ANOTHER DISHONEST QUOTE FROM CHRIST'S BROTHERS!

by DATA-DOG 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DATA-DOG

  w87 3/1 15 'Upon the Watchtower I Am Standing'
  
  "Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed. Furthermore, those who assist in writing articles for The Watchtower are Christian elders who appreciate the seriousness of their assignment. (Compare 2 Chronicles 19:7.) They spend many hours in researching the Bible and other reference material to make sure that what is written is the truth and that it faithfully follows the Scriptures. (Ecclesiastes 12:9, 10; 2 Timothy 1:13) It is not unusual for one magazine article-that you may read in 15 minutes-to take from two weeks to over a month to prepare".

  Oops!! They missed one!! Actually, it appears that they missed one, in every WT, for 130 years!!!! They scrutinize and spend many hours?! It took me about 2 minutes to see that they had misquoted the Revised Standard Edition committee. Oh, well.. I am just a spiritually weak, negative fault finding person.
• 

  *lost*

  Data

  ADCMS

  excellent.

  This is exactly the same point I have been trying to make re-jehovah.

  if jehovah means god of wickedness and perversion - how are we to just 'accept' it is God's name.

  The trouble is, I found it so hard to get in-depth information on it, it took a lot of rooting about.

  Everywhere you go it automatically states God's name as jehovah, but it's not, it cannot be so, but people just seem to accept things so easily, even though they are proved to be incorrect.

  Interestingly - the ancient world was saturated with paganism and magic, there were many pagan gods.

  I came across some research which said the Abraham grew up with the belief and knowledge of the True God, and it was handed down father to son, etc, it was preserved by Moses and handed down. Abraham knew who the true God was, as did Moses, hence when God called Abraham to leave Ur, Abraham knew exactly what he was doing, as did Moses.

  which is why the answer God gave to Moses '' I AM '' was sufficient, it symbolises everything about Gods identity and way.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  DATA: It took me about 2 minutes to see that they had misquoted the Revised Standard Edition committee.

  ---

  I think that's about 119 more seconds than WT spent. LOL.

  Reason: if they're not going to print the facts anyway, I'm sure the standard approach in the Writing Dept. is, "I'm not wasting one more second on looking anything up!".
• 

  *lost*
• 

  Island Man

  The WT has openly admitted in it's own publications that "Yahweh" is the more correct rendering of God's name. So, if "Yahweh" is the more correct rendering, why does WT use "Jehovah" instead?

  The quote above is correct: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew;

  "Jehovah" is a fiction.

  I beg to disagree. Every Hebrew name in the bible is translated to an English version in English bibles - "Jeremiah", "Isaiah", "Joshua", "Zedekiah", etc. So why is it that translators have no problem with these but must make an issue over the fact that "Jehovah" does not match the Hebrew? I think it's somewhat hypocritical. We are talking about English language and English bibles, right? So why the focus on the correct Hebrew pronounciation?

  Is God going to be upset if you don't pronounce his name in perfect Hebrew? The angels speak a different language, do they have to pronounce his name in perfect Hebrew? Has God exalted the Hebrew language above all others so that his name must only be pronounced in the Hebrew form it was revealed in?

  Also, consider the fact that the same sources see absolutely nothing wrong with using the form "Jesus" even though this is different from the original Greek whose pronounciation they do know (Iesous) and which, by the way, is a Greek translation done by inspired bible writers . . .

  Consider: Acts 4:12 says of Jesus' name: "There is not another name given under heaven by which men might be saved" (or something like that). So if critics are saying the use of "Jehovah" is wrong, then God help those critics if He uses their own reasoning against them to deny them salvation through their use of the "inaccurate" "Jesus" which, technically speaking (their own knit-picking, technically speaking) isn't the name given by which we must be saved!

  I am a strong critic of Jehovah's Witnesses because I know they are wrong on many things, including misquoting sources, but the use of the name "Jehovah" is not one of them. I think the use of Jehovah is the worse (most unwarranted) criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  Comatose

  Great post that didn't get props.

  Ding said - " If you check the originals of what the WT quotes from outside sources, most of the time you will discover that what the WT left out with their "..." is far more significant than what they left in."

  so true!
• 

  NeverKnew

  marked
• 

  jwfacts

  Island Man, Acts 4:12 is referring to Jesus, not YHWH.

  11 Jesus is

  “‘the stone you builders rejected,
  which has become the cornerstone.’ [ a ]

  12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

  Also, you are taking point 1 of the quote in isolation from point 2. Together the quote was stating that since Jehovah is an inaccurate rendition, and the use of YHWH was discontinued for good reason by Christian times, then the correct course is to follow the early Christian example and not use it today either.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  The point is not how to pronounce God's name. I have a friend names Esteban. Some call him Steve, he doesn't care. The point is that the WTBTS deliberately misquotes sources time after time, after time. It's dishonest. This is especially ironic in view of the latest spiritual food from the " Faithful and discreet slave ", which states ," Truth, honesty, and accuracy are the hallmarks of everything the organization does."
• 

  *lost*

  Data Dog

  I was doing some thinking on this last night.

  As anyone here knows by now I am sure, I am very focused on the whole misrepresentation and use of Gods identity and name.

  There is plenty of information on this sire for interested ones to do their own research on it, and find the facts.

  This was the piece of my puzzle that set me free.

  Anyway. back to last night.

  What popped into my head was this.

  Tetragrammaton

  4 Letters ?

  or

  4 words ?