Question?

by Ethos 67 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Christ Alone

  Ethos, ill answer your question directly. I would like to talk about all of them. But maybe star with what JWs view as vital: The name Jehovah.

  I posted this on another Christian forum, but I'll post it here as well:

  Before I begin I want to say right off that I have NO problem using the name "Jehovah" and have no problem with others using the name.

  As far as I have been able to see, the first use of the modern rendition of the name "Jehovah" took place in 1278 when the monk Raymundo Martini wrote his latin work where he used the spelling "Yohoua". Later printing of his work used the spelling "Jehova". As far as its appearance in the Bible, this took place in 1530 when Tyndale published the first 5 books of the Bible and included the spelling "IEHOUAH" in several verses. As far as the history of YHWH most of us know that the Masorets replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs taken from the Hebrew words "Adonai" (or Lord) or "Elohim" (God). So really, the name "Jehovah" is an artificial name. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that this name is a grammatical impossibility. (See here) The divine name is more correctly "Yahweh", but even this rendition is not accurate to how the name was pronounced. The true pronunciation has been lost in antiquity, due to the fact that the accurate vowels were not retained. The only reason the WT gives for using the name "Jehovah" is because it is popular in English. A friend of mine (Keith Walker) asked the question, "Well then what are JWs called in Hebrew speaking lands? Would they be Yahweh's Witnesses"? He called up Bethel and asked the question. He was told that the names of all Witnesses were based on the English pronunciation of Jehovah. He did some further research and found a Hebrew JW and learned that Hebrew JWs introduce themselves as "Yehovah's Edei". My friend asked him if they have trouble using that pronunciation with other Hebrew Jews, and the Hebrew man said that they did. He said that "Yehovah" is not the recognized usage of God's name and that other Hebrews have never heard of it. To be fair, they also don't use "Yahweh" because they do not feel that this is the accurate name of God either. He added that if people have heard the name "Yehovah", it is ONLY because they have heard of JWs and NOT because they have heard God's name. My friend concluded that this isn't consistent with what the Watchtower says in the divine name brochure. According to the brochure, people should use the name of God in their own language. But this isn't the truth in the organization. They all are forced to use the English translation of a German pronunciation (the sound of the letter "J" is from German), from the Latin rendering of a Hebrew word. In Israel, where the closest pronunciation in their own langauge would be Yahweh, they are forced to use the English translation "Yehovah". All of that being said, let's suspend disbelief and assume that the name "Jehovah" is 100% accurate. This name was how the Hebrews addressed God. It was how God told them to address Him, and they complied. It was the position of a slave addressing his master. But Jesus introduced a whole new concept. For the first time in history, those that accepted Jesus Christ were now given the privilege of addressing God as "Father". This was NOT a Jewish concept. In fact they viewed it as blasphemous. But when Jesus taught us to pray, He didn't tell us to say "Jehovah, in heaven". No, he told us to address God as "Our Father, in heaven". Why is this important? Paul expounded on this. Romans 8:15 says: "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."" The Jews were slaves. They were required to follow the Law, and in some ways were distant from God because of their position and constant need for animal sacrifice. It would be like an employee today who would have to follow all the laws of the employer and address his employer by his name or title. But we, as Christians, have a far greater privilege. We are now sons and daughters of God. The only one that has the privilege of calling someone "Father" is the child of the Father. I would never call my dad, Barry. His employees do. His friends do. But I have a far greater privilege. I get to call him, Dad or Papa, or Father. We are no longer slaves. We no longer need to address God as "Jehovah", as if we were a slave. We were received as Sons and Daughters. We call Him "Abba" or Papa or Father. Do you see the tremendous privilege here? Insisting on calling God "Jehovah" tends to deny our sonship with Him. If I was to call my dad "Larry", he would view that in some ways as a disrespect. A denying that I have the privilege of calling him "Dad". That brings us back to the place where we were slaves. It brings us back to a time when the Jews did not know God as their Father. Like I said at the beginning, I have no problem with the usage of this name. It is a mistranslation and a rendering in English that is far removed from the original. But if you prefer to use the name, that is great. But we are no longer slaves. We are children of God. And as children, we should value our EXTREME privilege of addressing our great God as "Father".
• 

  Christ Alone

  Following more questions on that forum, I followed with:

  , Most translators tell us the reason for translating it the way they do. Most dont just translate it a certain way and keep silent about why. however, I agree with you that at the very least the OT should say YHWH instead of Lord.
  
  In the NT there is not a single manuscript that ever uses the divine name. Even when quoting the OT, there is not a single piece of manuscript evidence to support inserting YHWH into the text.
  
  As far as the OT, the main reason many translators use LORD is because those are the vowels that were used in the Tetragrammaton. YHWH was combined with the vowels for Adonai in order to create the name Yahweh. The problem is that if they use YHWH, the reader would not naturally know how to pronounce it. On the other hand, if they use Yahweh, that would not be faithful to the actual text. So many translations make the decision to make reference, instead, to Lord God.
  
  
  But again, I agree that translators should include the Tetragrammaton, if for no other reason, than to be absolutely faithful to the text. following even further questions I added: A few things. You said, "Why, do we have to hunt and dig to fine a Bible that has God's name in the 100's of places through out, as it was originally? (6,000) " I thought this was already answered. We do not have the name of God as it was pronounced originally. We only have YHWH. That's it. Yahweh is not even correct. It was CREATED by using the vowels for Adonai (Lord) and inserting them between YHWH. That's it. You can't restore something that is not known. My name is Christ Alone. If the vowels were taken out it would be "Chrstln." Someone then could reinsert the wrong vowels and create the name Cehristelon . Would it be my name to have a man take vowels from another word and insert it into my name? What if someone said, "It is sick and disgusting that people have removed the true name CEHRISTELO. His name is CEHRISTELO!!!" No...that is NOT my name. It would show me that people do NOT know me if they were to call me that. That is what is done by saying "Jehovah" is God's true name and that by not including this spelling and pronunciation of the name in the Bible, it is evil. If we want to be accurate and true to God's name, then yes, it would be appropriate to restore YHWH to the text. However, the reason this isn't done is because without a pronunciation, it can't be read. However, we DO know that God is Lord and God. This CAN be read and is accurate. We also know that God is our Father, and that is how Jesus Himself told us to adress Him. After more comments, I finished with this: This becomes an impass in semantics. However again, the vowels were never removed from Jesus name. So there is no comparison. We CAN know how Jesus name was written and pronounced. As an interesting side point, here is how Jesus name was written in Hebrew script: http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/jesus-in-hebrew.html
  
  Again, I keep having to say that I have no problem with the name Yahweh or Jehovah. But since the vowels have been removed, the name is man made. Trying to say that Jesus is a man made word too ignores the issue of the missing and then inserted vowels. But apparently that fact is easy to ignore in an attempt to eisegesisly prove an argument. I'm not in any way saying you are doing that, but I'm approaching it in the case of JWs.
  
  Fact: we do know jesus original hebrew name: Yeshuah. The pronunciation you suggest is the pre exilic Hebrew name of Joshua of which Jesus is rendered. According to the Galilean dialect of the day, it was Yeshua. There are a few that suggest Yashua, but here is an interesting article that contests this and shows that this cannot be true:http://www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm
  
  Fact: we do not know how YHWH was EVER pronounced
  
  Fact: vowels were never lost for any other name other than YHWH
  
  It's fine to say "I don't care how it was pronounced." But if we are going to insist that this pronunciation of YHWH is vital, then we need to be able to back up that claim.
  
  Sister SSL, I think we are arguing over trivialities of words and agree on the main point. I agree that the Fathers name should not be "tossed out". Properly it should be shown in the bible as YHWH. If we want to use the name Yahweh or Jehovah because of our previous history, fine. But we also can't insist, like the WT does that Gods name is Jehovah and we must use that name if we are to have a close relationship with him. We can't say that we are true followers of God because we alone use the name Jehovah. Usually these sorts of statements are flowered with words like, "I represent the name of our great and almighty God Jehovah!!!"
  
  The fact is, Jewish people would never have recognized the name Yahweh or Jehovah. It would be foreign to them. Hebrew Jews today too see that the name is erroneous: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8568-jehovah
  
  This encyclopedia says of "Jehovah": A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "?ere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural ? becomes simple under the ?), "?olem," and "?ame?," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "?atef segol" () under the ? —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim" (). These substitutions of "Adonay"and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written , or even , and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name "). The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI = ] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κ?ριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κ?ριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila). "Jehovah" is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X.'s confessor, Peter Galatin ("De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis," 1518, folio xliii.), who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius (= Büchlein, 1504-49). Drusius (= Van der Driesche, 1550-1616) was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of "Jehovah," and this view has been taken since his days (comp. Hastings, "Dict. Bible," ii. 199, s.v. "God"; Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterb." 1899, p. 311; see Drusius on the tetragrammaton in his "Critici Sacri, i. 2, col. 344). But it seems that even before Galatin the name "Jehovah" had been in common use (see Drusius, l.c. notes to col. 351). It is found in Raymond Martin's "Pugio Fidei." written in 1270 (Paris, 1651, iii., pt. ii., ch. 3, p. 448; comp. T. Prat in "Dictionnaire de la Bible," s.v.). See also Names of God. My final comment was: Just one more interesting side note about the above quote from the Jewish encyclopedia. It credits Pope Leo the 10ths confessor Peter Galatin as popularizing the name. We all know how much the WT hates Catholicism. But their very name and the name they hold most dear has been credited to the Catholics.
  
  My research turned up a bit more of the history BEFORE Galatin. In 1278 a spanish monk, Raymundo Martini, wrote the latin work PUGIO FIDEI (Dagger of faith). In it he used the name of God, spelling it Yohoua. Later printings of this work, dated some centuries later, used the spelling JEHOVA.
  
  Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled VICTORIA PORCHETI AVERSUS IMPIOS HEBRAEOS (Porchetus' Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). He spells God's name IOHOUAH, IOHOUA and IHOUAH.
  
  Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus, a Catholic priest born in the late 1400's, published a work entitled DE ARCANIS CATHOLICAE VERITATIS (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spelled God's name IEHOUA.
  
  It appears that the Catholics and the Watchtower are inextricably linked...
• 

  OUTLAW

  The name Jehovah is a 14th century translation mistake made by a Catholic Monk..

  The WBT$ can Thank the Catholics..

  For the Name of their God and JW Cult..

  Catholics..

  Thanks for a Name for our God & Religious JW Cult..

  We still don`t like you..And..

  One day our Pedophile Problem will be bigger than yours..

  So There!!..
  

  .............................. ...OUTLAW
• 

  Christ Alone

  Geez... Pretty soon I'm gonna turn into Lars or templeijah with their overly long rambling schizo posts that contain 12 different font sizes, 8 different font colors, and are not paragraphs... Here comes my downward spiral towards Troll Land. Come one! Come all! See the horrific fall into the pit of dispair of Miiiiiiiisssssster Christ (echo) AaAAAAllllllllooooonnnnneeee!!!!

  I guess this could be an appropriate time to tell everyone that Rutherford was right about 1925. I am King David himself who came back to life to serve as prince over you people. I slept late...you know.... i mean who can pass up a free night in the Gabriel Bedroom in frickin HEAVEN! I'm also sorry that I was resurrected naked. SO I had to stop by one of your malls (is that how you say it) to buy some 21st century clothes. Alas, I was forced to sin as I did have your people's currency. The vendors wife was hot....maybe take her up to the mansions hottub. get rid of her pesky husband. anyone know of some dangerous steel working mills around here? maybe i can get him in there. BUT I believe that I am now dressed in what your culture deems presentable. I chose some

  1980's Unisex Totally 80s Baggy Pants

  Good enough for your new King David? I figure that since you have a temple prophet and a black second coming messiah on this very forum, I should involve myself with their mighty work. So I guess I don't go by Christ Alone anymore. I've pretty well taken care off that strange little bible thumper. Here forth, my subjects shall refer to me as King David Sexy GunDam Syle. So where is this mansion I've been hearing about? Do it Got cable? I'll need enough space for all my concubines to get busy, if you know what i mean. You didn't actually think that I'd show up without them did you?!? These my ladies! "Come on over ladies. It's time to get our most holy drank on!!!! whew!!! so what we doing all up in hear. What changes need to be made? What do I divinely have to lay a smack down on? Maybe start with some lower level annoyances? A couple elder bodies need me to open up a can of righteous indignation on them? It guess you atheists have got to go.but you'll have plenty to go with you. The JWs are going at the same time. They're on the Same bus. A bus to where? I don't know, but you soon will. What out for the bumps going in. It's bumpy. It's mostly people just trying to get out. But don't worry, they won't die. Hearing them under the bus is a little unnerving. P Well im always adding to my concs (what I call my concubines). I'll set up some try outs later this week. Lets see how good you can still work it. The old conc team has been especially good for me,especially after being dead for thousands of years. Might be a bit rusty. We don't want body parts falling off this year. So lets try to get a,few more hot girls on board. alright,we are set. How do we get to Joeys house? Anyone have the address? He's gonna kill me when he realizes how late I am. Maybe I'll just secretly take him out too. No one will argue when I finally take over. What will I accomplish? Plenty of dry towels for everyone.maybe we'll so an iPad drawing or something. Ok, you people take too much of my time. Just take me to Beth Sarim!!!
• 

  Jeffro

  Geez... Pretty soon I'm gonna turn into Lars or templeijah with their overly long rambling schizo posts that contain 12 different font sizes, 8 different font colors, and are not paragraphs... Here comes my downward spiral towards Troll Land. Come one! Come all! See the horrific fall into the pit of dispair of Miiiiiiiisssssster Christ (echo) AaAAAAllllllllooooonnnnneeee!!!!!

  You're not that far gone. As I understand it, you do have an imaginary friend, but within the realm of what is considered normal.

  If you start hearing voices or thinking the CIA is after you, please get professional help.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Well, being around them did convince me that I am the resurrected King David. I sorta slept through 1925. But I'm here now to bust some heads and take name. Oh yeah, and watch out. I've god a pretty badass sword!
• 

  Ethos

  Thanks for all the responses. To try to address everything with this one post (the last one I have for 12 more hours) would be tedious and extremely cluttered. New thread addressing everything Jeffro said about 607/1914 and everything ChristAlone said about the name Jehovah tomorrow. Going thru all the 607 threads and collecting information right now actually. I'll leave out the sattire this time. Haha.
• 

  Captain Obvious

  Ethos you will have trouble getting a proper answer to your question because there is no answer. If it were that easy, we all would be able to get our loved ones out within an afternoon of presenting to them the false doctrines of the WT.

  You probably don't like seeing us call the JWs a cult... But sadly, that's exactly what it is. And discussing doctrine with a cult member is often futile. Now I suspect that you have some issues with the WT, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So, lets talk about that first, if you feel you're ready.

  For the subjects you listed, they have ALL been beaten to death on this forum. When a new WT article comes up about the subject, we drag it back up and beat it to death again. A simple click on the search function can solve that one. There is no way you can present new information that we haven't already discussed at length. Despite the hurt many of us still feel from the org, most of us still consider things with an open mind, don't forget that.

  Every time we get a new JW apologist on the board, I get my hopes up a little bit. I hope they can show me the error of my ways so that I can keep my family and friends. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong. However they all turn out to either trolls, hit and runs like nananana, or arrogant ignorant dicks like yourself. I call you that because that is all you have managed to show yourself to be this far. Just like all the others.

  I would like to suggest that you sit back and lurk awhile. Use the search function, consider the material with an open mind. Then if you find that we have missed something or would like to present a new perspective, that is most welcome here. Starting numerous threads and calling us out is just going to further prove the point I made earlier about your arrogance. Don't be a dick, then bitch because we're not being nice to you.
• 

  Jeffro

  Oh yeah, and watch out. I've god a pretty badass sword!

  I'm sure the concs are grateful.
• 

  Vidqun

  Ethos, I am surprised that you cannot fathom why most on this forum reacted adversely to your "Harvard"-satire. This is exactly the tripe your Bosses are spewing concerning secular education. At the assemblies we often hear how bad tersiary education is. But during announcements we must hear that Bethel needs registered nurses, doctors, dentists, etc. The R&F should not even consider tersiary education, while Bethel sends young brothers to university to become engineers, lawyers, etc.

  Or brother elder stands in front of the congregation, telling a young brother who wanted to become a computer programmer to pioneer. To support himself he should refurbish and sell old microwaves. Don't you think that is somewhat silly and hypocritical, especially in the recessionay times we are living in? Or is it that the members of the GB are the only ones that should use their thinking ability, the rest must follow blindly? Do you not see something seriously wrong with the above? What did Jesus say about the blind leading the blind?