by Bloody Hotdogs! 13 Replies latest jw friends
Probably a dumb question, but what is the proper way to write "...in Jehovah's Witness literature." ?
"...in Jehovah's Witnesses literature."
"...in Jehovah's Witnesses' literature."
"...in Jehovah's Witness' literature."
"...in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses."
Thanks!
You'll probably notice that in writing these days that the old school rules are being ignored. Lee Child is an example of a writer that has done this. (I tried reading his stuff but I find it awful to follow. Just my opinion).
However, I prefer:
"...in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses."
But it depends on what the first bit is.
Out of the first three, #2 seems most correct, "...in Jehovah's Witnesses' literature", but #1 is also correct because it applies the name of the religion as a noun adjunct to "literature". #3 is not correct unless you wrote "in a Jehovah's Witness' literature" to refer to the literature owned by a certain Witness, as "Witness'" means "that belonging to a Witness".
Sometimes it's best to avoid grammatical entanglements and rephrase the sentence, as you have done with #4.
"...in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses."
So what is the first part of the sentence?
I ate fish and chips from the litrature of JWs?
The scriptures portray a person named Stephen who is termed the first "martyr." The Greek word means "witness."
( Greek : μάρτυς, mártys , "witness"; stem μάρτυρ-, mártyr- )
_______________________________________________
Those who died for their faith were said to be "crowned." Suspiciously, the name Stephen means "crowned."
In fact, the account of the martyrdom of Stephen is probably a counterfeit story told to strengthen resolve.
How can we say this?
The Jews were not allowed to execute anybody by order of Roman Law!
Another account in the Bible, often referred to as the "woman taken in adultry,: portrays Jesus as stopping
the stoning execution of a woman. The famous phrase,"Let him who is without sin throw the first stone," comes
from this bogus account.
New Testament scholars regard this text as spurious. It was added in later centuries, probably by some copyist using
marginal notes.
_______________
Jesus was undoubtedly the FIRST martyr and the story of Stephen was crafted to represent the glorious outcome of giving
public testimony (witness) in the face of death, leading to the crowning glory of ruling in heaven with Christ.
______________
Jehovah was never a martyr. Jesus was.
Jehovah's martyrs (i.e. Jehovah's witnesses) logically would actually be Jesus' martyrs because their course mimics the
public testimony followed by crowning glory.
So, we can see right from the start, Judge Rutherford's neologism (Jehovah's Witnesses) reflects his misunderstanding of
history, language, theology, and the nature of Christianity.
In the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses, you will find many fabrications, fairy tales, and outright lies.
The literature of Jehovah's Witnesses now comes in handy smaller packets which are perfect for use in the camp latrine.
"...in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses." is an easier read.
"...in Jehovah's Witnesses' literature." is grammatically correct.
When it's a possessive involving something that ends in the letter "s", the apostrophe goes after the "s".
So, "Jesus' beard" is correct, while "Jesus's beard" is not.
"Jehovah's Witnesses" is the proper name, thus, the possessive would be "Jehovah's Witnesses' whatever".
Thanks for the help guys! Spelling/grammer has never been my thing...
Grammar*
