Jehovah's Witnesses Crime Against Grammar

Simon

So this is really starting to grate on me the more I think about it because it's just wrong grammatically.

One of my friends always refers to me used to being "a Jehovah Witness" which used to grate whenever she said it but now it seems more correct.

Think about it this way: Bruce Springsteen has fans. They are fans of Bruce Springsteen or, Bruce Springsteen's Fans. But each of them isn't a Bruce Springsteen's Fan. No, they are each a Bruce Springsteen Fan.

So "Jehovah Witnesses" is more correct, surely?

OUTLAW

So "Jehovah Witnesses" is more correct, surely?.....Simon

Considering the name Jehovah is a 13th century Catholic translation mistake..

"Shirley`s Witnesses" would be just as accurate..

Some JW`s may not like it though..

...................................

Image result for Don`t call me shirley

FatFreek 2005

I've watched several of the "Kim Mikey" videos (I suppose those are the first names of this husband / wife team -- a good team in my opinion). Mikey consistently uses the term "Jehovah Witnesses" and it grated on me at first -- and I've been out for some 39 years. However, you make a good argument that pluralized "Jehovah's Witnesses" is incorrect.

Thanks.

2+2=5

I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. I am a witness of Jehovah.

Said nobody ever.

stan livedeath

the words are nonsense. nobody has witnessed jehovah.

tepidpoultry

How about my friend Simon used to be "severely deluded" but he's better now lol

I'm surprised that JFR didn't work out the tenses after having the dream that gave birth to the name as I understand that he was a very considerate man,

Listener

I'm trying to work this out so sorry if I don't make any sense or there's no 'rhyme or reasoning'.

Blondie had this to say about the name a couple of years ago

Did you know that up until April 1, 1977, the WTS spelled Jehovah’s Witnesses as Jehovah’s witnesses with a lower case w? In fact, jws were counseled if they did not do that because the WTS felt it became a religious organization’s name not a description of what members did in their lives.

The second baptismal question is

Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?

By using a Capital W they have changed the meaning of what it is to be a witness of Jehovah, or Jehovah's witness. It now becomes a title and nothing more, I would have thought that it is up to the person/s creating that title to allocate anything meaningful to it.

I'll try playing around with the ideas as follows -

Let's say there's a bloke call Donald who has one, exclusive mistress and then accumulates a few more. They are all Donald's mistresses and surprisingly, they don't mind saying so.

Then Donald decides he likes this acknowledgement but wants to go much further and create a type of Playboy Club. There are so many that want to join up to this club and Donald wants to give them a name that conjures up a certain picture/idea in people's minds and instead of calling them Bunnies he chooses the name Donald's Mistress. They have become a Donald's Mistress, whereas his true mistresses are, individually, Donald's mistresses or one of Donald's mistresses. Now they are not all Donald's real mistresses, as much as he'd like them to be, there's just too many in this Club. However, some leave the Club. What would the correct grammar be in this scenerio?

They used to be a Donald's Mistress, they were once each a Donald's Mistress.

oppostate

Eeee-gads.

In proper English grammar the term is "Jehovah's Witnesses" as an organization. In Spanish it's "Testigos de Jehova" (Witnesses of Jehovah).

If a person joins the religion then he or she is "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" or a "Jehovah's Witness".

Room 215

"Jehovah's Witnesses," as in "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses," is grammatically correct.

stan livedeath

in the UK the public just call them jehovers.

Jehovah's Witnesses Crime Against Grammar

Share this