect to himself. Thus God’s name has real significance to thoughtful persons. That name reveals him as being One who unfailingly fulfills what he promises and is perfectly in control of whatever situation may arise.
What a deep, sacred meaning the divine name has! It is the name par excellence of the universe, a glorious name. The term “Lord” is pale and inexplicit in comparison. Jesus loved and respected his Father’s name and once said to him: “Father, glorify your name.” The account continues: “Therefore a voice came out of heaven: ‘I both glorified it and will glorify it again.’”—John 12:28.
If Jesus had been a Bible translator today, would he have omitted his Father’s name from new translations? Hardly! Without a doubt, Jesus, of all persons, had the right attitude toward Almighty God and His name. So what should be our attitude toward God and his name?
-
33
Evolution, Biogeography VS. Experimental archaeology
by Brother of the Hawk ini thought of posting this on an ongoing thread regarding proof of noahs flood by poster *lost*, but i think a separate thread is needed.
this is why.. first my disclaimer.
this thread is a theory since so many people love the theory and so as not to hurt feelings and insult anyone, this is only a theory.. my personal observation is this, as long as you bash watchtower all is ok. as soon as you try to present any resemblance of christianity or any belief in the bible, such as the flood, you are personally bashed.
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Chaserious: Your above comment claims that BoTH quoted from the other topic and you couldn't find it....
Comatose made this comment on page 6 at the top of the page:
Lost is pretty dim witted.
Cofty pit up a picture of the rocks he lives by and has visited. Those rocks show layers and speak to the question you asked him. Lost can't understand or figure out simple things though... She would need it spelled out for a 6th grader.
I would really like it if Lost stopped asking for questions to be answered and did her own research. But, DON'T share your research with us Lost. Just enjoy the wisdom that the strange websites you visit provide (without sharing).
-
33
Evolution, Biogeography VS. Experimental archaeology
by Brother of the Hawk ini thought of posting this on an ongoing thread regarding proof of noahs flood by poster *lost*, but i think a separate thread is needed.
this is why.. first my disclaimer.
this thread is a theory since so many people love the theory and so as not to hurt feelings and insult anyone, this is only a theory.. my personal observation is this, as long as you bash watchtower all is ok. as soon as you try to present any resemblance of christianity or any belief in the bible, such as the flood, you are personally bashed.
-
-
-
24
New
by rod.henderson inhi,.
completely brand new to this site and to witnesses.
a friend introduced me to the jw and i'm just learning all i can..
-
-
Newly Enlightened
Welcome Rod Henderson, glad to have you here with us
