Stupid Watchtower. (page 2)

smiddy

Up until the introduction of the individual books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament Books) in the western world JW`s used the American standard Version of the Bible which did use the name Jehovah in the Old Testament , prior to 1960`s I think.

However other versions of the Bible including the Catholic Knox translation uses Yahweh throughout the Old Testament. , even the Catholic Douay version acknowledges Jehovah as the name for God .

The Good News Bible For Catholics acknowledges Jehovah and Yahweh as names for God .

The Uniting Church has hymns recognizing Jehovah as God .

And I am sure their are many other cases

Numerous Christian essays ,Thesis ,Concordance ,Discussions about the Judeo -Christian religion identify the name of God with Yahweh or Jehovah.Check out a local Library on Religion , you will find heaps more .

Jehovah`s Witnesses claim to be Bible Students and yet they are ignorant of these facts ? If they were Bible students they would not be ignorant of these facts ,

It is dishonest to imply Christendom hides the name of God , Its on many of their Churches even in Brisbane Australia.

The Kingdom Interlinear Of The Christian Greek Scriptures published by the WTB&TS a word for word translation , does not contain the Tetragramaton ,YHWH or JHVH for God`s name as it does in the Old Testament , in the New Testament , the Christian Greek Scriptures .

So it is dishonest to insert the name Jehovah or Yahweh in the New Testament /Christian Greek Scriptures that the NWT does.

If they lie to us about the use and name of God , what else are they lying to us about .?

smiddy

slimboyfat

So they vilify the ASV bible for not using Gods name

No. They criticise the RSV for not using God's name. The ASV did use God's name.

I am struggling to understand what you think is wrong with the Watchtower comment here.

Darkknight757

“The use of any proper name for the one and only God . . . is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” That set a pattern for many subsequent translations, English and non-English.”

They make it appear as if they do not respect the personal name of God imo. The truth is they do respect it so they omit it from their bible. At least that's the impression I'm getting here.

So now at the Watchtower study millions more will be mislead into believing that "the world" doesn't have respect for the creators name.

slimboyfat

It is the opinion of the Watchtower that that the RSV showed disrespect for God's name by not including it where it appeared in the original. We can agree or disagree but it seems a pretty reasonable point of view to hold.

The reasons the RSV give for removing the name are pretty lame: 1) names in English don't generally correspond to the Hebrew forms anyway 2) if the Bible gives God a name who are the RSV translators to tell the Bible writers they got it wrong and God should be without a name, and 3) the idea that God's name was no longer used in the first century is just plain wrong. The debate now is over the extent to which it was still in use.

Darkknight757

Ok I was under the impression that the divine name was not in use shortly after captivity in Babylon because of superstition surrounding the name.

I have not done a thorough study of this subject as of yet. Just what I studied out of the Imperial Bible dictionary under the subject Jehovah.

To be honest I've only been at this study thing for a few months. I would like to know more about this subject of the personal name being used in the first century because that's a new thought.

I still hold however that the name Jehovah is grammatically inncorrect. Just because some guy a few hundred years ago made it up and it became accepted doesn't make it right. Further to address the supreme one of the universe by His first name takes some real balls. Father or Lord is more appropriate for us little specs here on earth.

(of course this is coming from someone who doesn't pray to God because I'm kinda pissed at him.😗)

DATA-DOG

Darkknight, if you read the comments on the link that I posted, you can get more well-rounded understanding. The comments by ADCMS are very concise.

The main issue is that the WTBTS continues to lazily re-hash/recycle the same crap. They also deliberately mislead their readers and paint other religions as false by painting a false picture.

"Jehovah" is a brand.

DD

Darkknight757

I'll take a closer look. To be honest I kinda skimmed it cause I'm lazy.😬

DATA-DOG

Also, as far the debate that SBF refers to, it's just that, a debate. Nobody knows 1) What God's name is. ( Assuming the Jews didn't make the whole damn thing up.) 2) Whether or not anyone used it at all in the time of early Xianity.

We do know that ZERO % of the oldest extant manuscripts contain "Jehovah". We also know that the WTBTS is dishonest in their claim that anyone not using "Jehovah" ( A grammatical impossibility. ) is part of a false religion.

We also know that the WTBTS's claim of restoring the Divine Name is absolutely false.

Keep trusting the instinct that caused you to doubt the WTBTS Writing Dept.

DD

Darkknight757

As noted by dontcallmeshirley, I think it's really sad that whenever you come across a quote in wts literature, you almost always have to double check the source.

I'm just surprised that more people don't do this. Honestly it took less than a minute to fact check the quote to see it was written out of context.

by the way thanks for the help on this subject. I've read through page two of that older thread. Read the rest later.

slimboyfat

Data-Dog I agree with you on some things.

1) What God's name is. ( Assuming the Jews didn't make the whole damn thing up.)

Well I'm not sure I believe in God in the first place so that's a larger question. God in the Hebrew Bible has name however, that seems pretty clear.

2) Whether or not anyone used it at all in the time of early Xianity.

There is too much evidence showing the use of the divine name in that period for there to be any doubt: Bible manuscripts with transliterations, amulets, inscriptions, other writings. It's documented here.

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002fj$002fopth.2014.1.issue-1$002fopth-2014-0006$002fopth-2014-0006.pdf?t:ac=j$002fopth.2014.1.issue-1$002fopth-2014-0006$002fopth-2014-0006.xml

The author of that article is a JW by the way, but it's a properly referenced, peer reviewed article. He has gathered the evidence together.

We do know that ZERO % of the oldest extant manuscripts contain "Jehovah".

There are no NT manuscripts with the divine name. That's absolutely true. Unless you count the medieval Hebrew versions that may represent a primitive form of Matthew. But that's disputed.

The earliest manuscripts of the LXX however do use the divine name.

We also know that the WTBTS is dishonest in their claim that anyone not using "Jehovah" ( A grammatical impossibility. ) is part of a false religion.

Well that's a theological claim. It's their view that true believers should use the divine name and they point to verses they believe say as much. They may be right or wrong, I don't think it's dishonest to take the view they have.

We also know that the WTBTS's claim of restoring the Divine Name is absolutely false.

If the divine name was never in the NT to start with then it is false to "restore" it. A couple of scholars have agreed with them that it was originally there (George Howard and David Trobisch) but most disagree.

Keep trusting the instinct that caused you to doubt the WTBTS Writing Dept.

Amen.

Stupid Watchtower.

Share this