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

by slimboyfat 326 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty
    If everyone had acted as he did there would have been no war and no Holocaust. - SBF

    But that didn't happen. The churches in Germany supported Hitler - shame on them.

    There was a holocaust and JWs did absolutely nothing to stop it - shame on them.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Imagine a man beating up a child in the street and you walk on by reassuring yourself that if only everybody acted like JWs these sort of things would never happen.

    This is the moral cowardice you are trying to sell as a virtue.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    If it's unrealistic all Argentinans could be pascifist then it's unrealistic all British people could be pascificf. You can't have it both ways.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I have not got a clue what you mean. Argentina?? What are you trying to say?

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Was that me? I think that might have been days ago, and half asleep.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses have any more love than is exhibited in other churches. Sadly, their love is entirely conditional. And I don't think they are the happiest people on earth either. They may be working harder (peddling a false gospel and a false kingdom) to earn their shot at salvation in the new system. But that's simply because they do not understand that salvation/eternal life is a gift, not a reward.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Question. Relating, sort of, to the OP.

    About the JWs "restoring" the name of god in places in the NT where the term "Lord" is used. The premise is that if the OT verse is quoted in the NT, then that verse should say Jehovah. Do I have that right? It is pretty simple. OT verse in the NT should say "Jehovah" instead of "Lord".

    Maybe SFB can answer this for me, seeing as he has read the background for this....Why, then, does Hebrews 1: 10-12, in the JWs NWT, still retain the term "Lord" when it quotes a verse from Psalms?

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    As it stands the record of JWs refusing to kill each other as other religions do is impressive.....SBF

    JW`s Kill/Sacrifice Their Own Children For WBT$ Doctrine.

    Image result for Jehovahs witness children

    JW`s Would Have Made Excellent Cannanites.

    Just Swap The WBT$ For Baal and You`re Good To Go.

    ..Image result for baal

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Good point OrphanCrow, that's one I always wondered about too. I can't see any justification for not using Jehovah in Heb 1:10 other than it's embarrassing for JWs to explain why Jesus is apparently called Jehovah here.

    There might possibly be an issue with the Hebrew, inasmuch as I'm not sure if the divine name is used in this Psalm in Hebrew in the places where the later Christian LXX has Lord.

    But I don't think they should be afraid of translating such verses that apply the name Jehovah to Jesus, because the NT says that Jesus is given the name above every name. (Phil 2) In other words the name of God is given to Jesus and he acts as Jehovah's representative. It was customary for a representative of the monarch to be addressed as the monarch, and this is the scenario that is applied to Jesus. Plus another angle is that Hebrews 1 isn't necessarily identifying Jesus with Jehovah in Heb 1:10 any more than, strictly speaking, it is identifying Jesus with Solomon(?) in Heb 1:8. Because the phrase it uses is "with respect to the son" rather than addressing the son. Indicating it's aspects of the Son's character rather than an identification that is in focus.

    But I agree, if being consistent, Heb 1:10 should probably use God's name even if the extant Hebrew doesn't have the Tetragram, because the assumption should reasonably be that the LXX was based on a Hebrew text that did contain the name, and that the early LXX would have used the name.

    There are a few other such examples but this is a good example.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    sbf: ... it's embarrassing for JWs to explain why Jesus is apparently called Jehovah here.

    It isn't just embarrassing.

    This is one place where it is painfully obvious that the motivations, and the WT's process, is flawed at its core. You can wave all sorts of scholarly books around that claim to speculatively support the WT's "Jehovah" additions into the NT text, but when they use it inconsistently, it is clear that they have no interest in real evidence or academic validation - they are only interested in making sure that Jesus doesn't get divine status. The WT perverts the text just enough to support their version of god. And that, for sure, is NOT Jesus.

    Go up a few verses. Check out what the WT "translators" did to Hebrews 1:8

    http://avoidjw.org/holy-bible/hebrews-1-8/

    *edit to add: in about 4 hours from now, the whining and gnashing of teeth should increase on the jworg site. A court in Russia will be ruling on whether or not the silver Sword is extremist. I don't hold out much hope for that fancy pretty JW bibble. The org is trying to denigrate the Russian experts. The org thinks that their shiny brand new bibble should be accepted by a country whose background in Christianity is almost 1000 years older than they are.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit