NWL
Active member
Hi Trevor, I read your post and felt compelled to respond to your last paragraph about the divine name.Greetings again Trump Gurl,
I appreciate the reminder. I would like to give a brief response to each of your items to state where I stand in regard to each.
I do not accept that Jesus is God, nor the JW position that Jesus pre-existed, either as Michael the Archangel or similar. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, and as such he was a human being, not a God-man, or a Angel-man, or a man that was previously an Angel or God, but God the Father was his father and Mary his mother.
I agree in general with the JW view here. The word “hell” is the covered place and represents the grave. Jesus died and was in the tomb three days without any consciousness and then God raised him from the dead. I disagree with the JWs here however because they do not believe that the body of Jesus was raised from the dead, but that his dead body was somehow preserved, failing to understand correctly Acts 2:27. The Catholic and Protestant concept that the majority of mankind will suffer eternal torments is grotesque and is a poor estimation of the character of God and his love, mercy and justice.
The hierarchy that is evident in the Catholic Church today is not what was evident in the First Century Congregations. One example is Acts 20:17 where it is evident that the one Congregation at Ephesus had a number of Elders. Paul’s warning in Acts 20:17-35 speaks clearly against the development of the “Clergy” and is prophetic of this Apostasy.
I agree, there are errors in the NWT, and some of these errors support some of the wrong teachings of the JWs. For example "cautious" in Genesis 3:1 instead of "crafty" in most translations and "subtil" in the KJV.
Jesus is the Son of God, not an Angel.
This is a wrong assessment of the JW position. They believe that 144,000 will go to heaven and be with Jesus, while the majority of those saved will be resurrected to live on earth for the 1000 years. I disagree with the JW concept as I believe that the 144,000 is symbolic number representing all the redeemed. I also believe that Jesus will return to this earth and raise the dead and the faithful will rule with him for the 1000 years from Jerusalem upon the Throne of David Isaiah 2:1-4, and they will rule over the converted nation of Israel and educating the rest of the nations.
Yes, their teaching on blood transfusions is not correct and a misreading or misapplication of Acts 15.
The Name of God is more correctly understood as Yahweh. Jehovah is based upon a misreading of YHWH, where the Masorites added the vowel points of Elohim and Adonai to warn the reader to read these words instead of reading aloud Yahweh. Some of this error is explained in the Introduction of Rotherham’s Bible Translation. Having accepted "Jehovah", the JWs go to extraordinary lengths to justify this error, but when I was 16 and met my first JW at the door, a quiet studious JW quietly confided with me that the use of Jehovah was incorrect and the correct representation was most probably Yahweh (or Yahveh as he seemed to pronounce this). I do not assess that there are many independent JWs, as they are instructed to only rely on JW literature and general scholarly resources are considered to be dangerous and need to be avoided.
Kind regards
Trevor
Whilst JW's commonly use the name "Jehovah" in English we do not insist of using that version of the name of understand it to be the most accurate version of it. When the NWT is translated into other languages the name YHWH is translated into various different forms, from Ziova, and Yawe to Yahweh and Yihowa.
What we realise from the scriptures is that the sounding of the name is not necessarily the important thing, rather its the meaning of the name which is important. YHWH isn't called by his name based on how it sounds, rather he's called YHWH based on what it means. The same can be said to many and most named people in the bible. People readily accept the name of "Jesus" as Christ name when in fact its was Yeshua. Jesus is commonly recognised as christ name in English and is translated and means the same thing as Yeshua.
If Jesus/Yeshua meant "deceiver", then God would never have named his Son Jesus/Yeshua, rather, he gave him that name based on its meaning, not based on how it sounded.
Its for these reasons we use the name Jehovah. I'd personally pefer to use the name Yahweh as it is the closer form to the originally, but also realise it doesn't really matter as the meaning behind the name is the same.