The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name

by slimboyfat 327 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Listener
    Would almighty God have allowed this group of Christians to champion his name at this crucial time if they did not enjoy his blessing and support?

    If it is important that they are known as Jehovah's Witnesses then new light has been defective. In a number of instances, Jehovah's name is now delegated to the letter J.

    At one time, they would always correct someone if they referred to them as JWs. It felt offending to be called a JW. Now they have a logo with Jehovah's name represented as a J, erected at every Kingdom Hall and on all their publications. Their one and only official website is listed using only God's initial.

  • cofty
    Another strong line of evidence is the fact JWs refuse to kill each other, which one would have thought would be a basic requirement for a Christian community, but which distinguishes JWs from most (notice I didn't say all, don't misquote me) Christians - SBF

    Pacifism is morally indefensible.

    Can I assume you are going back to the child-abusing, family destroying, dehumanising, obedience-demanding cult, but you feel the need to justify your decision with this bullshit?

  • Wonderment


    Thanks for bringing your research to the table. I appreciate it.

    One fact that seems to go over participants here is that no one knows everything. The matter is not always black and white, 100% right or 100% false. A good number of posters in this site seem to believe JWs are always 100% false, with no chance of getting some things right. At the same time, they seem to believe that Evangelicals are 100% right. It is most likely that mainstream believers and JWs get some things right and many things wrong. We can´t let hate overrule our judgment. So we have to listen, analyze - different viewpoints.

    On the divine name, I tend to agree with Slimboy for a few reasons. First, the evidence of the Divine Name appearing in the original NT is getting stronger with passing years. True, the evidence may not amount to the level needed to sway skeptics, but is enough to make a truth-seeker ponder over the issue.

    Secondly, writers throughout history generally strive to honor the original content when quoting from them. Scriptures such as Matthew 22:41-45 which speaks of two Lords as we have it today (being a quote) is obscure and make little sense if Jesus is the ONLY Lord of the Universe. If so, why would he be receiving a COMMAND from the first LORD. By the way, the message of that Scripture in Mat. is repeated throughout the NT. Which leads me to believe the first mention of Lord had God´s name in place. Yes, I know that thousands of existing manuscripts don´t show the Divine Name in the NT, other than the abbreviated form at Rev. 19:1. But people overall seem to miss the very important element that they are simply COPIES. A lot could have happened between the original writings and their copies. Like what, you say?

    Well, if one were to go over two leading publications that deal with textual-criticism (one by Bruce M. Metzger and the other by Phillip W. Comfort), the careful observer would notice that many of the readings in doubt in the NT deal precisely with the confusion around the identity of God and Christ beginning shortly after the apostles . There was obviously a tug of war between two main factions, one spent trying to elevate Christ to Godś level, and the other one trying to conserve Jewish monotheism at its core. Who won the debate? Apparently those favoring Christ as the replacement of Jehovah, instead of Christ being represented as God´s apostle. (Hebrews 3:1) The Trinity eventually took over the minds of the religious world tainted by Greek philosophy. (John 12:31; 2 Cor. 4:4)

    Posters like jwfacts and some others want JWs to wither and die. I too believe the JW movement poses enough danger to its followers. That is why I stopped going to their meetings almost three decades ago. But to conclude that they can´t get anything right begs many a question.

    And for those repeating the nonsense that we are not supposed to use the Divine Name because we don´t have the exact pronunciation, why don´t you start using the names of Jesus and other biblical names in this forum as they are believed to be originally pronounced ? Try it, and see how far you can go with this.

  • joe134cd

    Gee your a winder slimboyfat. Good on yah. Haha

  • Ruby456

    Jehovah's witnesses are using powerful stuff - they won't wither and die. the fascinating thing for me is the folksy, everyday feel of how they use the name Jehovah in that the name is taken up for almost everything - mealtimes, prayers and in conversation. in fact this is how Iao as the Jewish God was used during the first few centuries CE. There is plenty of material evidence at the British Museum - amulets,seals rings and gemstones from popular culture. check out Erwin R Goodenough Jewish symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period

  • Annon

    One person answered at the watchtower and managed to say Jehovah six times but the next person was far more spiritual because they used the name seven times in their answer. The pair of them never visit or even ask after my sick relative who has been years in the "Truth", but hey the name is the most important thing right?

  • UnshackleTheChains

    I remember jotting down how many times the name Jehovah was used during a talk given at an assembly. Jehovah was mentioned about 80 times. Jesus was mentioned once.

  • notsurewheretogo
    The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name

    WTF???? What on earth is going on SBF?

  • cobweb
    Pretty candid discussion in their main publication on the topic The Divine Name that will Endure Forever

    I notice you didn't link to the site to read that publication. I just went over there and its not available. I don't think it was replaced was it? Are they still publishing it? That was the most thorough treatment of God's name that I ever came across. As I recall, it was studied once in the 80's in the book study.

  • cobweb

    I remember being struck when the Divine Name brochure being studied with this comment:

    Thus it is evident that the original pronunciation of God's name is no longer known. Nor is it really important. If it were, then God Himself would have made sure that it was preserved for us to use. The important thing is to use God's name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language. The Divine Name, p. 7

    I thought: 'if the pronunciation of God's name isn't important, why are we making such a big deal about calling God Jehovah. If someone called him Yahweh we would be saying they are wrong but that is baseless.

    Additionally, if the organisation's logic in the Divine Name brochure is that if God cared about the pronunciation of the Divine name he would have preserved it, so it doesn't matter how it is pronounced, then surely the same logic should apply to the name itself, which was absent from the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament we have. By the same logic, If it ever existed in the NT, it would have been preserved if God if he thought it was important. It was not preserved however, therefore it was not important. That should naturally follow. But that is not the case, and in the 2008 Watchtower they say:

    The manuscripts of the New Testament that we possess today are not the originals. The original manuscripts written by Matthew, John, Paul, and others were well used, and no doubt they quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made. Of the thousands of copies of the New Testament in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were penned. It appears that by that time those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kuʹri·os or Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or copied from manuscripts where this had been done.*

    Knowing this, a translator must determine whether there is reasonable evidence that the Tetragrammaton did in fact appear in the original Greek manuscripts (The Watchtower August 2008)

Share this