Jehovah is not gods name, the nonsense of Jehovah Witnesses

[Alan McDougall]

The name Jehovah is not Gods name the term Jehovah was coined by a Catholic sometime in the 13th Century and its source is Latin not Hebrew .Just think of this comparison, would you call your father or president or national leader by their first names? Of course not, most call their Father Dad, not Jim , John or Bob etc, and most definitly no one in their right mind would in the presence of president Obama would say, hey!! Barrack! No!! you would respect him and his high office and say MR. PRESISIDENT would you not?

But these Jehovah Witnesses want us to address the "SUPREME BEING" by his first supposed name, Hey Jehovah howsit!!

The reality God is the respectful title and I use God because there is only one Creator God. The inexpressible, unpronounceable name of the ever existing one YHWH




Questions for JW to answer rationally and truthfully below!!

http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/30_questions_jw.htm

30 Questions for JW??


Resurrection of Jesus

If Jesus was resurrected as an invisible spirit, like the Watchtower teaches, why did Jesus say he was going to raise his physical body from the dead (John 2:19-22)?

If Jesus, the man, ceased to exist at his death and was raised from the dead as Michael the Archangel, why did Michael deceive the apostles into believing that they were witnessing Jesus in a resurrected physical body (Luke 24:39)?

If Jesus is now living in heaven as an invisible spirit creature, like the Watchtower teaches, why did Paul write many years after the ascension of Christ that he is dwelling in heaven in a physical body (Colossians 2:9)? Note: The Greek word, somatikos, means physical, tangible body.

If Jesus is now Michael the Archangel, why does 1 Timothy 2:5 say that the mediator between God and men is the man, Christ Jesus, and not the spirit, Michael the Archangel?

Can you show me a verse in the bible that clearly says Jesus is the Archangel Michael? How can Jesus be Michael since Hebrews chapter 1 stresses the superiority of Jesus over the angels and that all the angels worship him? Why would Jehovah command that the entire angelic realm worship another angel? Note: The Watchtower bible changes the word worship, in Hebrews 1:6, to “do obeisance to”. However, see section below on the New World Translation.

The Watchtower Society

Since the Watchtower was wrong in the past about many of its teachings and the light continues to get brighter (Proverbs 4:18), how do you know that the current teachings are correct and won’t change?

Why did the Watchtower magazine (Nov 15, 1981, p. 21) say to “come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation” when Jesus never directed us to an organization for salvation but to him?

When you joined the Jehovah’s Witnesses, did you read information for and against the Watchtower so you could make an educated and well rounded decision based on both points of view?

Has anyone become a Jehovah’s Witness after reading the bible alone without the aid of Watchtower material?

If I were to join the Jehovah’s Witnesses, would it be okay for me to do research into the Watchtower’s past by reading non-Watchtower material?

Since the Watchtower was in error many times in the past, are you obligated to believe that all the current teachings are God’s truth?

False Prophecies

If Jesus’ invisible presence began in 1914, like the Watchtower teaches, why was the Watchtower teaching in 1929 that Jesus’ invisible presence began in 1874? How did they finally figure out that that teaching was false? Reference: Prophecy, 1929, p. 65.

Since the Watchtower claims to be God’s prophet (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972, p. 197) and have falsely predicted Armageddon to occur in 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975, do you think they meet the criteria of Deuteronomy 18:20-22?

Can you show me in the bible where it says to give false prophets a second or third chance to get it right?

If the Watchtower really is Jehovah’s prophet, like they claim, can you show me anything they predicted that came to pass?

The New World Translation

Why did Hebrews 1:6 in the 1970 version of the New World Translation say, “Let all God’s angels worship him” and not “do obeisance to him” like the new versions say?

Why does the New World Translation insert the word “other” four times into Colossians chapter 1 when it isn’t in the Greek manuscripts at all? Doesn’t this change the meaning of the text?

Why does the New World Translation place the comma in Luke 23:43 in a different location than it does every other time when Jesus says, “Truly I tell you”?

Can you show me a list of Greek scholars who approve of the New World Translation’s New Testament translation?

Can you show me a list of the people who were on the New World Translation Committee along with their credentials in the ancient Biblical languages?

The 144,000

If the Watchtower’s teaching that the 144,000 were filled in 1935 is correct, can you explain how Jesus, his apostles and their immediate followers couldn’t get 144,000 converts in 1800 years, but the Watchtower got 6 million converts in 125 years?

Why does the Watchtower teach that only 144,000 people are born-again when 1 John 5:1 says that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God?

Why is there only one judgment period from God to test the endurance and worthiness of the 144,000 before they are guaranteed of eternal life, but the other sheep have to endure through this life, the 1000 year millennium plus pass an unknown final test before they are counted worthy of eternal life? Why is salvation so much easier for the 144,000?

If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not part of the 144,000 with a heavenly hope, why does Jesus say in Matthew 8:11 that they will be in the kingdom of heaven?

Identity of Jesus

According to Jesus in John 17:3, how many true Gods are there? Would you say that whatever is not true is false? Doesn’t the New World Translation call Jesus “a god” in John 1:1? Since there is only one true God and all others must be false, is Jesus a true God or a false god?

If Jesus was God’s Master Worker in creation, why does Jehovah say, in Isaiah 44:24, that He created all things by Himself?

If Jesus is a created being, why does he get twice as much worship, in Revelation 5:12, as Jehovah gets in Revelation 4:11?

If Jehovah created Jesus, why does John 1:3 say that all things came into existence through Jesus and apart from him not even one thing was made? Doesn’t this place Jesus outside the realm of created things?

Miscellaneous

If everlasting life comes by taking in knowledge (John 17:3), how long do I have to study with the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be assured that I have enough knowledge to live forever? 1 year? 5 years?

If we pay for our personal sins when we die, like the Watchtower teaches, how will the great crowd who survive Armageddon pay for their sins since they will never die but go right on living into the millennium?

[Bill the Cat]

Alan, please stop posting lists of questions from your web site. One or two per thread is sufficient

[pancreasman]

Alan, friendly advice: It might be an idea to participate in other people's discussion threads for a while to get the lay of the land rather than come in all guns blazing. You'd earn some credibility and people might then be more inclined to listen to what you had to say.

[Alan McDougall]

Alan, please stop posting lists of questions from your web site. One or two per thread is sufficient


OK Moderator not my website just a link that I agree with, will keep my future posts short and too the point still learning how to how this particulat forums works I like to freely express my opinions and allow any response to blow me out of the park if they can

Sorry for that, will behave in future
Alan

[Sparko]

The name Jehovah is not Gods name the term Jehovah was coined by a Catholic sometime in the 13th Century and its source is Latin not Hebrew .Just think of this comparison, would you call your father or president or national leader by their first names? Of course not, most call their Father Dad, not Jim , John or Bob etc, and most definitly no one in their right mind would in the presence of president Obama would say, hey!! Barrack! No!! you would respect him and his high office and say MR. PRESISIDENT would you not?

But these Jehovah Witnesses want us to address the "SUPREME BEING" by his first supposed name, Hey Jehovah howsit!!

Well, that is a pretty poor argument, Alan.

What do we call the Son, who is also the Supreme Being? Jesus. His given name.

[pancreasman]

I think it's always best in arguing against any particular metaphysics to argue against the best that the other side has to offer, rather than attacking 'low end' of the spectrum.

[Alan McDougall]

Well, that is a pretty poor argument, Alan.

What do we call the Son, who is also the Supreme Being? Jesus. His given name.

Not really Jesus is the Son in the GODHEAD we should take how to addrees the Supreme Being form him , thus he always refered to the God as his Father he told us in the Lord Prayer to pray Our Father who art in heaven, elsewhere for instance he said to Peter "
Have Faith in God"

He never ever said we must call God Jehovah and he never ever used that term to refer to the Father God, which, although he is also Divine, he is the Son part of the Trinity not God the Father

[pancreasman]

Not really Jesus is the Son in the GODHEAD we should take how to addrees the Supreme Being form him , thus he always refered to the God as his Father he told us in the Lord Prayer to pray Our Father who art in heaven, elsewhere for instance he said to Peter "
Have Faith in God"

He never ever said we must call God Jehovah and he never ever used that term to refer to the Father God, which, although he is also Divine, he is the Son part of the Trinity not God the Father

Except 'God' and 'Father' are words in English. The name 'Jesus' is a transliteration Jesus' Hebrew name. If you're going to get particular about proper naming you should be using the terms Jesus used in the original language. Are you sure that's what you want to advocate?

[Sparko]

Not really Jesus is the Son in the GODHEAD we should take how to addrees the Supreme Being form him , thus he always refered to the God as his Father he told us in the Lord Prayer to pray Our Father who art in heaven, elsewhere for instance he said to Peter "
Have Faith in God"

He never ever said we must call God Jehovah and he never ever used that term to refer to the Father God, which, although he is also Divine, he is the Son part of the Trinity not God the Father

Actually he did. He used "ego eimi" "I am" which is YHWH's name to refer to HIMSELF - thus showing that he was God.

And God did tell Moses his name was YHWH. Jehovah is just an attempt at pronouncing YHWH, and the J in Jehovah was originally in German, and is pronounced as we do our "Y" and the W has a "v" sound in German - so YeHoWaH = JeHoVaH.

It is basically the name YHWH, interspersed with the vowels from Adonai (Lord)

It is still a poor argument. Jesus is God, and he deserves as much respect as the Father does, doesn't he? so why do you refer to him by his first name?

[Alan McDougall]

Actually he did. He used "ego eimi" "I am" which is YHWH's name to refer to HIMSELF - thus showing that he was God.

And God did tell Moses his name was YHWH. Jehovah is just an attempt at pronouncing YHWH, and the J in Jehovah was originally in German, and is pronounced as we do our "Y" and the W has a "v" sound in German - so YeHoWaH = JeHoVaH.

It is basically the name YHWH, interspersed with the vowels from Adonai (Lord)

It is still a poor argument. Jesus is God, and he deserves as much respect as the Father does, doesn't he? so why do you refer to him by his first name?

The Godhead or trinity are God but how else can we differentiate between the three aspects of the Most High, maybe we should say God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and God the Father when we refer to different aspects of the Godhead.

I know my argument is lacking, but I have real difficulty with the Jehovah Witnesses insistence that we must refer to God as Jehovah, even to the extent that we might not be resurrected if we deliberately refused to do it. This is a vital core of their doctrine and they sing hymns only to Jehovah saying it is wrong to worship Jesus because he is a man albeit the most important mortal man in human history.

Alan

[Sparko]

The Godhead or trinity are God but how else can we differentiate between the three aspects of the Most High, maybe we should say God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and God the Father when we refer to different aspects of the Godhead.

I know my argument is lacking, but I have real difficulty with the Jehovah Witnesses insistence that we must refer to God as Jehovah, even to the extent that we might not be resurrected if we deliberately refused to do it. This is a vital core of their doctrine and they sing hymns only to Jehovah saying it is wrong to worship Jesus because he is a man albeit the most important mortal man in human history.

Alan

Actually they think Jesus was the Arch Angel Michael who was incarnated as a man and is now basically the angel Michael again, but with a new name.

[Catholicity]

One thing about the JW's Jehovah (Latin Proper Iehovah) is the latin transliteration of YHWH, its not wrong to use Jehovah as a name of God, only wrong to discard the accurate Hebrew lettering. The real issue comes in with the JW's when they claim that Jesus was only a god and that his pre incarnate for was Michael the Archaengel. Now we have a trinity problem and a polytheistic problem

[Dee Dee Warren]

Their dogmatism that Jehovah is the proper way to render YHWH is problematic, but minor compared to their other issues. I am convinced the proper pronunciation is Yahweh, and we wouldn't know it, if God didn't tell us, so I believe we are allowed to use it properly.

[sylvius]

Actually he did. He used "ego eimi" "I am" which is YHWH's name to refer to HIMSELF - thus showing that he was God.

Ĕhyĕh is not a “name”, but a statement.

[sylvius]

Jesus is God, and he deserves as much respect as the Father does, doesn't he? so why do you refer to him by his first name?

http://nisargadatta.net/IamThat.html


Q: Is there no God apart from you?

M: How can there be? 'I am' is the root, God is the tree. Whom am I
to worship, and what for?

Q: Are you the devotee or the object of devotion?

M: Am neither, I am devotion itself.

[Alan McDougall]

One thing about the JW's Jehovah (Latin Proper Iehovah) is the latin transliteration of YHWH, its not wrong to use Jehovah as a name of God, only wrong to discard the accurate Hebrew lettering. The real issue comes in with the JW's when they claim that Jesus was only a god and that his pre incarnate for was Michael the Archaengel. Now we have a trinity problem and a polytheistic problem

In John 1:1, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses inserts the word "a" in an attempt to deny Christ’s deity: "In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (New World Translation [NWT]) Note! but a "little god" amongst billions of other little gods in the universe

The same verse in the New American Standard Version reads this way: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[JohnOneOne]

In John 1:1, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses inserts the word "a" in an attempt to deny Christ’s deity: "In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (New World Translation [NWT]) Note! but a "little god" amongst billions of other little gods in the universe

The same verse in the New American Standard Version reads this way: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 7/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Bill the Cat]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 7/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

If it is as bad as this from the same web site:

http://goodcompanionbooks.com/Early%20Christians/Did%20Early%20Christians%20TeachBelieve%20Trinity.pdf

It should be a hoot!

[Alan McDougall]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 7/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name `other than Jesus Christ, under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been the logical place for God to use the name "YHWH"?

If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, how can Mt 25:31 say, "When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and ALL the angels with him, Since "all the angels" would certainly include Michael the Archangel, is it possible that Jesus could return with himself?

In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" " God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?

Alan

[JohnOneOne]

If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name `other than Jesus Christ, under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been the logical place for God to use the name "YHWH"?

*** "Reasoning from the Scriptures" p. 413 par. 1 ***

Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3,*4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

*** "Insight on the Scriptures" vol. 2 p. 61 ***

“Chief Agent of life.” As an expression of his Father’s undeserved kindness, Christ Jesus laid down his perfect human life in sacrifice. This made possible the union of Christ’s chosen followers with him in his heavenly reign and also made possible the arrangement for earthly subjects of his Kingdom rule. (Mt 6:10; Joh 3:16; Eph 1:7; Heb 2:5;...) He thereby became “the Chief Agent [“Prince,” KJ; JB] of life” for all mankind. (Ac 3:15) The Greek term here used means, basically, “chief leader,” a related word being applied to Moses (Ac 7:27,*35) as “ruler” in Israel.

Hence, as the “chief leader” or “pioneer of Life” (Mo), Jesus Christ introduced a new and essential element for gaining eternal life in the sense of being an intermediary or go-between, but he is such in an administrative sense as well. He is God’s High Priest who can effect full cleansing from sin and liberation from sin’s death-dealing effects (Heb 3:1,*2; 4:14; 7:23-25; 8:1-3); he is the appointed Judge into whose hands all judgment is committed, so that he judiciously administers his ransom benefits to individuals among mankind according to their worthiness to live under his kingship (Joh 5:22-27; Ac 10:42,*43); through him the resurrection of the dead also comes. (Joh 5:28,*29; 6:39,*40)

Because Jehovah God so ordained to use his Son, “there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Ac 4:12; compare 1Jo 5:11-13.

Since this aspect of Jesus’ authority is also embraced in his “name,” his disciples, as representatives of the Chief Agent of life, by that name could heal persons of their infirmities resulting from inherited sin and they could even raise the dead.—Ac 3:6, 15,*16; 4:7-11; 9:36-41; 20:7-12.

The full significance of his “name.” It can be seen that, while Jesus’ death on a torture stake plays a vital part in human salvation, acceptance of this is by no means all that is involved in ‘putting faith in the name of Jesus.’ (Ac 10:43) Following his resurrection, Jesus informed his disciples, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth,” thereby showing that he heads a government of universal domain. (Mt 28:18) The apostle Paul made clear that Jesus’ Father has “left nothing that is not subject to him [Jesus],” with the evident exception of “the one who subjected all things to him,” that is, Jehovah, the Sovereign God. (1Co 15:27; Heb 1:1-14; 2:8) Jesus Christ’s “name,” therefore, is more excellent than that of God’s angels, in that his name embraces or stands for the vast executive authority that Jehovah has placed in him. (Heb 1:3,*4) Only those who willingly recognize that “name” and bow to it, subjecting themselves to the authority it represents, will gain life eternal. (Ac 4:12; Eph 1:19-23; Php 2:9-11) They must, sincerely and without hypocrisy, line up with the standards Jesus exemplified and, in faith, obey the commands he gave.—Mt 7:21-23; Ro 1:5; 1Jo 3:23.

*** "The Watchtower" 1995 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***

At Philippians 2:9, Paul said about Jesus: “God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” What is this new name? And if Jesus is inferior to Jehovah, how is Jesus’ name above every other name?

Philippians 2:8, 9 reads: “More than that, when he [Jesus] found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”

This passage does not mean that since only Jehovah has a name absolutely above every other name, Jesus must be the same person as Jehovah. As the context in Philippians chapter*2 shows, Jesus received his elevated name after his resurrection. Before that, he did not possess it. On the other hand, Jehovah has always been supreme, and his position has never changed. The fact that Jesus received a name higher than the name he had before his earthly service proves that he is not the same as Jehovah. When Paul said that Jesus was given a name above every other name, he meant that Jesus now has the highest name of all God’s creatures.



If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, how can Mt 25:31 say, "When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and ALL the angels with him, Since "all the angels" would certainly include Michael the Archangel, is it possible that Jesus could return with himself?

*** "The Watchtower" October 4/1 p. 19 "Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?" ***

Jude verse*9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1*Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

*** "Reasoning from the Scriptures" p. 218 ***

Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?

The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.

At 1*Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)



In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" " God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last? Alan

*** "Reasoning from the Scriptures" p. 412 par. 3 ***

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong?

(1)*At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy.

(2)*Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition.

(3)*Revelation 21:6,*7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)

(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.

(5)*At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17,*18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1)

So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

~~~~~~~~~~

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Bill the Cat]

Wow! Wall of arguments!! :rock:

[JohnOneOne]

Wow! Wall of arguments!! :rock:

Dear Bill the Cat,

Yes, sorry to say, there are times when, in order to address a simple question, because of the number of issues raised, a simple, quick answer is not always possible.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3,*4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors.

What you are missing is context. If you continue reading on to Titus 2:13, you will see that Jesus is directly called God:

13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

This directly calls Jesus our Great God and Savior. He is the one who will be appearing again.

[lee_merrill]

Now "Jehovah" as far as I know is not derived from Latin per se, it was a misunderstanding of the Hebrew name YHWH being given the vowels of "Adonai". This was because the Jewish people would not pronounce the divine name, so instead they would say (and read) "Adonai" when YHWH appeared in the text. This was mistakenly taken to be a real word, which when pronounced, sounds like "Jehovah."

Blessings, Lee

[RBerman]

I'm just surprised that an actual JW showed up to discuss his theology. This has been a pretty dead subforum.

A JW came to my door a couple of weeks ago, before their big national conference. I knew he was a JW before we spoke, because he was carrying some "Awake" magazines. I've always found those creepy because they don't attribute any of the articles to particular authors. Anyway, his opening gambit was a discussion of whether religion and politics mix, so I responded with the range of things that the Bible has to say about that, which is rather broader than he was prepared to discuss.

I then transitioned into a discussion about eternal security. He said he was pretty sure God would accept him, because he's been obedient. But he agreed that God's standard is perfection. He didn't have a specific answer when shown that we are saved based on faith, not works, but he agreed that it was important to know who Jesus really is.

We discussed what prototokos ("firstborn") does and doesn't mean when applied to Jesus in Colossians 1. The JW was unaware that Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord and my God. I showed him in my Greek interlinear some places where the NWT makes odd translation choices to avoid the divinity of Jesus, and I encouraged him to corroborate my findings with internet research. I suspect that as with Scientology, the internet ultimately will break the misinformation stranglehold the JWs keep on their members.

[JohnOneOne]

What you are missing is context. If you continue reading on to Titus 2:13, you will see that Jesus is directly called God:

13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

This directly calls Jesus our Great God and Savior. He is the one who will be appearing again.

Dear Sparko,

"2 PETER 1:1 (and Titus 2:13) - These two scriptures are frequently translated (not surprisingly) in a trinitarian manner in trinitarian Bibles. Grammatically they could be translated in two (at least) different ways: trinitarian or non-trinitarian. If a translator has a trinitarian bias, he will, understandably, render them to show a trinitarian understanding. So it is highly significant that the following trinitarian scholars have not chosen to so interpret them:

- The Greek Testament, Henry Alford, p. 421, Vol. 3. (Titus 2:13)

- Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol. 1, 1965. (2 Peter 1:1)

- The Bible, a New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt. (Titus 2:13)."

To examine more on this topic, please examine the contents of the following website:

http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/11/2-peter-11-and-titus-213-sharps-rule.html

Furthermore, if you have the interest and time, there is also this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharps-rule.html

~~~

Concerning a number of Bible's, including many of which had been produced by Trinitarians, that is, in having rendered Titus 2:13 as something other than that which would have indicated that God and Jesus were both the same, please consider:

1869..."Of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."--THE NEW TESTAMENT, George R. Noyes, D.D.

1934..."of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus." - The Riverside New Testament

1935..."of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus."--A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, James Moffatt

1969..."Of our great God and the One who saves from the penalty of sin, Jesus Christ."--THE NEW LIFE TESTAMENT, Gleason H. Ledyard

1969, 1972..."Of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our Savior."--THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN ENGLISH, J.B. Phillips

1986..."of the great God and of our saviour Jesus Christ." - Catholic New American Bible.

1990..."Of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."--JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT, H. Stern

Why would even some Trinitarian scholars translate Titus 2:13 like the NWT? Years ago, Sharp's Rule #1 was applied to Titus 2:13 to make the argument that the two entities were, in fact, the same entity. But, in the meantime, scholars have found serious problems with a strict application of Sharp. Note these conclusions:

"In Titus 2:13 manifestation of the glory of the great god and of saviour of us Jesus Christ [in Greek] for reasons which lie in the doctrinal system of Paul, I do not regard of saviour as a second predicate by the side of god, as if Christ were first styled the great god and then saviour."-- George Benedict Winer, A GRAMMAR OF THE IDIOM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, (Luneman translation), 1893, p.130

"It is plain, then that the usage of the words 'God our Saviour' does not make it probable that the whole expression here is to be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ."-- Henry Alford, THE GREEK TESTAMENT, (revised by Everett F. Harrison), Vol III, pp 419, 420.

~~~

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

Now "Jehovah" as far as I know is not derived from Latin per se, it was a misunderstanding of the Hebrew name YHWH being given the vowels of "Adonai". This was because the Jewish people would not pronounce the divine name, so instead they would say (and read) "Adonai" when YHWH appeared in the text. This was mistakenly taken to be a real word, which when pronounced, sounds like "Jehovah."

Blessings, Lee

Dear lee_merrill,

Yes, the points you make have been long addressed by Jehovah's Witnesses, to wit:

"Why Use God’s Name if Its Pronunciation Is Uncertain?"
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080901a/article_01.htm

"God's Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation," and especially the subheadings, "How Is God's Name Pronounced?" and "Which Pronunciation Will You Use?"
http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm

Then, also see, "Different scholars have different ideas about how the name YHWH was originally pronounced."
http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/diagram_01.htm

Thanks for bring the points you've mentioned to the attention of readers here.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,

"2 PETER 1:1 (and Titus 2:13) - These two scriptures are frequently translated (not surprisingly) in a trinitarian manner in trinitarian Bibles. Grammatically they could be translated in two (at least) different ways: trinitarian or non-trinitarian. If a translator has a trinitarian bias, he will, understandably, render them to show a trinitarian understanding. So it is highly significant that the following trinitarian scholars have not chosen to so interpret them:

- The Greek Testament, Henry Alford, p. 421, Vol. 3. (Titus 2:13)

- Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol. 1, 1965. (2 Peter 1:1)

- The Bible, a New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt. (Titus 2:13)."

To examine more on this topic, please examine the contents of the following website:

http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/11/2-peter-11-and-titus-213-sharps-rule.html

Furthermore, if you have the interest and time, there is also this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharps-rule.html

~~~

Concerning a number of Bible's, including many of which had been produced by Trinitarians, that is, in having rendered Titus 2:13 as something other than that which would have indicated that God and Jesus were both the same, please consider:

1869..."Of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."--THE NEW TESTAMENT, George R. Noyes, D.D.

1934..."of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus." - The Riverside New Testament

1935..."of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus."--A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, James Moffatt

1969..."Of our great God and the One who saves from the penalty of sin, Jesus Christ."--THE NEW LIFE TESTAMENT, Gleason H. Ledyard

1969, 1972..."Of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our Savior."--THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN ENGLISH, J.B. Phillips

1986..."of the great God and of our saviour Jesus Christ." - Catholic New American Bible.

1990..."Of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."--JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT, H. Stern

Why would even some Trinitarian scholars translate Titus 2:13 like the NWT? Years ago, Sharp's Rule #1 was applied to Titus 2:13 to make the argument that the two entities were, in fact, the same entity. But, in the meantime, scholars have found serious problems with a strict application of Sharp. Note these conclusions:

"In Titus 2:13 manifestation of the glory of the great god and of saviour of us Jesus Christ [in Greek] for reasons which lie in the doctrinal system of Paul, I do not regard of saviour as a second predicate by the side of god, as if Christ were first styled the great god and then saviour."-- George Benedict Winer, A GRAMMAR OF THE IDIOM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, (Luneman translation), 1893, p.130

"It is plain, then that the usage of the words 'God our Saviour' does not make it probable that the whole expression here is to be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ."-- Henry Alford, THE GREEK TESTAMENT, (revised by Everett F. Harrison), Vol III, pp 419, 420.

~~~

Agape, JohnOneOne.

John, you can't translate Titus into "of our Great God, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ." and then claim they are talking about two different people.

why not? Because then you are saying that God the Father is going to appear. The verse is talking about the second coming of Christ, his "Glorious appearing" - and nobody but Jesus will be doing that. God the Father is spirit and will not appear. So if you use your translation of the Glorious Appearing of our Great God, then you are saying that God the Father will be appearing.

Therefore the only grammatical structure that makes sense is that Jesus is the one who will be doing the glorious appearing, which means he is the object of the sentence. That makes him both the Savior and the Great God that will be appearing.

You really need to get a better translation than the New World Testament. It is one of the most horrendous translations ever made.

[JohnOneOne]

John, you can't translate Titus into "of our Great God, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ." and then claim they are talking about two different people.

why not? Because then you are saying that God the Father is going to appear. The verse is talking about the second coming of Christ, his "Glorious appearing" - and nobody but Jesus will be doing that. God the Father is spirit and will not appear. So if you use your translation of the Glorious Appearing of our Great God, then you are saying that God the Father will be appearing.

Therefore the only grammatical structure that makes sense is that Jesus is the one who will be doing the glorious appearing, which means he is the object of the sentence. That makes him both the Savior and the Great God that will be appearing.

You really need to get a better translation than the New World Testament. It is one of the most horrendous translations ever made.

Dear Sparko,

I can certainly understand how you would see the meaning of this verse in that way. On the otherhand, we understand the phrase, 'glorious appearing' (KJV and many other Bible translations) or, the 'glorious manifestation' (NWT, Young, Spanish translations, French) or "the revelation of the glory" (Bible in Basic English), as speaking about the coming (appearing, manifestation, revealing) of God’s Glory being accomplished through our Savior, Christ Jesus, that is, when it is that He would, indeed, 'return.'

Interestingly, Wycliffe rendered this as: "abiding the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" therefore, we take this to be not so specifically speaking about the actual return of Christ, but about all of what that 'return' would certainly manifest, God's Great Glory.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,

I can certainly understand how you would see the meaning of this verse in that way. On the otherhand, we understand the phrase, 'glorious appearing' (KJV and many other Bible translations) or, the 'glorious manifestation' (NWT, Young, Spanish translations, French) or "the revelation of the glory" (Bible in Basic English), as speaking about the coming (appearing, manifestation, revealing) of God’s Glory being accomplished through our Savior, Christ Jesus, that is, when it is that He would, indeed, 'return.'

Interestingly, Wycliffe rendered this as: "abiding the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" therefore, we take this to be not so specifically speaking about the actual return of Christ, but about all of what that 'return' would certainly manifest, God's Great Glory.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

John,
The Greek word used in Titus 2:13 is Epiphaneia which means "Appearing, Appearance" - not "manifestation" or "revelation" - it is speaking of an actual appearance. Which can only refer to Jesus. And since the sentence structure demands that "glorious appearance" refers to "our Great God" - then it is calling Jesus "God"

In other words, you can completely forget about the word "savior" there if you like, and just concentrate on "appearing" and "God" and you still end up with Paul calling Jesus "God" - Just like he tells us Jesus is the Creator in Colossians 1 (which the NWT royally screws up by adding [other] all over the place with absolutely no justification from the Greek.

[JohnOneOne]

... You really need to get a better translation than the New World Testament. It is one of the most horrendous translations ever made.

Dear Sparko,

In order to present a somewhat balanced consideration of your asessment of Jehovah's Witnesses "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures," might I suggest the following:

"What is the difference between the Jehovah witness bible and the Christian bible?"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_the_jehovah_witness_bible_and_the_Christian_bible

In it they explain:

Answer:
This question has caused quite a bit of controversy. Therefore it seems appropriate that it should be treated in two separate areas - a response (or responses) from Christians, and a similar response(s) from Jehovah's Witnesses.

~~~

In this regard, I think they do a pretty fair job.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

John,

we have a rule around here against "argument by weblink"

If you wish to present some evidence from an outside source, in addition to giving the link, you need to summarize the information too. Merely saying "it's a good place to find out about ______" does not meet the standard (unless someone was just asking for a reference source)

[JohnOneOne]

John,
The Greek word used in Titus 2:13 is Epiphaneia which means "Appearing, Appearance" - not "manifestation" or "revelation" - it is speaking of an actual appearance. Which can only refer to Jesus. And since the sentence structure demands that "glorious appearance" refers to "our Great God" - then it is calling Jesus "God"

In other words, you can completely forget about the word "savior" there if you like, and just concentrate on "appearing" and "God" and you still end up with Paul calling Jesus "God" - Just like he tells us Jesus is the Creator in Colossians 1 (which the NWT royally screws up by adding [other] all over the place with absolutely no justification from the Greek.

Dear Sparko,

With even limiting the meaning/application of the Greek term "Epiphaneia" as "Appearing, Appearance," the chosen word order in the translating of the terms being used can still be supportive of my understanding; e.g. -

'...the appearing of the glory of...' - English Standard Version Bible; Holman Christian Standard Bible; New American Standard Bible; Revised Standard Version Bible; Today's New International Version Bible; Hebrew Names Version Bible; The Darby Translation Bible; World English Bible.

"...the appearance of the glory of..." - GOD'S WORD Translation Bible.

Furthermore, I think it rather disingenuous to altogether simply dismiss other Trinitarian translations, those who had opted to use such terms as 'manifestation' or 'revelation'; and so these too display the same concept, that is, on the basis of the order in which the Greek terms are translated:

"...the revelation of the glory of..." - Bible in Basic English.

"...the manifestation of the glory of..." - New Revised Standard Version Bible.

Quite interestingly, "The Complete Jewish Bible" separates the two, even though the same term "appearing" is used:

"...while continuing to expect the blessed fulfillment of our certain hope, which is the appearing of the Sh'khinah of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah." - (italics added).

Added to this, it is also being quite disingenuous to altogether simply dismiss those other Trinitarian translations, those of which had indicated (by way of their wording) that two distinct individuals were being discussed (as appeared within the listing of them which I had earlier provided), to now include the following:

"...looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;..." - American Standard Version.

In each and all of the above cases, use of the Greek "Epiphaneia" was not speaking specifically about the actual "Appearing, Appearance" of the Christ, but about the 'appearing of the glory of God,' that is, as would be manifested by what the Christ would be doing upon his return - revealing God's Wonderful Glory.

(Philippians 1:8-11) . . .For God is my witness of how I am yearning for all of YOU in such tender affection as Christ Jesus has. And this is what I continue praying, that YOUR love may abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; that YOU may make sure of the more important things, so that YOU may be flawless and not be stumbling others up to the day of Christ, and may be filled with righteous fruit, which is through Jesus Christ, to God’s glory and praise.


Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

John,

we have a rule around here against "argument by weblink"

If you wish to present some evidence from an outside source, in addition to giving the link, you need to summarize the information too. Merely saying "it's a good place to find out about ______" does not meet the standard (unless someone was just asking for a reference source)

Dear Sparko,

Yes, I can certainly see the advisability of such a "rule."

I'll take that into consideration when wishing to utilize informative web-links.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[lee_merrill]

"Why Use God’s Name if Its Pronunciation Is Uncertain?"
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080901a/article_01.htm

For the divine name, however, either the vowel points for “Lord” were added to remind the reader to pronounce the substitute word, or none were added at all.

What survived, then, were the four consonants called the Tetragrammaton, which one dictionary defines as “the four Hebrew letters usu[ally] transliterated YHWH or JHVH that form a biblical proper name of God.” It is easy to see how JHVH, with vowel points and vowel sounds added, becomes “Jehovah,” the form that is most familiar and widely accepted in English.
Yes, that was my point, this pronunciation derives from using the vowels for "Adonai". And this was thought to be correct some time ago, and is now known to be mistaken, "Jehovah" is not a Hebrew word.

Blessings,
Lee

[Alan McDougall]

Yes, that was my point, this pronunciation derives from using the vowels for "Adonai". And this was thought to be correct some time ago, and is now known to be mistaken, "Jehovah" is not a Hebrew word.

Blessings,
Lee

Can I expand on that somewhat?

יַהְוֶה

Is God's name really Jehovah, as the people at your door are saying ?
The answer is emphatically no.

The truth is, the people at your door were not the first to ( incorrectly ) say that the four Hebrew consonants above were pronounced as Jehovah. This had been going on in some circles for a few centuries,- before the group at your door were started. How the error began, but putting the vowels from Adonai into JHVH, is really irrelevant to this discussion. The name, Jehovah, first appeared in the ( protestant ) Darby translation, in 1881.

The bottom line is this: THERE IS NO J SOUND, OR A V SOUND IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. The Hebrew letter that is equivalent to our J is pronounced like our Y. And, the letter equivalent to our V, in Hebrew, is pronounced like a W. For example, how do you pronounce hallelujah? The J sounds like a Y right?

So, what appears on the surface to be JHVH, is properly pronounced as if it was YHWH. When you pronounce this word correctly, it sounds like Yahweh, or Yahwih, or Yahowah. I personally prefer Yahowah, however, the meaning of the name is far more important than the name, itself. The name of God ( YHWH or Yehowah ) means " I am the one who is God, the true God. " ( unlike all the false gods )

Most names in Hebrew have meanings. For example: Adam = man; Eve = life or life giving; Cain = possessed; Abel = mourning; Noah = rest; Isaac = laughter; Abaddon = destroyer; Samuel = heard of God; Satan = adversary or enemy or accuser; Peter = a stone; Jesus = Savior; Christ = Messiah or Anointed; etc.

It is not unusual for a Hebrew name to be changed because of a significant event in a person's life. Some examples: Abram = exalted father changed to Abraham = father of a multitude; Jacob = supplanter changed to Israel = prince with God, etc.

The true God has many names. YHWH is only one of them. He is called Elohim, which relates to the plural nature of God, and also frequently refers to the God of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He is called Adonai, meaning Lord or Ruler. He is called El-Shaddai, the God who is more than enough. He also has many names which are combinations of YHWH and various attributes of God such as YHWH Jireh ( our Provider ) YHWH Shalom, ( our Peace ) YHWH Rapha ( our Healer ) and many others.

[Sparko]

The "J" comes from German, where the letter "J" is also pronounced "Y" - that is how the "Y" in YHWH changed to JHWH. Also in German, the "W" is pronounced "V" so that is how the last syllable became "vah" instead of "weh" - So what started out as Yahweh, became Jehovah.

[JohnOneOne]

Can I expand on that somewhat?

יַהְוֶה

Is God's name really Jehovah, as the people at your door are saying ?
The answer is emphatically no.

The truth is, the people at your door were not the first to ( incorrectly ) say that the four Hebrew consonants above were pronounced as Jehovah. This had been going on in some circles for a few centuries,- before the group at your door were started. How the error began, but putting the vowels from Adonai into JHVH, is really irrelevant to this discussion. The name, Jehovah, first appeared in the ( protestant ) Darby translation, in 1881.

The bottom line is this: THERE IS NO J SOUND, OR A V SOUND IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. The Hebrew letter that is equivalent to our J is pronounced like our Y. And, the letter equivalent to our V, in Hebrew, is pronounced like a W. For example, how do you pronounce hallelujah? The J sounds like a Y right?

So, what appears on the surface to be JHVH, is properly pronounced as if it was YHWH. When you pronounce this word correctly, it sounds like Yahweh, or Yahwih, or Yahowah. I personally prefer Yahowah, however, the meaning of the name is far more important than the name, itself. The name of God ( YHWH or Yehowah ) means " I am the one who is God, the true God. " ( unlike all the false gods )

Most names in Hebrew have meanings. For example: Adam = man; Eve = life or life giving; Cain = possessed; Abel = mourning; Noah = rest; Isaac = laughter; Abaddon = destroyer; Samuel = heard of God; Satan = adversary or enemy or accuser; Peter = a stone; Jesus = Savior; Christ = Messiah or Anointed; etc.

It is not unusual for a Hebrew name to be changed because of a significant event in a person's life. Some examples: Abram = exalted father changed to Abraham = father of a multitude; Jacob = supplanter changed to Israel = prince with God, etc.

The true God has many names. YHWH is only one of them. He is called Elohim, which relates to the plural nature of God, and also frequently refers to the God of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He is called Adonai, meaning Lord or Ruler. He is called El-Shaddai, the God who is more than enough. He also has many names which are combinations of YHWH and various attributes of God such as YHWH Jireh ( our Provider ) YHWH Shalom, ( our Peace ) YHWH Rapha ( our Healer ) and many others.

Dear Alan,

When you said, "The name, Jehovah, first appeared in the ( protestant ) Darby translation, in 1881," this is not true, as clearly substantiated by the following:

"The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible. In this he included the name of God, usually spelled Iehouah, in several verses,# and in a note in this edition he wrote: "Iehovah is God's name . . . Moreover as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah." From this the practice arose of using Jehovah's name in just a few verses and writing "LORD" or "GOD" in most other places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text."

See: http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm

# Genesis 15:2; Exodus 6:3; 15:3; 17:16; 23:17; 33:19; 34:23; Deuteronomy 3:24. Tyndale also included God's name in Ezekiel 18:23 and 36:23, in his translations that were added at the end of The New Testament, Antwerp, 1534.

~~~~~

With respect to your comment, "The true God has many names. YHWH is only one of them," the following might be of interest:

"It is worth remarking here that the Bible knows nothing of different 'names' for God. God has only one 'name' – Yahweh. Apart from this, all others are titles, or descriptions. This fact is often imperfectly grasped."

Taken from: Motyer, J. Alec (b.?-d.?), M.A., B.D., D.D., Former Principal of Trinity College, Bristol. The Revelation of the Divine Name. (London, England: The Tyndale Press, 1959), p. 7, footnote 7. isbn: 0-85111-011-8. oclc: 7051352.

~~~~~

On your comment: "The bottom line is this: THERE IS NO J SOUND, OR A V SOUND IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. The Hebrew letter that is equivalent to our J is pronounced like our Y. And, the letter equivalent to our V, in Hebrew, is pronounced like a W. For example, how do you pronounce hallelujah? The J sounds like a Y right?", there is this:

"Unquestionably it [the use of the English Jehovah as God’s name] is an erroneous form. Other forms equally are unchallenged. Isaiah and Jeremiah, to name not others, would, if correctly printed, be as much barbarisms as Yahweh. The difference between them and Jehovah is that there was once a famous controversy and the facts about the word Jehovah were made public knowledge. Isaiah and Jeremiah received no such publicity. Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yimeyahu. The settled connotation of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has given them the connotations proper for designating the personalities which these words represent. Much the same thing is true of Jehovah. It is not a barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant God of Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it. For four centuries it has been gathering these connotations….No other word approaches this name in the fullness of associations required. The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in translation…."

Taken from: Denio, Francis Brigham (b.1848-d.1936). “On the Use of the Word Jehovah in Translating the Old Testament, Conclusions Based on Forty Years Experience in the Hebrew Classroom.” Article appearing within: Journal of Biblical Literature. (Boston, Massachusetts: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, vol. 1-, 1890-), vol. xlvi [46], (1927), pp. 146-149. BS410 .J86 / 01-9638 r882.


Agape, JohnOneOne.

[RBerman]

"Unquestionably it [the use of the English Jehovah as God’s name] is an erroneous form. Other forms equally are unchallenged. Isaiah and Jeremiah, to name not others, would, if correctly printed, be as much barbarisms as Yahweh. The difference between them and Jehovah is that there was once a famous controversy and the facts about the word Jehovah were made public knowledge. Isaiah and Jeremiah received no such publicity. Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yimeyahu. The settled connotation of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has given them the connotations proper for designating the personalities which these words represent. Much the same thing is true of Jehovah. It is not a barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant God of Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it. For four centuries it has been gathering these connotations….No other word approaches this name in the fullness of associations required. The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in translation…."

Taken from: Denio, Francis Brigham (b.1848-d.1936). “On the Use of the Word Jehovah in Translating the Old Testament, Conclusions Based on Forty Years Experience in the Hebrew Classroom.” Article appearing within: Journal of Biblical Literature. (Boston, Massachusetts: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, vol. 1-, 1890-), vol. xlvi [46], (1927), pp. 146-149. BS410 .J86 / 01-9638 r882.

Essentially, Denio acknowledges that none of the Biblical names are pronounced today the way they were pronounced in antiquity, but since we're used to saying them that way, it's not a problem, and any change in pronunciation/spelling would look funny for a while until we got used to it. (This is part of a larger discussion about the regularization of the spelling of English words in the 18th and 19th centuries.) I'm comfortable saying that it's not especially important whether we pronounce the words the way they were pronounced long ago. Are you similarly comfortable saying that it's not particularly important how we pronounce and spell them? I thought JWs were pretty intense in their commitment to the spelling and pronunciation of "Jehovah" which Denio calls "erroneous."

[Sparko]

So if we could show that Jehovah in the OT is equivalent to Jesus in the NT, would you accept that Jesus is God, Johnoneone?

[JohnOneOne]

Essentially, Denio acknowledges that none of the Biblical names are pronounced today the way they were pronounced in antiquity, but since we're used to saying them that way, it's not a problem, and any change in pronunciation/spelling would look funny for a while until we got used to it. (This is part of a larger discussion about the regularization of the spelling of English words in the 18th and 19th centuries.) I'm comfortable saying that it's not especially important whether we pronounce the words the way they were pronounced long ago. Are you similarly comfortable saying that it's not particularly important how we pronounce and spell them? I thought JWs were pretty intense in their commitment to the spelling and pronunciation of "Jehovah" which Denio calls "erroneous."

Dear RBerman,

No, that is not true.

"Is it, then, wrong to use a form like Yahweh? Not at all. It is just that the form Jehovah is likely to meet with a quicker response from the reader because it is the form that has been 'naturalized' into most languages. The important thing is that we use the name and declare it to others. 'Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.'—Isaiah 12:4."

Taken from: The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever, subheading, God's Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation
http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/article_02.htm

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

Essentially, Denio acknowledges that none of the Biblical names are pronounced today the way they were pronounced in antiquity, but since we're used to saying them that way, it's not a problem, and any change in pronunciation/spelling would look funny for a while until we got used to it. (This is part of a larger discussion about the regularization of the spelling of English words in the 18th and 19th centuries.) I'm comfortable saying that it's not especially important whether we pronounce the words the way they were pronounced long ago. Are you similarly comfortable saying that it's not particularly important how we pronounce and spell them? I thought JWs were pretty intense in their commitment to the spelling and pronunciation of "Jehovah" which Denio calls "erroneous."

Dear RBerman,

Just to add a bit to what I've already provided:

*** Insight on the Scriptures (1988), vol. 2, p. 7 "Jehovah" ***

What is the proper pronunciation of God’s name?

In the second half of the first millennium*C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ʼAdho·nai′ (meaning “Sovereign Lord”) or ʼElo·him′ (meaning “God”).
The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century*C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah′, Yehwih′, and Yeho·wah′. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah′. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah′ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1,*6) Also, the forms Yehoh′, Yoh, Yah, and Ya′hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be′ and I·a·ou·e′, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”

Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′aʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

So if we could show that Jehovah in the OT is equivalent to Jesus in the NT, would you accept that Jesus is God, Johnoneone?

Dear Sparko,

*** Watchtower 1983 December/1, p. 17 par. 12, "God the Son or 'the Son of God'?" ***

Jesus’ enemies, seeking a reason to put him to death, did not ask if he claimed to be God, but whether he was “the Christ the Son of God.” He answered: “You yourself said it. Yet I say to you men, From henceforth you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63, 64) Earlier Jesus had quoted and applied to himself David’s words: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” Jesus did not say he was Jehovah, or part of some unscriptural Trinity, but that he would be at Jehovah’s right hand, awaiting the outworking of God’s time and purposes. — Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:42-44. (italics used in article).

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

The "J" comes from German, where the letter "J" is also pronounced "Y" - that is how the "Y" in YHWH changed to JHWH. Also in German, the "W" is pronounced "V" so that is how the last syllable became "vah" instead of "weh" - So what started out as Yahweh, became Jehovah.

Dear Sparko,

Yes, something similar had been brought out in a 1960 Watchtower

...it is almost certain that the name of God was originally pronounced “Yah·weh′.” (In “Jehovah” the sound of “Y” is represented by “J” and the sound of “W” by “V,” as in Latin.) The Encyclopædia Britannica says: “It is now generally agreed that Jahwe (Yahwe) is the true pronunciation.” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states: “Yahveh is the most probable transliteration of the ancient Hebrew name for God.” Bible translator J. B. Rotherham said: “The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahwe.” The Catholic Encyclopedia declares: “Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament. .*.*. Inserting the vowels of Jabe [the Samaritan pronunciation] into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name.” The New World Bible Translation Committee stated: “While inclining to view the pronunciation ‘Yah·weh′” as the more correct way, we have retained the form ‘Jehovah’ because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.” -- August/1, p. 455, "Not Forgetting the Name of God."

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,

*** Watchtower 1983 December/1, p. 17 par. 12, "God the Son or 'the Son of God'?" ***

Jesus’ enemies, seeking a reason to put him to death, did not ask if he claimed to be God, but whether he was “the Christ the Son of God.” He answered: “You yourself said it. Yet I say to you men, From henceforth you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63, 64) Earlier Jesus had quoted and applied to himself David’s words: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” Jesus did not say he was Jehovah, or part of some unscriptural Trinity, but that he would be at Jehovah’s right hand, awaiting the outworking of God’s time and purposes. — Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:42-44. (italics used in article).

Agape, JohnOneOne.

You didn't answer my question, John.

In fact, all you have done in this thread is quote JW literature, and have not made any arguments yourself whatsoever.

We are not here to argue with the watchtower. You are the one here. You can use sources to back up your own arguments, but merely quoting JW sources needs to stop.

So if I show you verses from the OT that speak about attributes of Jehovah alone, and then quote parallel verses in the NT that show that those attributes refer to Jesus, will you concede that Jesus and Jehovah are one God?

[RBerman]

Dear RBerman,

Just to add a bit to what I've already provided:

*** Insight on the Scriptures (1988), vol. 2, p. 7 "Jehovah" ***

What is the proper pronunciation of God’s name?

In the second half of the first millennium*C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ʼAdho·nai′ (meaning “Sovereign Lord”) or ʼElo·him′ (meaning “God”).
The Codex Leningrad B 19A, of the 11th century*C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah′, Yehwih′, and Yeho·wah′. Ginsburg’s edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah′. (Ge 3:14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah′ (meaning “Praise Jah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1,*6) Also, the forms Yehoh′, Yoh, Yah, and Ya′hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be′ and I·a·ou·e′, which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.”

Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yeshaʽ·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′aʽ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

Essentially you're saying that the pronunciation is not that big of a deal either way, and that "Jehovah" enjoyed some popularity in the mid 20th Century. No arguments here from me on either of those ideas. It sounds like you have no specific theological attachment to "Jehovah," which is good.

[JohnOneOne]

...if I show you verses from the OT that speak about attributes of Jehovah alone, and then quote parallel verses in the NT that show that those attributes refer to Jesus, will you concede that Jesus and Jehovah are one God?

Dear Sparko,

No,...and the reason is this.

Simply by 'showing verses from the OT that speak about attributes of Jehovah alone, and then quoting parallel verses in the NT which show that those attributes refer to Jesus," in my view, these cannot be used as proof "that Jesus and Jehovah are one God?", even if such may in your view do just that.

Part of the reason for my thinking is based on the Biblical verse I've already referenced, Psalm 110:1, along with Jesus' utilization of this very verse.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,

No,...and the reason is this.

Simply by 'showing verses from the OT that speak about attributes of Jehovah alone, and then quoting parallel verses in the NT which show that those attributes refer to Jesus," in my view, these cannot be used as proof "that Jesus and Jehovah are one God?", even if such may in your view do just that.

Part of the reason for my thinking is based on the Biblical verse I've already referenced, Psalm 110:1, along with Jesus' utilization of this very verse.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

In other words, you are being invincibly ignorant and will ignore any evidence that is contrary to your theology.

Let me give you an example of what I am speaking about, just in case:

YHWH is Creator

*Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,


Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now I know that the NWT sticks [other] in the NT verses, but without any reason other than they want to. It is not in the Greek.

But the fact remains is that YHWH (Jehovah) says he created everything by himself, ALONE. so that leaves no [other] for Jesus to create. Which means Jesus is God.

YHWH is Judge

Joel 3:12 "Let the nations be roused; let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side." (God is speaking)

*Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.

Jesus is Judge

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..."

2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

*Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him

So in the OT Jehovah says that HE himself will Judge mankind. But in the NT it says that only Jesus will judge and not the Father. Again, that makes Jesus God.

and finally:
Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Isaiah is talking about Jesus yet the verse clearly used the name LORD (YHWH) and specifically says "Here is your God!"

[JohnOneOne]

In other words, you are being invincibly ignorant and will ignore any evidence that is contrary to your theology.

Let me give you an example of what I am speaking about, just in case:

Dear Sparko,

What you believe is "evidence" is nothing of the kind, for as long as you continue to ignore the import of Psalm 110:1 and Jesus' use of such, nothing can nor will be resolved.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,

What you believe is "evidence" is nothing of the kind, for as long as you continue to ignore the import of Psalm 110:1 and Jesus' use of such, nothing can nor will be resolved.

Agape, JohnOneOne.


so your bible only has psalm 110 in it? amazing.

[Alan McDougall]

OK lets assume God name is really Jehovah, then tell me what is wring with His Title God, I know JW say if we only use his title there could be confusion as to which god one was referring.

Nevertheless, as Christians, we only believe in one Infinite Eternal Omni-All God and if we say, “God help me”, God knows we are calling on him alone for his help. JW that came to my home (I also went to the Kingdom Hall) said if I did not say Jehovah god would ignore my cry for help

[JohnOneOne]

so your bible only has psalm 110 in it? amazing.

Dear Sparko,

We should afford no greater nor less importance to this scripture than the Bible writers did, and so that is why I take my clue from Jesus and His own apostles and disciples. The signification which they had unitedly placed upon Psalm 110:1 is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, throughout the whole of the New Testament, Jesus along with those faithful followers had collectively referenced this one verse some 22 times – more frequently than any other Old Testament prophecy. Therefore, the importance attached to it by the Divinly inspired New Testament writers does, for a certainty, establish a demand for our respectful attention.

Otherwise, if their use does not set a precedent in its need for due and serious consideration, I don't know what it would take. All I know is that giving it a place of significant respect is not demonstrated by any ridicule or sarcasm, and I'm quite certain that Jesus wouldn't think so either – especially in consideration of His own specialized attention given to it.

As this might be of interest, Psalm 110:1 had been referred to by:

Jesus: Matthew 22:44; Matthew 26:64; Mark 12:36; Mark 14:62; (Mark 16:19); Luke 20:42, 43; Luke 22:69; Revelation 3:21.

Peter: Acts 2:33-35; Acts 5:31; 1 Peter 3:22.

Stephen: Acts 7:55-56.

Paul: Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 27; Ephesians 1:20, 22; Ephesians 2:6 Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:13; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12-13; Hebrews 12:2.

After considering each and every reference cited above, in no way can it be confused the clear distinction which is being consistently made between Jehovah God and His dearly beloved Son, Jesus, the Christ, Jehovah’s ‘Faithful and True Witness,’ His Anointed One. (Revelation 3:14. See also: John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; and again, 1 Corinthians 15:25, 27, 28.)

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

OK lets assume God name is really Jehovah, then tell me what is wring with His Title God, I know JW say if we only use his title there could be confusion as to which god one was referring.

Nevertheless, as Christians, we only believe in one Infinite Eternal Omni-All God and if we say, “God help me”, God knows we are calling on him alone for his help. JW that came to my home (I also went to the Kingdom Hall) said if I did not say Jehovah god would ignore my cry for help

Dear Alan,

Should we not rather give consideration to whether God Himself has expressed any views on this matter? Of the almost 7,000 times His Divine Name had been used throughout His Divinely inspired Word, we see such clear expressions as:

"And God said moreover unto Moses, 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.'" - (Exodus 3:15 - ASV, emphasis added)

"God also said to Moses, 'Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation." - (Exodus 3:15 - Holman Christian Standard Bible, emphasis added.)

“In that day you will certainly say: ‘Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high. Make melody to Jehovah, for he has done surpassingly. This is made known in all the earth.’” (Isaiah 12:4, 5 - NWT, emphasis added.)

"And those knowing your name will trust in you, For you will certainly not leave those looking for you, O Jehovah." - (Psalm 9:10 - NWT, emphasis added.)

"The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection." - (Proverbs 18:10 - NWT)

“Therefore here I am causing them to know; at this one time I shall cause them to know my hand and my mightiness, and they will have to know that my name is Jehovah.” - (Jeremiah 16:21 - NWT, emphasis added.)

“This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah....People will have to know that I am Jehovah.” - (Ezekiel 38:17, 23; 39:6 - NWT, emphasis added.)

Incidently, God’s Holy Name is mentioned in this context throughout the book of Ezekiel over 70 times.

“Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.” - (Malichai 3:16 - NWT, emphasis added.)

No doubt, it was in harmony with such thoughts that Jesus taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9 - NWT)

Acording to the "Complete Jewish Bible," Matthew 6:9 reads: "You, therefore, pray like this: `Our Father in heaven! May your Name be kept holy." - (emphasis added).

Again, even though we may not be saying it exactly the way it was originally pronounced, still we should be using God’s name. Interestingly, we often use the names of other persons in the Bible, even though we do not say them in the way the names were pronounced in the original Hebrew. For example, Jesus’ name is pronounced “Yesh’ua” in Hebrew. Likewise, it is proper to use God’s name, which is revealed in the Bible almost 7,000 times, whether we pronounce it “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” or in some other way common in our language. What is wrong is to fail to use that name. Why? Because those who do not use it could not be identified with the ones whom God takes out to be “a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) In view of all of the above, God is obviously pleased to back those who are proud to be “a people for his name.” Therefore, we should not only know God’s name but praise it before others, just as Jesus did when on earth.—Matthew 6:9; John 17:6, 26.

Yes, according to the Bible, knowing and using God’s name is the only way for one to come near to God so as to have a personal relationship with him: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” - John 17:26).

Bearing God’s name, then, brings one under His influence and protection: “Because on me he has set his affection, I shall also provide him with escape. I shall protect him because he has come to know my name.” - Psalm 91:14, emphasis added.

As we well know, all Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does. — 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[RBerman]

We should afford no greater nor less importance to this scripture than the Bible writers did, and so that is why I take my clue from Jesus and His own apostles and disciples. The signification which they had unitedly placed upon Psalm 110:1 is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, throughout the whole of the New Testament, Jesus along with those faithful followers had collectively referenced this one verse some 22 times – more frequently than any other Old Testament prophecy. Therefore, the importance attached to it by the Divinly inspired New Testament writers does, for a certainty, establish a demand for our respectful attention.

Otherwise, if their use does not set a precedent in its need for due and serious consideration, I don't know what it would take. All I know is that giving it a place of significant respect is not demonstrated by any ridicule or sarcasm, and I'm quite certain that Jesus wouldn't think so either – especially in consideration of His own specialized attention given to it.

As this might be of interest, Psalm 110:1 had been referred to by:

Jesus: Matthew 22:44; Matthew 26:64; Mark 12:36; Mark 14:62; (Mark 16:19); Luke 20:42, 43; Luke 22:69; Revelation 3:21.
Peter: Acts 2:33-35; Acts 5:31; 1 Peter 3:22.
Stephen: Acts 7:55-56.
Paul: Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 27; Ephesians 1:20, 22; Ephesians 2:6 Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:13; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12-13; Hebrews 12:2.

After considering each and every reference cited above, in no way can it be confused the clear distinction which is being consistently made between Jehovah God and His dearly beloved Son, Jesus, the Christ, Jehovah’s ‘Faithful and True Witness,’ His Anointed One. (Revelation 3:14. See also: John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; and again, 1 Corinthians 15:25, 27, 28.)

Every true Christian would agree with you that Jesus makes a distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. So do we. The point more salient to out discussion is that Jesus just as strongly identifies himself with the character, nature, and activities of his heavenly Father, claiming the prerogatives of the Father for himself in a way that shocked his Jewish audience. Even Mark's gospel, the one most strongly associated with Jesus' humanity, emphasizes this early on when Jesus forgives sin. (Mark 2:1:13) Even Jesus' identification of himself as "God's Son" communicated to his original audience that he shared the characteristics of his Father. That's what sons do; they are like their fathers.

[JohnOneOne]

Every true Christian would agree with you that Jesus makes a distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. So do we. The point more salient to out discussion is that Jesus just as strongly identifies himself with the character, nature, and activities of his heavenly Father, claiming the prerogatives of the Father for himself in a way that shocked his Jewish audience. Even Mark's gospel, the one most strongly associated with Jesus' humanity, emphasizes this early on when Jesus forgives sin. (Mark 2:1:13) Even Jesus' identification of himself as "God's Son" communicated to his original audience that he shared the characteristics of his Father. That's what sons do; they are like their fathers.

Dear RBerman,

Yes, and quite consistently throughout his ministry, Jesus regularly made known the fact that each and all of his displayed attributes and abilities had only come about as being directly due to what his own heavenly Father and God had either showed, instructed, or authorized him to do, even to his own death...and for this, his Father loved him so dearly. (John 20:17)

Regardless of how others had incorrectly interpreted his own life’s activities, such unvarying clarifications from Jesus should not be ignored. (John 5:36; John 14:10).

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naz·a·rene´, a man publicly shown by God to YOU through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in YOUR midst, just as YOU yourselves know,...” – Acts 2:22 (NWT, capitalized words indicate plural usage, other emphasis added).

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,

We should afford no greater nor less importance to this scripture than the Bible writers did, and so that is why I take my clue from Jesus and His own apostles and disciples. The signification which they had unitedly placed upon Psalm 110:1 is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, throughout the whole of the New Testament, Jesus along with those faithful followers had collectively referenced this one verse some 22 times – more frequently than any other Old Testament prophecy. Therefore, the importance attached to it by the Divinly inspired New Testament writers does, for a certainty, establish a demand for our respectful attention.

Otherwise, if their use does not set a precedent in its need for due and serious consideration, I don't know what it would take. All I know is that giving it a place of significant respect is not demonstrated by any ridicule or sarcasm, and I'm quite certain that Jesus wouldn't think so either – especially in consideration of His own specialized attention given to it.

As this might be of interest, Psalm 110:1 had been referred to by:

Jesus: Matthew 22:44; Matthew 26:64; Mark 12:36; Mark 14:62; (Mark 16:19); Luke 20:42, 43; Luke 22:69; Revelation 3:21.

Peter: Acts 2:33-35; Acts 5:31; 1 Peter 3:22.

Stephen: Acts 7:55-56.

Paul: Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 27; Ephesians 1:20, 22; Ephesians 2:6 Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:13; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12-13; Hebrews 12:2.

After considering each and every reference cited above, in no way can it be confused the clear distinction which is being consistently made between Jehovah God and His dearly beloved Son, Jesus, the Christ, Jehovah’s ‘Faithful and True Witness,’ His Anointed One. (Revelation 3:14. See also: John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; and again, 1 Corinthians 15:25, 27, 28.)

Agape, JohnOneOne.

There is nothing anti-trinitarian in Psalm 110:1
1 The Lord says to my lord:

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

It is just your lack of understanding what trinitarians believe. The Father and the Son are two persons, but ONE God. Also Jesus had a divine and human nature. So your bringing up Ps 110 doesn't disprove the trinity at all. In fact, it shows that Jesus is Divine. As the verses you completely ignored that I posted earlier show, Jehovah says that all judgment will be done by him alone, and here and in the NT, it shows that Jesus will have the authority and job of judging.

How can Jehovah claim to judge alone by himself and Jesus be the one who will judge (and it says that the Father will judge no one) unless Jesus is Jehovah?

To Trinitarians, Jehovah refers to the Triune God. The Father is Jehovah, Jesus is Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah. Yet they are three distinct persons. The Father is not Jesus or the Holy Spirit, Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus.

So again, your bringing up Psalm 110 does absolutely nothing as far as arguing against trinitarianism. It actually supports it.

I urge you to go back and read the verses I posted earlier comparing Jehovah and Jesus. Please?

[Sparko]

I think it is even more personal to be allowed to call God, "Father" than "Jehovah"

I didn't call my father by his name, and neither did Jesus. He called him "Abba" and "Father"

[RBerman]

Yes, and quite consistently throughout his ministry, Jesus regularly made known the fact that each and all of his displayed attributes and abilities had only come about as being directly due to what his own heavenly Father and God had either showed, instructed, or authorized him to do, even to his own death...and for this, his Father loved him so dearly. (John 20:17)

Regardless of how others had incorrectly interpreted his own life’s activities, such unvarying clarifications from Jesus should not be ignored. (John 5:36; John 14:10).

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene´, a man publicly shown by God to YOU through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in YOUR midst, just as YOU yourselves know,...” – Acts 2:22 (NWT, capitalized words indicate plural usage, other emphasis added).

Jesus did not simply displayed abilities that came from God. He exercised prerogatives that belong to God alone, such as forgiving sin and accepting worship. Whatever the Father is doing, Jesus is doing also. (John 5:19) That's because Jesus is God, so that he and the Father are one -- not just in purpose, but in nature.

[Bill the Cat]

Dear Alan,

Should we not rather give consideration to whether God Himself has expressed any views on this matter? Of the almost 7,000 times His Divine Name had been used throughout His Divinely inspired Word, we see such clear expressions as:

"And God said moreover unto Moses, 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.'" - (Exodus 3:15 - ASV, emphasis added)

"God also said to Moses, 'Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation." - (Exodus 3:15 - Holman Christian Standard Bible, emphasis added.)

“In that day you will certainly say: ‘Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high. Make melody to Jehovah, for he has done surpassingly. This is made known in all the earth.’” (Isaiah 12:4, 5 - NWT, emphasis added.)

"And those knowing your name will trust in you, For you will certainly not leave those looking for you, O Jehovah." - (Psalm 9:10 - NWT, emphasis added.)

"The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection." - (Proverbs 18:10 - NWT)

“Therefore here I am causing them to know; at this one time I shall cause them to know my hand and my mightiness, and they will have to know that my name is Jehovah.” - (Jeremiah 16:21 - NWT, emphasis added.)

“This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah....People will have to know that I am Jehovah.” - (Ezekiel 38:17, 23; 39:6 - NWT, emphasis added.)

Incidently, God’s Holy Name is mentioned in this context throughout the book of Ezekiel over 70 times.

“Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.” - (Malichai 3:16 - NWT, emphasis added.)

No doubt, it was in harmony with such thoughts that Jesus taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9 - NWT)

Acording to the "Complete Jewish Bible," Matthew 6:9 reads: "You, therefore, pray like this: `Our Father in heaven! May your Name be kept holy." - (emphasis added).

Again, even though we may not be saying it exactly the way it was originally pronounced, still we should be using God’s name. Interestingly, we often use the names of other persons in the Bible, even though we do not say them in the way the names were pronounced in the original Hebrew. For example, Jesus’ name is pronounced “Yesh’ua” in Hebrew. Likewise, it is proper to use God’s name, which is revealed in the Bible almost 7,000 times, whether we pronounce it “Yahweh,” “Jehovah,” or in some other way common in our language. What is wrong is to fail to use that name. Why? Because those who do not use it could not be identified with the ones whom God takes out to be “a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) In view of all of the above, God is obviously pleased to back those who are proud to be “a people for his name.” Therefore, we should not only know God’s name but praise it before others, just as Jesus did when on earth.—Matthew 6:9; John 17:6, 26.

Yes, according to the Bible, knowing and using God’s name is the only way for one to come near to God so as to have a personal relationship with him: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” - John 17:26).

Bearing God’s name, then, brings one under His influence and protection: “Because on me he has set his affection, I shall also provide him with escape. I shall protect him because he has come to know my name.” - Psalm 91:14, emphasis added.

As we well know, all Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does. — 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

NWT... :snicker:

[JohnOneOne]

Jesus did not simply displayed abilities that came from God. He exercised prerogatives that belong to God alone, such as forgiving sin and accepting worship. Whatever the Father is doing, Jesus is doing also. (John 5:19) That's because Jesus is God, so that he and the Father are one -- not just in purpose, but in nature.

Dear RBerman,

Since I suspect that both of the issues you've raised above are to you of equal importance, I'm quite sure it would be safe to say that if I couldn't prove my position as true on the one, then it shouldn't matter for me to make attempts to address the other too; therefore, I have picked "worship" as the subject.

Although I've been advised against simply providing a weblink as my answer/reply, I will here beg your forgiveness, as I do believe these sites covering the topic of "worship" can do so much better I can.Yes, you HAVE been warned against arguing by weblink, and you continue to do it. This time it will be a point. Please do not do it again, as it will not be tolerated. Also, please read the rest of this notice as to arguing moderation in a thread.


Defending The New World Translation - Worship / Proskyneo
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/12/worship-proskyneo.html

If after reading those materials, you find that still have questions on the subject of "worship," I welcome them. On the other hand, if you still cannot agree with their explanations, then, from my standpoint, I guess I would have to say that we might only be able to agree to disagree.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
(1 Cor. 1:10)

[RBerman]

I'm not interested in reading your links, JohnOneOne. That is not a fair or polite way to debate. There are simply too many web links out there, and it takes too little time for you to post one or ten of them, while it takes much longer for me to read, digest, and meaningfully respond. If you can't or won't make your own argument here, then we can simply end our discussion.

[Sparko]

You have been warned several times now about arguing by weblink and using nothing but cut and pastes, JohnOneOne. If you can't handle debating your points yourself, then perhaps this is not the site for you.

[JohnOneOne]

I'm not interested in reading your links, JohnOneOne. That is not a fair or polite way to debate. There are simply too many web links out there, and it takes too little time for you to post one or ten of them, while it takes much longer for me to read, digest, and meaningfully respond. If you can't or won't make your own argument here, then we can simply end our discussion.

Dear RBerman,

ok.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[JohnOneOne]

You have been warned several times now about arguing by weblink and using nothing but cut and pastes, JohnOneOne. If you can't handle debating your points yourself, then perhaps this is not the site for you.

Dear Sparko,

ok.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[Bill the Cat]

It would seem that up to-date Bibles do not agree with you:-

DNKJB Ex 3:15
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:


DNKJB Isa 42:8 I am Jehovah: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

DNKJB = The Divine Name King James Bible, see www.dnkjb.net

ethos2

:rofl: The The Divine Name King James Bible?? It is nothing more than the KJV with Jehovah inserted in it. I find this quote rather funny:


It is for these simple reasons that the production members of the Divine Name King James Bible wish to remain anonymous.

[Bill the Cat]

Examine many of the Hebrew interlinears of the O.T. and James Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and you will see that by Divine right Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH NOT adoni/Lord is there by his will and purpose and cannt be removed; and is rendered in the English Text by ACCURATE translators.

The DNKJV exists only because some Divine Name zealots think that a grouping of latin script characters holds some magical power. They do not.


So what you have said has little valued support as the Hebrew Text has "YHWH" nearly 7,000

So, why do you say and write Jehovah? And why does the DNKJV use Old English renderings instead of Hebrew characters? After all, that's the language God wrote the Commandments in...


so what The Bible itself says it totaly against what you say is not of much note when mesured againt The Bible.


79224

[RBerman]

Examine many of the Hebrew interlinears of the O.T. and James Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and you will see that by Divine right Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH NOT adoni/Lord is there by his will and purpose and cannt be removed; and is rendered in the English Text by ACCURATE translators. So what you have said has little valued support as the Hebrew Text has "YHWH" nearly 7,000 so what The Bible itself says it totaly against what you say is not of much note when mesured againt The Bible.

The Greek New Testament routinely uses kurios ("Lord") to translate Old Testament quotations in which YHWH appeared in the Hebrew version, so God would not seem too wedded to the use of YHWH (or linguistic corruptions of it such as "Jehovah") for speakers of languages other than Hebrew. Who are we to argue with God about this?

[Bill the Cat]

But it is there and not going away!!!!!!

Big deal. :nsm: Jesus explained nit picks like the Divine Name nonsense:

Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

[RBerman]

Kurios is a substitute for YHWH!

So is "Lord." So is "Jehovah," for that matter. So what's the problem?

[Bill the Cat]

so what The Bible itself says it totaly against what you say is not of much note when mesured againt The Bible.

ethos2

Can you start providing decoder rings with your posts?

[Sparko]

Ethos2 is Barryrob, a JW that was banned for repeated copyright violations. He be banned agin.

[Bill the Cat]

heheheh!!

[The Remonstrant]

heheheh!!

Is it (1) heh, heh? Or more like (2) hee, hee?

I need to know!

[Bill the Cat]

Is it (1) heh, heh? Or more like (2) hee, hee?

I need to know!

1 in honor of Shadowmaster....

[The Remonstrant]

1 in honor of Shadowmaster....

Okay.

Good.

Yes, (2) is too effeminate for my taste.

We're both men, Bill! I personally find "heh, heh" to exude masculinity. *giggles*