Jehovah Witness vs Jehovah's Witness

by Simon 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Island Man

  I think "Trump supporters" and "Trump's supporters" are actually two different things, linguistically speaking. The first case involves using the name Trump as an "object adjective". However in the latter case Trump is being used as a "possessive adjective". There's a clear difference between the two, albeit a somewhat subtle.

  The term "Jehovah's Witnesses" tells you who they are witnesses for. But the term "Jehovah Witness" means what exactly? Unlike the Trump example, "Jehovah" is not being used as "an objective adjective" in this case because JWs don't actually witness Jehovah - Jehovah is not the object of the action of Witnessing in the way that Trump is the object of the action of supporting. The object of the witnessing is the message they're preaching. Jehovah is the person about whom they witness - not what they witness. It's very subtle, but there's a difference.
  
• 

  Island Man

  Linguistically speaking the term "Jehovah's Witnesses" is a plural name used only for referring to the religion as a whole. It is not proper English to say "I am a Jehovah's Witness". The correct way is to say: "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses"
  
• 

  Wild_Thing

  prologos
  

  I am one of Trump's supporters or I am one of the many Trump supporters?

  
  I don't know ... either way sounds wrong.
• 

  Island Man

  Think too of how the term witness is used in the court. They don't say so-and-so is a prosecution witness. They say so-and-so is a witness for the prosecution because the prosecution is not the object of the act of witnessing in the same way that Trump is the object of people's support.
  
• 

  Island Man

  "I am a trump supporter" is correct because trump is the object of the support. But saying "I am a Jehovah witness" is incorrect because Jehovah is not the object of the witnessing - JWs don't witness Jehovah.
  
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Yeah I have the same.

  Long time ago I read someplace that the construct 'I am one of JW' also serves to reaffirm the JW identity every time they say it.

  Compare these:

  1. I am a Catholic
  2. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses

  1) implies 'I am a Catholic individual'. I am unique. Being catholic is only a part of my whole identity.

  2) implies no individual identity. I am part of a group of identical beings. I am a JW, and nothing but a JW. That is my whole identity.

  ------------------

  In Dutch the official spelling for one of Bible God's supposed names is Jehova (without the last h). That means that most journalists will write Jehova's Witnesses or Jehova Witnesses. And to me that always reaffirmed they were biased against (formerly) us, as they even failed to write the religion's name properly. Yeah, relidiculous, I know...
• 

  smiddy

  Was I a Jehovah Witness ?

  or

  was I a Jehovah`s Witness

  or

  Was I a Witness for Jehovah ?

  or

  Was I one of Jehovah`s Witnesses.

  I think I was a dickhead for being all of the above.

  smiddy
• 

  Doug Mason

  The context of Isa 43:12 is talking about the situation of the Judaeans during the neo-Babylonian Captivity (part of deutero-Isaiah).

  In that context YHWH is telling the people that even though they had witnessed that YHWH is God, yet they cotinued to rebel. The context finishes up with YHWH saying therefore he would reject them. (Isa 43:22-28)
  

  They had witnessed YHWH, they had seen his punishments, but they continued in their evil ways. Of course this passage was written by scribes who wanted the people to only worship YHWH. They had been fighting a losing battle until tne time of the Babylonians. This was the opportunity taken by the YHWH-only party and the Judah that came out of captivity was quite unlike the polytheistic Judah that went into captivity. Today, we read the propaganda put out by the YHWH-only party. The rest of the nation was illiterate.
  

  Another problem inherited from Rutherford.

  Of course, he only applied the term to the 144,000 spirit-anointed. The term was not extended to the rest until well after Rutherford's death.

  Doug
  
• 

  smiddy

  At no time after the publication or oral announcement of Isa.43:12 did any tribe of the Jews , view it as an endorsement/ command to identify themselves as Jehovah`s Witnesses or Witnesses of Jehovah ?

  No they did not .

  When Jesus was on earth did he ever chastise the Jewish religion or people for not identifying themselves as Jehovah`s Witnesses ? No he did not.

  In fact the Christian Greek Scriptures plainly state that followers of Jesus Christ were by Divine Providence to be called Christians , not Jehovah`s Witnesses.Acts 11:26 " it was in Antioch that the disciples were by Divine Providence called Christians " not Jehovah`s Witnesses.

  smiddy
• 

  bohm

  You are going to love this abbreviation I often encounter here in my country:

  "Jehovahs"

  as as: "The Jehovahs are not allowed to celebrate birthdays" lol.