by new boy 12 Replies latest jw friends
ROMANS 10:14 REFERS TO JESUS!
[12/1/1903,3282
ROMANS 10:14-16 REFERS TO JEHOVAH!
[7/11940,P.200]
NEXT-------THEY FINALLY TELL TRUTH!
In Romans 10:12 the identity of the "Lord" cannot be established with certainty from the text.
[2/1977,p.95]
ROMANS 10;13 IS REFERRING TO JESUS!
[5/1/1978,P.12]
ROMANS 10:13 IS REFERRING TO JEHOVAH!
[2/1/1980,P.16]
As you all know this is a minor point.-------The big point is if they are wrong on this, what else are they in error on!
Almost everything I should suspect.
YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
so tell me Yerusalyim?
When you guys go in battle, which side do you tell your boys that God is on?-----------Is He on no sides? all sides?
Your Catholic and your making fun of the JWs------very interesting!
NEXT-------THEY FINALLY TELL TRUTH!
In Romans 10:12 the identity of the "Lord" cannot be established with certainty from the text.
[2/1977,p.95]
*** w77 2/1 95 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
Who is the “Lord” mentioned in Romans 10:12, the Lord Jesus Christ or the Lord Jehovah?
Romans 10:12 reads: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him.” The identity of the one referred to as “Lord” cannot be established with certainty from the context.
Throughout the centuries Bible scholars have not been in agreement as to whether Paul meant the Lord Jesus Christ or the Lord Jehovah. Romans 10:9 definitely refers to Jesus Christ as Lord, and the quotation from Isaiah 28:16 found in Romans 10:11, “None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed,” also applies to Jesus. So if Romans 10:11 is to be directly linked with the Lord of Romans 10:12, the Lord referred to is Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, in Romans 10:9 Paul speaks of ‘exercising faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead.’ This shows that faith in Jehovah God is also essential for salvation. Furthermore, Romans 10:13, a quotation from Joel 2:32, reads: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.’” Hence, if the calling on the Lord referred to in Romans 10:12 is the same as in Romans 10:13, Jehovah God is the Lord being referred to by Paul. The thought would then be the same as that expressed at Romans 3:29: “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of people of the nations? Yes, of people of the nations also.”
ROMANS 10;13 IS REFERRING TO JESUS!Where do you get your lies from? The Watchtower does not say that the scripture refers to Jesus.
[5/1/1978,P.12]
Read Carefully:
*** w78 5/1 12 Theologians Stumble Over God's Name ***
Theologians Stumble Over God’s Name
HOW could clergymen and theological authorities have stumbled over God’s name?
First, a major doctrinal mistake seems to have resulted from taking God’s name out of the Bible. As was pointed out in the last article, evidently “somewhere around the beginning of the second century” the divine name began to be replaced in the “New Testament” with “Lord” or “God.” This caused a problem of identification: Which Lord was meant?
There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the “New Testament” in a context speaking about the Son. (Isa. 40:3—Matt. 3:3—John 1:23; Joel 2:32—Rom. 10:13; Ps. 45:6, 7—Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father’s foremost representative. In fact, in a similar way even an angel was spoken of as if he were Jehovah, because he was serving for Jehovah in a representative capacity. (Gen. 18:1-33) What, however, may have been the effect of removing God’s name?
The Journal of Biblical Literature says:
“In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity. . . . Once the confusion was caused by the change in the divine name in the quotations, the same confusion spread to other parts of the NT where quotations were not involved at all.”
Apparently realizing that this could have contributed to the development of the Trinity doctrine, the article asks:
“Did such restructuring of the text give rise to the later christological [about the nature of Christ] controversies within the church, and were the NT passages involved in these controversies identical with those which in the NT era apparently created no problems at all? . . . Are [current christological] studies based on the NT text as it appeared in the first century, or are they based on an altered text which represents a time in church history when the difference between God and Christ was confused in the text and blurred in the minds of churchmen?”
So, removing God’s name from the “New Testament” could have aided later acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, which was not taught at all in the original Bible.
For theologians, a second stumbling block has to do with pronouncing the Name. It is written in Hebrew with four consonants, usually transliterated YHWH or JHVH. In ancient Israel a person would learn the pronunciation as it came down from earlier times. But evidently at some point after 70 C.E. the exact pronunciation was lost. When later Jewish copyists put vowel markings with the consonants to aid the reader, they used signs for Adonay (Lord) and Elohim (God), leading to the form “Jehovah.”
Many Hebrew scholars now favor the pronunciation “Yahweh.” Yet no one today actually can say with certainty how Moses, for example, pronounced the divine name.
In Vetus Testamentum (Oct. 1962) Dr. E. C. B. Maclaurin stated: “It should be repeated that there is no conclusive early evidence that the name was ever pronounced Yahweh but there is plenty of early evidence for H_u’, Yah, Yo-, Yau-, -yah and perhaps -yo.” Dr. M. Reisel, in The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., said that the “vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeH_uàH or YaH_uàH.” Still, Canon D. D. Williams of Cambridge held that the “evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that Jahweh was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, . . . The Name itself was probably J_AHÔH.”—Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Vol. 54.
Most languages have a customary way of spelling and pronouncing God’s name, and it varies from language to language. In Italian it is Geova, in Fijian it is Jiova, and in Danish the name is Jehova. Why need anyone insist that all persons today should strive to imitate some ancient Hebrew pronunciation on which even authorities cannot agree? As the Tübingen professor Gustav Oehler said in a book after discussing various pronunciations:
“From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted, any more than it would be possible for the more correct Jarden to displace the usual form Jordan.”
This is a sensible view, for it allows persons to use a widely known pronunciation that still clearly identifies the Creator and God who urges us to use his name. (Isa. 42:8; Rom. 10:13) Many theologians, though, have, instead, chosen to quibble over technicalities and fallen into the trap of shunning God’s name.
ROMANS 10:13 IS REFERRING TO JEHOVAH!
[2/1/1980,P.16]
This proves that your attempt to discredit the FDS falls short. Once again, why don’t you try to understand the point of the articles instead of desperately seeking ways to criticize, even stooping so low as to make up lies.
Hay---MavMan
You want to count your service time here? -------------Get your lazy ass back into your mini-van with everyone else.
"we must not lose sight of the fact that God is directing his organization"
[6/1/1985,p.19]
"....the need to revise our understanding somewhat does not make us false prophets"
[3/15/1986,p.19]
Is God confused? mavman or Man?
Is God confused?
No, you are. The fact that God directs his organization does not mean that he is whispering in someones ear what to publish in the Watchtower word for word. Jehovah's people must still research and study the scriptures. Explaining a scripture does not make one a false prophet if later on finds by further research that the previous understanding was incorrect.
New Boy,
The last I check it doesn't matter whose side God is on, but Rather, who's on God's side. Sometimes evil has to be confronted with violence. There are countless examples of this in the bible. As to my being Catholic, what does this have to do with the JW's doctrinally we are sound, spiritually we are sound. We don't coerce our memebers, we don't encourage parents to kill their kids, nor do we destroy families.
YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
Hey, Mavman...what evidence is there that 'God' is directing the WTS ?
ISP
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO---------MavMan
"That the previous understanding was {or is} incorrect"
Are you trying to say the word WRONG?
Of course I never say I'm wrong I just say "the light has just got brighter!"
If that is true er-------I mean wrong orrrrrrrrr true. Wow I guess you are like all the other religions of the world. true and wrong-------How can that be true yet wrong?
My friend The Borg truly has your mind!------Has it had mine!
*** w77 2/1 95 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
Who is the “Lord” mentioned in Romans 10:12, the Lord Jesus Christ or the Lord Jehovah?
Romans 10:12 reads: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him.” The identity of the one referred to as “Lord” cannot be established with certainty from the context.
Throughout the centuries Bible scholars have not been in agreement as to whether Paul meant the Lord Jesus Christ or the Lord Jehovah. Romans 10:9 definitely refers to Jesus Christ as Lord, and the quotation from Isaiah 28:16 found in Romans 10:11, “None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed,” also applies to Jesus. So if Romans 10:11 is to be directly linked with the Lord of Romans 10:12, the Lord referred to is Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, in Romans 10:9 Paul speaks of ‘exercising faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead.’ This shows that faith in Jehovah God is also essential for salvation. Furthermore, Romans 10:13, a quotation from Joel 2:32, reads: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.’” Hence, if the calling on the Lord referred to in Romans 10:12 is the same as in Romans 10:13, Jehovah God is the Lord being referred to by Paul. The thought would then be the same as that expressed at Romans 3:29: “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of people of the nations? Yes, of people of the nations also.”
Wouldn't it make MOST sense if both are ONE? I answered this question here http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23846&site=3 , read for yourself.
