which are the strong points of the WT?

by marcopolo 107 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  debator

  Hi Isaac

  I do have reading comprehension I also look at the scriptural context.

  Pauls starts this whole chapter with the following words.

  Romans 10:1 (New International Version)

  Romans 10

  1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

  The God of the israelites is shown to be saviour.

  Next we look at 14-16 the scriptures after the controversial one.

  Romans 10:14-16 (New International Version)

  14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" [a]

  16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" [ b ] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

  Who is the one we should believe in? and who has brought good news about him? who brought the message of him?

  !7 shows that the messenger was Jesus whose word it came though. He cannot be the messenger as well as the the source. you cannot be a messenger to yourself (yes I know trinitarians have a whole belief system based on this oxymoron). clearly this is indicating Jehovah not Jesus.

  It is also established that this is a direct quotation of Joel.
• 

  PSacramento

  Debator,

  It seems like you are suggesting that God AND Jesus are both saviours, is that what you are saying?

  Why, that sound like God and Jesus are the same person !
• 

  PSacramento

  ACTS 4:8-12

  8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is

  “ ‘the stone you builders rejected,

  which has become the capstone. a ’ b

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

  isaacaustin

  Debator, you only have these issues if you try to deny the Deity of Christ. Understanding the revelation of the God of the Israelites as Jesus it is pretty plain. This direct quotation is nonsense and totally irrelevant.
• 

  isaacaustin

  And I beleive I showed you a direct quote where the WT decides not to follow their own translation guidelines because it would contradict their theology.
• 

  debator

  Hi outlaw

  It is a transliteration option since it is YHWH that is completely Gods name without vowels in written Ancient hebrew and a tranliterated name into another language (in this case English) that gets established using these letters can hardly be called a mistake. You would have to prove there is a correct choice which is impossible since Only Ancient hebrews knew which sounds went with which consonants. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how any name was pronounced in ancient hebrew since all sounds were lost. The addition of pointers for vowels 500 years later were best guesses by the then hebrew people amd incorrect by your standards. It was these pointers they removed due to superstition over God's name which is weird since they were not correct and only best guesses themselves.

  I let it go your saying a monk is the source but the current thoughts are that he got his lettering from semitic jews using this from 1000 years earlier obviously without the english "J"

  Jehovah is the established English version of YHWH and uses all of what is the hebrew written name of YHWH completely. While other options like YAHWEH exist they too are only guesses and not correct or a mistakes. You are making impossible demands. You reasoning would have us not use any name because none of them could possibly be correct by virtue of not being in their original languages. We would just have blanks were names are in the bible.

  do any of the following apply to you?

  It is not Ancient hebrew therefore it is not correct.

  Yahweh is guessed by a scholar I respect therefore it is correct.

  We shouldn't use transliterated names into different languages but it's okay to use a translated bible in a whole other language.

  Do you think yahweh is more "Correct" by virtue of being a more modern guess?

  Hi snowbird

  since Jesus like myself thought Jehovah was his father only. I prefer to agree with him.

  John 8:54
  Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

  Hi psacra

  your whole point rests on the issue that the word "lord" and not "Jehovah" is correct. Once you see it is meant to be jehovah the confusion is cleared up. The name is Jehovah. Lord is not a name. If you then saying "lord" here is meant to be Jesus, then why didn't he say "Jesus" rather than lord? aka "call on the name of Jesus" he says you must call on a name yet deliberately doesn't say the name replacing it with the word "Lord" that doesn't make sense. When the scripture he is quoting did say Jehovah "call on the name of (whose) Jehovah" making perfect sense.

  The whole gramatical make up of the sentence "call on the name of" indicates the name is forthcoming as in joel " call on the name of Jehovah" .

  This scripture more than any other proves like I said above that later copyist meddled with "lord" for the greek like they did for the hebrew.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Debator said:

  John 8:54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim asyour God, is the one who glorifies me.

  Hi psacra

  your whole point rests on the issue that the word is "lord" and not "Jehovah" is correct. Once you see it is meant to be jehovah the confusion is cleared up. The name is Jehovah. Lord is not a name. If you then saying "lord" here is meant to be Jesus, then why didn't he say "Jesus" rather than lord? aka "call on the name of Jesus" he says you must call on a name yet deliberately doesn't say the name replacing it with the word "Lord" that doesn't make sense. When the scripture he is quoting did say Jehovah "call on the name of (whose) Jehovah" making perfect sense.

  The whole gramatical make up of the sentence "call on the name of" indicates the name is forthcoming as in joel " call on the name of Jehovah" .

  This scripture more than any other proves like I said above that later copyist meddled with "lord" for the greek like they did for the hebrew.

  My reply: Not at all. Simply a whole lot of wordiness but that does not show Lord was inserted into the NT in place of Jehovah. Acts 4:12 shows quite clearly who we are to call on for salvation. Romans 10 tells us to call on the name of the Lord. Who does this identify Jesus as? I doubt you'll get the point, you have WT theology to uphold.
• 

  snowbird

  Hi snowbird

  since Jesus like myself thought Jehovah was his father only. I prefer to agree with him.

  Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

  Jesus never referred to His Father as Jehovah.

  Syl
• 

  PSacramento

  Jehovah is the established English version of YHWH and uses all of what is the hebrew written name of YHWH completely. While other options like YAHWEH exist they too are only guesses and not correct or a mistakes.

  The WT literature "the name that will endure" disagrees with you.

  Hi psacra

  your whole point rests on the issue that the word "lord" and not "Jehovah" is correct. Once you see it is meant to be jehovah the confusion is cleared up.

  Paul is very clear and there is no confusion, at all, it is even clearer in greek.

  Lord is not a name. If you then saying "lord" here is meant to be Jesus, then why didn't he say "Jesus" rather than lord? aka "call on the name of Jesus" he says you must call on a name yet deliberately doesn't say the name replacing it with the word "Lord" that doesn't make sense. When the scripture he is quoting did say Jehovah "call on the name of (whose) Jehovah" making perfect sense.

  While I admire the grammatical acrobatics, you are quite incorrect, sorry.

  The whole gramatical make up of the sentence "call on the name of" indicates the name is forthcoming as in joel " call on the name of Jehovah" .

  Quite the opposite, but again, congrats on the grammatical acrobatics to get here.

  This scripture more than any other proves like I said above that later copyist meddled with "lord" for the greek like they did for the hebrew.

  Paul wrote in greek, the oldest letters we have are in greek, the Roamns the letter were direct to were Greek reading and speaking Romans, many of them gentiles with NO hebrew.

  Your point is silly and calls into question ALL of the NT.

  So either the NT is corrupted or it isn't, which one is it?
• 

  debator

  Hi isaac (by the way thank you for given me a full and mind-stretching debate)

  The evidence is against you

  1/ the chapter context is God Jehovah of the israelites is the saviour.

  2/ this is a direct quote from Joel "call on the name of Jehovah"

  3/ the gramatical structure of the expression "call on the name of ....." indicates the name is forthcoming as with joel "call on the name of (insert name here)"

  The then historical proof that "lord" is substituted word for Jehovah by superstitious copyists caps it for me.