the word for gods name?

by pallemar 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  jwfacts

  I use this Forum, alot. to see how to argue the bedst way:)

  You will notice a difference between Narkissos' posts and mine. Nark writes from a scholarly point of view, I write from a JW point of view. Though I agree with what Nark says preaching truth to a JW is not always effective. I generally take the approach of undermining the accuracy of WTS arguments, without undermining the very fundamental JW view of the bible.

  In this case Higher Criticism of the bible shows that Genesis was written by a number of people. As Nark shows, some scriptures mention YHWH right back to the time of creation. However, JWs dismiss Higher Criticism, so I generally approach JWs from the simple angle that Genesis 6 says God Almighty did not make his name known to Moses ancestors. Jesus did not use YHWH in the New Testament. Therefore the word Jehovah is not a criteria for salvation.
• 

  Narkissos

  some scriptures mention YHWH right back to the time of creation. However, JWs dismiss Higher Criticism, so I generally approach JWs from the simple angle that Genesis 6 says God Almighty did not make his name known to Moses ancestors.

  jwfacts,

  I understand your strategy. But, as you know, JWs, like other fundamentalists, explain Exodus 6:2f away by suggesting that the meaning of the name Yhwh, not the name itself, is what was first revealed to Moses. Imo you'll have a hard time proving to a fundamentalist mind that the narratively "earlier" uses of Yhwh, especially in speech (Genesis 4:1 etc.), do not imply a historically earlier knowledge and use of the name.
• 

  Terry

  
  I'll never forget the feeling I had when I stopped and thought about my use of the "name" JEHOVAH.

  As Jehovah's Witness I was indoctrinated into thinking about the name:

  1.Honoring the only true God by correctly identifying Him

  2.Demonstrating my special relationship to God by using that name

  3.Distinguishing a living god from the superstitous fictions of false religion

  But, one day I had an epiphany!

  I was with my best friend, Johnny, who always addressed his father by saying, "Dad" or "Sir".

  I asked him, "Why don't you call him by his real name, Steve?"

  Johnny's facial expression was priceless when he answered me.

  "That would be considered disrespectful!"

  A lightbulb went off in my head!!

  It is strange I did not see it before then.

  We don't address our own natural father by name because of respect for his actual special relationship to us.

  He is our FATHER. If we call him by name we merely identify him as a particular person and not as OUR FATHER.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have it all wrong!

  By talking to Almighty God on a one to one basis and using (purportedly) His personal name IT IS PUTTING OURSELVES AS EQUALS with God!

  Jews respected the personal relationship they had with God and did not disrespect him by over-familiarity. They would NEVER PRONOUNCE HIS NAME or even write it fully.

  The Watchtower Society misrepresents this respect, awe and fear of insulting god as SUPERSTITION.
• 

  jwfacts

  Nark,

  It is sad how it is impossible to reason with the mind that is closed. There is always an excuse explanation that allows them to hold onto their beliefs.

  I have sucessfully helped people see that the WTS does not teach truth, but to be honest, in each case these people already knew inside that was the case, and just needed verification. In these situations it has only taken a matter of hours for the entire Watchtower structure to fall in a heap.

  When I was a JW I could not understand why I was never able to convince a Trinitarian that the Trinity is wrong. I still have the same struggle, just from a different angle.
• 

  Terry

  When I was a JW I could not understand why I was never able to convince a Trinitarian that the Trinity is wrong. I still have the same struggle, just from a different angle.

  From my study of the tampering that went on by "pious" frauds it seems pretty clear that the proof texts for support of the Trinity are bogus.

  I don't think this means much in the long run as far as JW's are concerned. The debunking of historical error on their part is effective in exposing the sham of conventional doctrines to a certain extent. After all, that is how they demonstrate they are different. The Watchtower gets its foot in your door by exposing the manipulations. However, this DOESN'T mean what they substitute doctrinally is better. It only shows the game is rigged in both directions.

  When Judaism and the pagan Roman world tried to wear the same pair of shorts some major adjustments were necessary before there was a fit.

  I'm speaking, of course, of the person of Jesus and what he was going to have to represent to become palatable to pagans.

  The transition from Hebrew boy-wonder into demi-god was absolutely essential in a world that expected prominent men of stature to be divine.

  It was simply (well, not SIMPLY) a matter of changing the proof texts, using the iron hand of Emperor-backed orthodoxy and firming up the canon.

  The historical respectability of Judaism was kept while the view of monotheism was tampered with to allow a divinity to represent Messiah's office.

  The core of what being a Jews was all about was jettisoned.

  Ironically, the Watchtower Society is more comfortable with the Judaism/legality aspects and cowers in the Hebrew scriptures for support of most of their wacky views. Except, of course, when they wish to put women down and good old Paul is just dandy for that!
• 

  thinker

  God's name is Sam. It says so right there in the Insight book: Samuel (name of God)

  thinker