The Heresy Jehovah’s Witnesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

NWL

Active member
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
Hi Trevor, I read your post and felt compelled to respond to your last paragraph about the divine name.

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.
 

Lon

Well-known member
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.
Not sure if you'll find this good info, but I do think you'll enjoy it at least: Jews do not say the N-me (G-d's name). Jehovah is made from the consonants JHVW (or Y in place of J). The vowel points from "YaHWeH" were removed and the vowel points from Adonai were placed in instead. Because they didn't want to use 'ah' 'eh' (so as not to be presumptuous, to be contrite and reverent, nor mispronounce). So took 'eh' 'oh' 'ah' "Je, ho, vah" from Adonai. It ensured they would not mispronounce His name, and added an extra vowel to further ensure that. However, even today, Jehovah is too close to them for 'the N-me.' They will often read "Adonai" out loud instead. Jehovah "YeHoVaH" is the same name "YHWH."

(Not driving TG, just noting from the passenger seat)
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings NWL,
I'd personally pefer to use the name Yahweh as it is the closer form to the originally
I appreciate that you state this as you are only the second JW that seemed to admit this, and the first was when I was 16 and I am a bit older now. You would most probably be aware of a range of JW literature that supports the “Jehovah” rendition, or at least I have encountered a few JWs who have produced a lot of material in support of the “Jehovah” rendition. Nevertheless you did not respond to my comments about the reason why the usage of “Jehovah” appeared, as it was based upon an incorrect reading of the YHWH Name with the vowel points of either Elohim or Adonai. Please refer to Strong’s Concordance and Rotherham. Lon's explanation helps.

Its for these reasons we use the name Jehovah.
On page 12 of the recent JW Booklet: “What Can the Bible Teach Us?” it states “God has told us that his name is Jehovah.” I suggest that most probably, like yourself, many JW scholars would recognise that the “Jehovah” rendition is not correct, but it would be embarrassing to widely acknowledge this because the Organisation has chosen the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. The JWs perpetuate an error.

The JW use of the Name “Jehovah” is also part of their propaganda to convince people that they are the true religion. This claim that the JWs are the true religion is explicitly stated on pages 158-159, where some of their teachings and practices are listed, and then the following is stated:
Page 158: “After studying these points, ask yourself: Who base their teachings on the Bible? Who tell others about God’s name? Who …? Who …? Who …? It is only Jehovah’s Witnesses.

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.
also realise it doesn't really matter as the meaning behind the name is the same.
I am happy that the JWs accept that God’s Name as revealed in Exodus 3:14 is better understood in the future tense, rather than the popular present tense in the KJV and other translations, but I suggest that the JWs have not given the correct meaning, or at least they have not explained the meaning in the context of Exodus 3 with their rendition “He Causes to Become” (EndNote 1, page 207). Perhaps among the JW literature there is some more thorough explanation of the Name, or possibly what is stated above is about as far as most JWs are instructed on the meaning of the Name.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

NWL

Active member
Greetings NWL,

I appreciate that you state this as you are only the second JW that seemed to admit this, and the first was when I was 16 and I am a bit older now. You would most probably be aware of a range of JW literature that supports the “Jehovah” rendition, or at least I have encountered a few JWs who have produced a lot of material in support of the “Jehovah” rendition. Nevertheless you did not respond to my comments about the reason why the usage of “Jehovah” appeared, as it was based upon an incorrect reading of the YHWH Name with the vowel points of either Elohim or Adonai. Please refer to Strong’s Concordance and Rotherham. Lon's explanation helps.


On page 12 of the recent JW Booklet: “What Can the Bible Teach Us?” it states “God has told us that his name is Jehovah.” I suggest that most probably, like yourself, many JW scholars would recognise that the “Jehovah” rendition is not correct, but it would be embarrassing to widely acknowledge this because the Organisation has chosen the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. The JWs perpetuate an error.

The JW use of the Name “Jehovah” is also part of their propaganda to convince people that they are the true religion. This claim that the JWs are the true religion is explicitly stated on pages 158-159, where some of their teachings and practices are listed, and then the following is stated:
Page 158: “After studying these points, ask yourself: Who base their teachings on the Bible? Who tell others about God’s name? Who …? Who …? Who …? It is only Jehovah’s Witnesses.



I am happy that the JWs accept that God’s Name as revealed in Exodus 3:14 is better understood in the future tense, rather than the popular present tense in the KJV and other translations, but I suggest that the JWs have not given the correct meaning, or at least they have not explained the meaning in the context of Exodus 3 with their rendition “He Causes to Become” (EndNote 1, page 207). Perhaps among the JW literature there is some more thorough explanation of the Name, or possibly what is stated above is about as far as most JWs are instructed on the meaning of the Name.

Kind regards
Trevor
I have read numrious JW literature and never have I seen them claim the rendering "Jehovah" is the best or most correct translation, I've seen literature highlight its the most commonly known snd popular one, but never the best.

Most JW's I know know Yahweh is the better translation, there have only been one or two I've personally known have mistakenly thought Jehovah is the only name we should be using.

Lots of JW literature explain the origin of the translation Jehovah.

Thanks for the reply and effort.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
I have read numrious JW literature and never have I seen them claim the rendering "Jehovah" is the best or most correct translation

Please see Post 24.

Also, you said in your first post that you are a JW but now you refer to them as "them". Are you a JW or not?

If you are then I would like to move on to the other points

Let’s examine some of the beliefs, which are peculiar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • They Deny Hell and its Eternity
  • No Clergy
  • Corrupted Bible (New World Translation)
  • Jesus is an Angel
  • The 144,000 Elect alone have Immortal Souls

Then there are other beliefs that are just weird, like no Blood Transfusions and insisting that God's name is Jehovah.

As for what I quoted from you:

QUOTE: The Witnesses contradict almost every basic Christian teaching, and those they don’t contradict they usually ignore. They are fundamentally unitarians. A leaflet published from their London office, called What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?, tells us: “Since there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ the true God has a personal name to distinguish him from all other gods.” The name is “Jehovah.”​
The truth is that there is only one God, and he does not need a name to distinguish him from other “gods.” Even the word “Jehovah” is not really biblical. The original writers of Holy Writ did not know it. In Hebrew they wrote “Yahweh,” which means “He who is.” It is an alternative to “God.” The Witnesses, in contrast, claim that “Jehovah” is a personal name for God. It is hard to decide exactly what they mean by all this, but it seems that for them Jehovah is to God as oak is to tree–one among many, but the best of the lot. The expression “Jehovah God,” so commonly used by the Witnesses, is nowhere found in the Bible.​
The Witnesses do n ot believe that God is everywhere, nor do they believe in the Trinity. In his book Reconciliation Rutherford said that “the constellation of the seven stars forming the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God–the dwelling place of Jehovah.” Witnesses constantly ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity. Rutherford wrote, “Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced than that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind and that the mind of Satan, the Devil” (Reconciliation, 101).​

 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again NWL,
I have read numrious JW literature and never have I seen them claim the rendering "Jehovah" is the best or most correct translation, I've seen literature highlight its the most commonly known snd popular one, but never the best.
Most JW's I know know Yahweh is the better translation, there have only been one or two I've personally known have mistakenly thought Jehovah is the only name we should be using.
I appreciate and accept this, but the JW literature that I have read continues to state that God’s Name is “Jehovah”. The earlier booklet “What Does the Bible Really Teach?” has a similar statement page 13 “the Bible also teaches that God has a personal name: Jehovah”. It refers to the Appendix pages 195-197. Again there is no hint that “Jehovah” is wrong and was first used as a result of a misunderstanding of the vowel points on YHWH. What I find interesting is that this edition has given a more literal explanation of the Divine Name “I will become what I choose to become” or Rotherham’s “I will become whatever I choose” and I agree that this is close to the meaning, but I have yet to read an explanation of the Name in the context of God delivering Israel out of Egypt. This appendix article is dropped from the later edition booklet. I also suggest that the JWs would be a bit embarrassed by Rotherham’s explanation of the wrong rendition “Jehovah” and thus why he adopted the translation “Yahweh” in his Bible Translation and this could be one reason why they dropped reference to Rotherham.

Lots of JW literature explain the origin of the translation Jehovah.
Could you please quote an extract that confirms the error of the rendition “Jehovah”? Do any of them recommend what Rotherham has stated regarding this error, and do any of them refer to the two forms of YHWH mentioned in Strong’s, one with the Elohim and the other Adonai vowel points?

Kind regards
Trevor
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again NWL,
I have read numrious JW literature and never have I seen them claim the rendering "Jehovah" is the best or most correct translation, I've seen literature highlight its the most commonly known snd popular one, but never the best.
Most JW's I know know Yahweh is the better translation, there have only been one or two I've personally known have mistakenly thought Jehovah is the only name we should be using.
Despite what I said in the previous Post, on reflection, I question to what extent and how many JWs agree with your position that “Jehovah” is not the correct rendition. I decided to add a few quotes from a fairly committed JW advocate of the rendition “Jehovah” and the following is a small sample of all that he stated. This was fairly recent on another forum. He is most probably not a conventional JW as he criticises “the old men running the WTBS”.
Just because the old men running the WTBS are getting senile, stupid- or even corrupt does NOT change the Biblical Truth we promulgate- and you are REALLY behind the times: More and more scholars are realizing God's Name is "Yehovah", and is- whether you like it or not, "Jehovah" in English.

The following are two extracts from a very extensive article and post and as I do not want to advertise all the content I will quote only two portions:
Biblical Hebrew was written only in consonants, as we see in the letters YHVH. Therefore, the main question of pronunciation concerns which vowel (points) to add to the consonants. The vowels can make a difference in the meaning. If we add the vowels - "e"-"o"-"a"- to the consonants, we receive the name YeHoVah.
In summary, 1) the meaning of the vowels, 2) the grammatical form, and 3) the list of biblical examples, all point to Yehovah (or Yehowah) as the preferred pronunciation over Yahweh.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

NWL

Active member
Greetings again NWL,

Despite what I said in the previous Post, on reflection, I question to what extent and how many JWs agree with your position that “Jehovah” is not the correct rendition. I decided to add a few quotes from a fairly committed JW advocate of the rendition “Jehovah” and the following is a small sample of all that he stated. This was fairly recent on another forum. He is most probably not a conventional JW as he criticises “the old men running the WTBS”.


The following are two extracts from a very extensive article and post and as I do not want to advertise all the content I will quote only two portions:



Kind regards
Trevor
Many would agree with me that Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation. As stated it is highlighted throughout our literature and mentioned from time to time at our meetings, I've personally spoken to many witnesses about this, it is common knowledge. Some witnesses who are ignorant will no doubt think otherwise, but most I'm sure would agree.

As I stated, the only reason JW's use the translation "Jehovah" is because it doesn't really matter how YHWH name sounds, just as long as the meaning behind the name remains is the same, hence why you and most English speaking Christian have no issue calling Yeshua "Jesus", despite the name "Yeshua" being the name that is above every other name and not the pronunciation "Jesus".

Could you please quote an extract that confirms the error of the rendition “Jehovah”? Do any of them recommend what Rotherham has stated regarding this error, and do any of them refer to the two forms of YHWH mentioned in Strong’s, one with the Elohim and the other Adonai vowel points?
The translation "Jehovah" is not an error any more than the translation "Jesus" is an error, they both remain 'translations".

You asked for a reference, this is taken from the Your Word is Truth book:

"But how shall this Tetragrammaton be pronounced? The exact Hebrew pronunciation of it has been lost, since in ancient times Hebrew contained no written vowels and the pronunciation was handed down by word of mouth. By and large, there are two forms in use: “Yahweh,” with the accent on the second syllable, and “Jehovah.” Concerning the form “Jehovah,” a Jesuit writer says: “It is disconcerting to see the divine name written as Jehovah, a 16th-century . . . error for Jahweh.”—America, Nov. 27, 1971, p. 460.

In the same vein the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “JEHOVAH, false form of the divine name Yahweh. The name Jehovah first appeared in manuscripts in the 13th century A.D., but had probably been in use for some time.” (Vol. 7, p. 863) Likewise the Revised Standard Version translators objected to the form “Jehovah,” stating that “the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” and that “it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘Yahweh.’” (P. vi.) Also, the modern Roman Catholic version known as The Jerusalem Bible uses the form “Yahweh,” even as does Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

In view of these opinions, why do the witnesses of Jehovah prefer to use “Jehovah” rather than “Yahweh”? For one thing, no one can be certain just what the original pronunciation was, even as admitted by those who prefer “Yahweh.” And further, the form “Jehovah” has a currency and familiarity that “Yahweh” does not have. “Yahweh” is obviously a transliteration, whereas “Jehovah” is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated. A transliteration usually sounds strange to the ears of those speaking the tongue into which the proper name has been transliterated."

"So the only way anyone can come near to God and have a personal relationship with him is by knowing him by his name, Yahweh, or Jehovah" -
Watchtower 82 1/1 9, Is the Name Really Important?

As can be seen, they clearly highlight Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation, when its first recorded use, and why most JW's use it. There are numerous references in JW literature highlighting the name Jehovah is not the best pronunciation, simply search for it on the Watchtower library on JW.org.

Trevor, when speaking about Christ, do you refer to him as Jesus or Yeshua?
 
Last edited:

NWL

Active member
Please see Post 24.

Also, you said in your first post that you are a JW but now you refer to them as "them". Are you a JW or not?
I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. When I referred to "them" I was speaking about the publishers of books and literature made by the Watchtower and Bible tract Society (JW's).
If you are then I would like to move on to the other points

Let’s examine some of the beliefs, which are peculiar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • They Deny Hell and its Eternity
  • No Clergy
  • Corrupted Bible (New World Translation)
  • Jesus is an Angel
  • The 144,000 Elect alone have Immortal Souls
Did you ever make a reply to my post direct at you? Why move on when you've given no reply?

You've directed me to post 24 but all you said to me in post 24 was sorry about calling me a she and then directed me to post 12. Perhaps you missed it the same way I intially missed your post, but I answered post 12 with my post 34, I'm still waiting to see what you have to say about it.
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again NWL,
Many would agree with me that Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation.
I appreciate your comments and accept that there is some acknowledgement concerning Jehovah, but possibly not obvious to all of how the error occurred. The current JW booklets continue to emphasise that God’s Name is Jehovah and that the JWs are to be commended for using and publicising God’s Name (as Jehovah). The thrust or emphasis appears to be the suggestion that it is mainly a matter of pronunciation.

You may be interested, I was discussing this and a few other details with a JW on another forum. He had “JW” as part of his forum name and his avatar was the Name of God in Hebrew, and under this was “Jehovah”. I surmised that the picture came from JW literature. The thread that he started was “The Most Accurate Bible Translation of ALL Time! The NWT!” I do not know if you accept this concept, but I have encountered another JW who suggested that it was very reliable and most JWs rely heavily on this translation, almost exclusively.

I also conducted a thread from October 2019 reviewing a JW booklet, and this appeared in that forum and also on this forum. The title of this thread was “JW Book: What Can the Bible Teach Us?”I did not receive any JW response to either of these threads. If you search this forum using “JW Book” and member “TrevorL” you may find this. In my youth I read through the JW book “Let God be True” and marked it where I enjoyed or agreed with what was said, and some areas where I disagreed. My review of the new booklet was much the same, and in the thread I commented mainly on where I disagreed. I do not know if JWs think differently to how I read the Bible and some of the things stated in the Booklet.

Trevor, when speaking about Christ, do you refer to him as Jesus or Yeshua?
When I read the KJV NT I read Jesus. The NT as we have it was written in Greek. When I read Psalm 110:1 quoted in the KJV NT, for example Acts 2:34 which has "LORD" and "Lord", I read Lord for LORD and Lord for Lord. In the OT I read Yahweh for LORD, GOD (where it is the Divine Name), and Yahweh for the few occasions that the KJV use Jehovah. In some of our hymns that the original has Jehovah, we sing Yahweh. We recognise that Jehovah is not a matter of pronunciation, but an error. In conversation and from the platform and in prayers we often speak the Name of God as Yahweh, never Jehovah. Possibly we would use “our Father” more often. This is one of the things that we have been interested in, but more especially we are interested in the meaning of the Yahweh Name. I also conducted a thread “The Yahweh Name” on this and a few other forums and I did a search and found this thread again.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

NWL

Active member
Greetings again NWL,

I appreciate your comments and accept that there is some acknowledgement concerning Jehovah, but possibly not obvious to all of how the error occurred. The current JW booklets continue to emphasise that God’s Name is Jehovah and that the JWs are to be commended for using and publicising God’s Name (as Jehovah). The thrust or emphasis appears to be the suggestion that it is mainly a matter of pronunciation.
If you do enough digging you will find plenty of information regarding the origin of the name and JW writers highlighting it is not the correct pronunciation. The very bible JW's use, in the appendix A4, expresses the origin of the name Jehovah and why we/they use it, this can be seen by clicking here; It is not something we as a religion hide, we/they may at times highlight God has a name and express it to be Jehovah without expressing the possibility of other variations, but common sense suggests it is not necessary to modify every article by suggesting there are other variations of it.
You may be interested, I was discussing this and a few other details with a JW on another forum. He had “JW” as part of his forum name and his avatar was the Name of God in Hebrew, and under this was “Jehovah”. I surmised that the picture came from JW literature. The thread that he started was “The Most Accurate Bible Translation of ALL Time! The NWT!” I do not know if you accept this concept, but I have encountered another JW who suggested that it was very reliable and most JWs rely heavily on this translation, almost exclusively.
There are many things I do not like about the NWT, such as leaving certain words that have been added for clarity without insertion brackets, or the use of the divine name in some NT passages, among other minor things. I do however see the NWT as a better translation than most commonly used translations today. The reasons range from the use of the divine name (which in itself makes it more accurate than all the most widely used translations today), better translations when it comes to some verses, such as Exo 3:14 ("ehyeh aser ehyeh"), among others.
I also conducted a thread from October 2019 reviewing a JW booklet, and this appeared in that forum and also on this forum. The title of this thread was “JW Book: What Can the Bible Teach Us?”I did not receive any JW response to either of these threads. If you search this forum using “JW Book” and member “TrevorL” you may find this. In my youth I read through the JW book “Let God be True” and marked it where I enjoyed or agreed with what was said, and some areas where I disagreed. My review of the new booklet was much the same, and in the thread I commented mainly on where I disagreed. I do not know if JWs think differently to how I read the Bible and some of the things stated in the Booklet.
I read through your comments on the thread, I found them interesting. One unusual but minor point I felt compelled to mention was the idea you have the Serpent that deceived Eve was not Satan. We must remember that scripture literally attributes Satan as being the snake in Revelation, "The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him." (Rev 12:9). We must also remember the very name Satan means "deceiver", what did the snake do in Genesis, it deceived Eve. Jesus says about Satan "He was a murderer from the beginning...he is a liar and the father of lies", we must think to the deception the serpent committed and what it means. Firstly, the serpent deception was the first "lie" ever told as recorded in the bible("you positively will not die"), the result of which has caused the death of millions upon millions of people, this parallels perfectly with the fact Jesus called Satan a "murderer" and the "father of the lie".

What's more, Jesus referred to Satan as being the Father of the Jewish teachers in his day, (John 8:44) "You are from your father the Devil", Jesus goes onto call these same ones "offspring of vipers". Over and over we see Satan being identified as being the "original serpent", I see nothing in the text or from an observable viewpoint that suggests the serpent itself, separate from Satan, deceived eve. You are however entitled to your opoion.
When I read the KJV NT I read Jesus. The NT as we have it was written in Greek. When I read Psalm 110:1 quoted in the KJV NT, for example Acts 2:34 which has "LORD" and "Lord", I read Lord for LORD and Lord for Lord. In the OT I read Yahweh for LORD, GOD (where it is the Divine Name), and Yahweh for the few occasions that the KJV use Jehovah. In some of our hymns that the original has Jehovah, we sing Yahweh. We recognise that Jehovah is not a matter of pronunciation, but an error. In conversation and from the platform and in prayers we often speak the Name of God as Yahweh, never Jehovah. Possibly we would use “our Father” more often. This is one of the things that we have been interested in, but more especially we are interested in the meaning of the Yahweh Name. I also conducted a thread “The Yahweh Name” on this and a few other forums and I did a search and found this thread again.

Kind regards
Trevor
My point in asking you is that most have no issue with calling Christ by the name Jesus, even though "Jesus" is not the correct way to say the name of Christ; the name above every other name is Yeshua, not Jesus. So for someone to argue (not that you have) that it is incorrect to use the name Jehovah over another variation, you'd also have to admit you're using Christ's name with the same disregard.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again NWL,

I appreciate your fairly thorough answer and the fact that you have read through my assessment of the JW Booklet.
JW writers highlighting it is not the correct pronunciation. The very bible JW's use, in the appendix A4, expresses the origin of the name Jehovah and why we/they use it
Yes, I read your reference to the JW explanation of why they use “Jehovah” and although it covers most of the ground, it does not spell out the fact of how the error “Jehovah” occurred, except there is a hint in their stating that the Masorites added different vowel points to YHWH. So I suggest that my criticism of the JW use of the error “Jehovah” stands, as it is not simply a matter of pronunciation. I find it interesting that they mention Rotherham, and I suggest that he has backtracked from his earlier position, and I do not agree or commend what he did in his commentary by comparison to his explanation in his translation where he uses Yahweh and explains the reason in his introduction.

I do however see the NWT as a better translation than most commonly used translations today.
I suggest that we need to be careful with any translation we use. I find the use of “Jehovah” rather than “Yahweh” as per Rotherham, the JB and the NJB to be a demerit as it perpetuates an error. I personally question whether the NWT is accurate in many of the more difficult verses that need to be carefully understood and translated both in their context and in the correct meaning the phrases and meaning and range of the individual words. I would prefer to use other translations and compare these and also refer to scholarly commentaries rather than in any way rely upon the NWT, and I assess that the JWs recommend that most JWs should avoid this method that I recommend as they think and encouraged to believe that the NWT is the best and most accurate Bible ever written.

One unusual but minor point I felt compelled to mention was the idea you have the Serpent that deceived Eve was not Satan.
You did not address the NWT use of “cautious” rather than “crafty” or “subtil” KJV. Yes I believe that the serpent was given reasoning ability and also the ability to speak. I would be interested in how you understand Romans 7:1-8:3 where Paul does not seem to suggest that our main problem with sin is the devil, but the lusts of the flesh that arise from within our fallen nature. Also you may also like to consider Hebrews 2:14.

So for someone to argue (not that you have) that it is incorrect to use the name Jehovah over another variation, you'd also have to admit you're using Christ's name with the same disregard.
I suggest that this argument is to deflect from the error “Jehovah”. The difference between “Jehovah” and “Yahweh” is not a matter of pronunciation.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
I do not believe as Jehovah's Witnesses do.

Primarily, I disagree with their interpretation of Revelation, the way they treat some of their members, the Great Apostasy, eschatology, and soteriology.

However, I don't understand why Catholics go after them with such vigor.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Right off the top: Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians. They preach a false Christ.

Let’s examine some of the beliefs, which are peculiar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • They Deny the Divinity of Christ.
  • They Deny Hell and its Eternity
  • No Clergy
  • Corrupted Bible (New World Translation)
  • Jesus is an Angel
  • The 144,000 Elect alone have Immortal Souls

Then there are other beliefs that are just weird, like no Blood Transfusions and insisting that God's name is Jehovah..


First, a backdrop: The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect founded in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell, a Pittsburgh draper. Russell was born in 1852 of Scottish and Irish descent. He became an earnest worker in the Congregational Church.

Russell was not a Scripture scholar, learned in the Greek language. Under oath in court at Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1913 he declared in support of his claims to be an expert Scripture scholar that he knew Greek. Handed a Greek New Testament, he was forced to admit that he did not know even the Greek alphabet. Neither did he know Latin or Hebrew. He wrote on the Bible, but every acknowledged Scripture scholar in the universities of the world today will agree that Russell’s explanations are for the most part quite contrary to the obvious meaning of the words of the Bible.

After Russell’s death he was succeeded as head of the sect by a man named Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who called himself “Judge” although he had never held an official appointment as such. On May 8, 1918, together with other “Russellites,” he was arrested under the Espionage Act and later sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for spreading insubordination and disloyalty in the American Navy and Army.

Rutherford was succeeded as head of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Nathan Homer Knorr. He had been on the board of directors since 1934. Knorr began a face-lifting and public relations program which paid dividends in converts. Door-to-door evangelists no longer carried portable gramophones and collections of Rutherford’s records. They were given a thorough training in speech, apologetics, and salesmanship which enabled them to deliver their own Bible talks.

Witnesses are not Christians, for they deny that Christ is God. The Witnesses have no time for the Christian churches. Russell said that in 1879 God had rejected all existing Churches and made the Russellites the only spokesmen thenceforward.

As for civil authority, they say they owe their only loyalty to a “Theocratic Kingdom” and refuse the duties of earthly citizenship. There are two groups in the world, the “Theocratic Kingdom” and “Satan’s Organization.” This latter includes all churches and governments. Just as among the churches the papacy is the “Beast” par excellence, so among the nations are America and Britain.

Let’s examine some of the beliefs
  • They Deny the Divinity of Christ.

Is Christ God?
  1. “Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to him.” Given in support of this position are these verses: “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (Matt. 3:17). “I proceeded and came forth from God” (John 8:42). “If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one” (1 Cor. 15:28).
At first glance these citations seem imposing. It does seem that Christ is inferior to God the Father in some sense. But the New Testament also has verses which clearly show Christ and the Father to be equals. For example, there is John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Or, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Or, “The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Or, “[Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). These seem to contradict the other verses.

How do we make sense of all this? By keeping in mind that Jesus is both God and man. Some verses, such as these last four, refer exclusively to his Godhead. Others refer to his humanity. So far as he is God, Jesus is equal to the Father. Christ’s human nature, though, is created and is therefore inferior to the Father. But to focus on this aspect of Christ to the exclusion of his divine nature is a gross misunderstanding of who and what the Bible says Jesus Christ is. Other verses cited by the Witnesses, such as Matthew 3:17, show merely that Christ is God’s Son, not that he is inferior (in fact, John 5:18 shows that being God’s Son is being equal to God).

Was Christ Created?
  1. “Christ was the first of God’s creations.” Verses cited by Witnesses in support of this claim include: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15). “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen [Christ], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation’” (Rev. 3:14).
In the first of the two verses, Witnesses think that “first-born” implies succession and inferiority. But the title “first-born” refers to Christ’s place as the chief and unique Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Further, the Greek of this verse can also be translated as “the first-born over all creation,” as in the New International Version of the Bible.

Regarding the second verse from Revelation, it’s hard to see how it helps the Witnesses at all. It merely says Christ was the source of creation. This implies Christ is divine.

The fact that there was no time when the Son did not exist is indicated in John 1:1–3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” This passage also shows that the Son is not a creature because all created things were made through him.

More to come
What do you mean by "divinity"?
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
That makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes no sense to me either. The Bible does not indicate or say "Jesus is God", but that us indeed what is commonly meant by the divinity of Christ.

 

Right Divider

Body part
It makes no sense to me either. The Bible does not indicate or say "Jesus is God", but that us indeed what is commonly meant by the divinity of Christ.

His question was about the definition of the word "divinity".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top