Watchtower December 15th issue caught lying again!

by freeman 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • freeman

    Watchtower caught lying again in the December 15th article “A Living Translation Of God's Word”. More like a lying then a living translation of God”s word if you ask me. But I digress...

    So anyway my jw wife left this litter on the coffee table and a saw that it had an article about the the revised NWT so I perused it a bit. A quick look through the rag and bong I spotted the . . . ellipsis. I said to myself, could it be, oh no, not again. Do they really still use that old trick to deceive people?

    Curiosity got the better of me so I put the words before the ellipsis into Google and sure enough, my goodness,they were being deceitful once again. They just can't help themselves!

    I tell you the internet is their worst nightmare. Google is an ellipsis trick killer!

    They were using the infamous ellipsis trick once again to make someone else appear to be saying something they never really said so as to make them look bad, and themselves look better. This time the Watchtower attacks were focused on the Revised Standard Version of the bible and it's translators.

    Waxing on about how wonderful and superior the rNWT is compared to other bible translations mainly because it includes the divine name Jehovah while other versions such as the RSV has blatantly removed it without cause and supposedly quoting from the preface: "The preface says: The use of any proper name for the one and only God . . . is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church".

    Of course the writers of the RSV never said that in the preface of their bible. Here is a snippet including the words between the . . . ellipsis that they really did say including why they don't use the supposed divine name:

    The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

    The entire preface found here:

    So they try to make the writers of the RSV look like they have no respect for God when in fact they have the utmost respect, not wanting to use an invented name that clearly never was associated God until medieval times. They don't need to deceptively misquote others to puff themselves up, but the dark tower does.

    I so hate this cult and how it holds my dear wife in bondage.


  • freddo
    Nice catch!
  • Giordano

    The WT even use's the expression "The Divine name..... Jehovah". If it's a made up name how does it become divine?

    Every time Lett or the one with the rubbery face GB member, who sounds like his false teeth are loose, says Jeehhooverer it sounds like he's calling a pet.

    And I believe they have diminished their god by naming him and then calling on him like a pet dog. And forget Jesus get in line dude behind the GB.

    It was kind of up to god to proclaim his own name........ if he didn't and Jesus didn't ........then it must not have been important.

    Time for my evening Martini.

  • Listener
    The people at the Kingdom Halls get more respect, they get called Brother or Sister.
  • Beth Sarim
    Beth Sarim
    I've often wondered how they contrived the 'Divine' name from only a few symbols????
  • jehobi
    Thanks for this info. Going to email my JW family this.
  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Excellent point!

    I also ,like this:

    • "The people at the Kingdom Halls get more respect; they get called Brother or Sister."
  • jhine
    Is that from the study version rather than the one handed out to the public ?

  • wannaexit
    Oh good catch.!!!
  • ttdtt

    So I am no expert for sure. 3 things though.

    1. I don't know if using the "name" JWs use is really wrong. I have seen it spelled out in very old churches in europe for myself, so it was used in that past. Hard to say it's not been in use for a long time, maybe not as long as they claim?

    2. No one has issue with using the name and pronunciation of Jesus which has similar grammar.

    3. Your source. I don't trust other religious sources in general any more than the WT, and the article has not references you can check.

    It is infuriating how the WT crapps on everyone else, especially in light of how they had done nothing original themselves. Everything they have written about and the majority of the core beliefs were Pirated from others.

    For years I would argue when some article came out about history or science or such, that by the way I had heard about many months before on NPR (someone there has there radio tuned to WNYC), reminding people that the WT does not have a research department breaking new ground in Medicine, History, Science. The friends get the idea that the geniuses in brooklyn discover this stuff on their own, and don't just plagiarized things.

    I think the bigger issue with the "name" in the new "slippery sword" is how many times they put it in where it was definitely NOT! So much for "he who adds or takes away."

    Religion is just a destructive deceptive and corrupt force on man.

Share this