j2s, You seem to miss the point of your own argument. Within the privacy of the royal household the POW may indeed be called by a distinctive name, by members of his family. But you and I, who are not members of that arrangement are not ENTITLED to use any other name to adress him.
If you were to meet him and ask him his "name" he would reply: "My name is the POW" Thus in this respect, the terms "name" and "title" are synonymous, not mutually incompatible.As I said in my previous post, AS FAR AS WE are concerned, his name is "The POW" and THAT is the correct form of adress for us.
Titles such as "sherrif" and "mayor" are not unique, because there are several hundreds in the USA alone. Also, and this is most important, they do not reflect an inheritance that is a consequence of birth. These titles such as "mayor" remain relevant only insofar as the will of the people makes it possible for the holder to use them. Indeed, there are several "princes" in the world today, despite the wave of democracy sweeping the world, but only ONE "POW"
The relationship between us and the Holy Spirit is illustrated by a comment in Acts 13:2. Someone is said to be speaking, and is clearly identified for us: "The Holy Spirit said......" irrespective of whatever His distinctive name may be, AS FAR AS WE are concerned He is "The Holy Spirit"
Similarly, when the newspapers report that "The POW said today......" it is illustrating OUR relationship to the POW, not that of his mum and dad
Incidently, commenting on the verse at Acts 13:2, and obviously feeling the need to deflect any attribution of personality to The Holy Spirit, The WT of Aug 1st 87, said :"Evidently using the HS, Jesus, as the head of the congregation, said........" In all due respect, that is NOT what the texr says. The text clearly reflects our relationship to someone who is clearly identified.
And yes, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the New. My point is that attributing a name such as "jehovah" must, if it is to be applied, be applied consistently. It is only when this is applied consistently, that the identity of the God of both testaments is established. It is blatantly obvious, that the WT Bible, amusingly called a "translation" has intruded into the inspired text by selectively applying this word "jehovah" only insofar as it can justify their own teaching.