First again! - Quacks

[Robyn Banks]

"The Watchtower Society has been involved in occult, psychic and quack medical procedures throughout much of its history. Like their current ban on blood transfusions for its members, this quackery has put the lives of millions unnecessarily at risk. Many have lost their eyesight, contracted illnesses or lost their lives following the unorthodox and bizarre Watchtower teachings on medicine."
- The JW Research Journal.
Robyn Banks

[Non-Trinitarian]

Wow. Ad Hominem from an anti-JW site. There's a first.

[dizzle]

Stating relevant facts, if they are facts, is not ad hom. The misuse of that phrase is the bane of debate forums. Is there an official name for the fallacious use of accusations of ad hom?

[A-Man]

Yes there is!
its called FUOAHism
See, I'm learning!
:rofl:

[yxboom]

Non-Trinitarian:

Wow. Ad Hominem from an anti-JW site. There's a first.

First, this isn't an anti-JW site neccessarily as we welcome JW participation. Second, Robyn Banks is an equal oppurtunity offender, if you doubt just search through all of his posts.

[Paul]

"equal opportunity offender" LOL

Are there any JW's, Mormons, and Moslems around here? I think these new forums might be more fruitful if they were around :wink:

Why is there no 7th Day Adventist forum? Just curious :smile:

[Solly]

Or jediism. Or buddhism. or....

that's why we have a comparative religions general forum, it's just they picked the ones most likely to be encountered.

DD, you forgot Christadelphians. let's get....him...in here.

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 08:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343137#post343137)
Dee Dee Warren:

Stating relevant facts, if they are facts, is not ad hom. The misuse of that phrase is the bane of debate forums. Is there an official name for the fallacious use of accusations of ad hom?

Except that the first post really didn't state any facts, it just kind of asserted that the JW's are crackpots who do dangerous things. (I'm inclinded to agree whole heartedly with the assertion though!)

[Solly]

But that is not necessarily ad hom, since he was addressing the views and its results, apparent, rather than the person. so it's just "argument by being wrong in their eyes"

[Pilgrim]

except that he begins by calling them "quacks."

[Solly]

Yes, but...

WHAT AM I DOING??? I'M DEFENDING ROBYN. sm44

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 01:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343137#post343137)
Dee Dee Warren:

Stating relevant facts, if they are facts, is not ad hom. The misuse of that phrase is the bane of debate forums. Is there an official name for the fallacious use of accusations of ad hom?

It's a relevant "fact" that JW's are quacks? I've been in discussions with people who are very anti-JW but they do not resort to name calling or insults. I hope this place is the latter rather than the former.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343318#post343318)
yxboom:



First, this isn't an anti-JW site neccessarily as we welcome JW participation. Second, Robyn Banks is an equal oppurtunity offender, if you doubt just search through all of his posts.

Thanks for the welcome. I wasn't refering to this place (T-Web) as an anti-JW site, I was referring to the source of the quote. I've read for awhile before joining and Robyn Banks is off on many things in my opinion, including his view of homosexuality. Thus, his thinking JW's viewpoint of blood as being 'quacky' doesn't really have much impact on me. Personally I think he has much bigger issues to worry about than what the Bible means by "abstain from blood."

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Stating relevant facts, if they are facts, is not ad hom. The misuse of that phrase is the bane of debate forums.
I thought I was the bane of debate forums, Dee Dee? :smile:

And, yet again - Dee Dee - you are so right. The only point being made was that the Watchtowers are Quacks. It may be right or wrong in fact, but there's no possible ad hominem argument involved.



Dee Dee Warren:
Is there an official name for the fallacious use of accusations of ad hom?
"Error".


Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Pilgrim:
Except that the first post really didn't state any facts, it just kind of asserted that the JW's are crackpots who do dangerous things. (I'm inclinded to agree whole heartedly with the assertion though!)
An unsupported assertion is a good way to open up a discussion.


Today @ 04:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343484#post343484)
Pilgrim:

except that he begins by calling them "quacks."
But JWs are quacks (he says, repeating his assertion). Forceful language is not ad hominem or any other kind of fallacy.

Quack is a technical term:

"quack /kwak/ n. 1 a an unqualified practiser of medicine b (attrib) of or characteristic of unskilled medical practice (quack cure)..."


Robyn Banks

[yxboom]

Paul:

"equal opportunity offender" LOL

Are there any JW's, Mormons, and Moslems around here? I think these new forums might be more fruitful if they were around :wink:

Why is there no 7th Day Adventist forum? Just curious :smile:


There are some however we created these forums hoping to encourage more participants and growth in these areas as a lot of the threads created regarding these matters are quickly buried on top each other in the Comparative Religions forum.

The forums were created mostly to cater to what level of activity there is now and we expect to grow. As far as Seventh-day adventist, if there is enough current participation than sure I will consider it.

[Robyn Banks]

Solly:
Yes, but...

WHAT AM I DOING??? I'M DEFENDING ROBYN. sm44

:kiss:

"Can't explain all the feelings that you're making me feel
My heart's in overdrive and you're behind the steering wheel
...
I believe in a thing called love
Just listen to the rhythm of my heart
There's a chance we could make it now"I would have quoted the complete lyrics, but you may have got the wrong idea.

Robyn Banks

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If a person is a recognized liar and you call him a liar with the implication that his deductive arguments should not be accepted as valid because of that then it is a deductively fallacious ad hominem, attacking the man rather than the argument.

It doesn't matter that "liar" is a technical term or even true. The virtue of the proponent of an argument is IRRELEVANT to the validity of any deductive arguments they might propose.

Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy.

The virtue of the proponent of an argument MIGHT BE relevant, however, to any INDUCTIVE arguments they might make.

Ad hominem is not necessarily an inductive fallacy.

John Powell

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343133#post343133)
Non-Trinitarian:

Wow. Ad Hominem from an anti-JW site. There's a first.

And of course, this is close to ad hominem itself -- i.e. "This can't be trusted because it comes from an anti-JW site." Really, it's a genetic fallacy, while my comment is a legitimate tu quoque :bounce:

Robyn's post was not ad hominem -- it called the JW cult "quacks" and explained why.

It would be an abusive ad hominem fallacy to say, "They are quacks so their theological interpretations are bunk." It would also be an abusive ad hominem fallacy for me to say, "Non-Trinitarian is a hypocrite, wrongly accusing a poster of what he is guilty of himself, which shows that his anti-trinitarian bilge can't be trusted." But neither calling him a hypocrite nor denouncing his anti-trinitarian bilge is necessarily a fallacious ad hominem.

[$cirisme]

Solly:

Or jediism. Or buddhism. or....

that's why we have a comparative religions general forum, it's just they picked the ones most likely to be encountered.

DD, you forgot Christadelphians. let's get....him...in here.

But he's (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=518) already here. :shifty:

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343331#post343331)
Paul:

Are there any JW's, Mormons, and Moslems around here? I think these new forums might be more fruitful if they were around :wink:

There have been some.

Why is there no 7th Day Adventist forum? Just curious :smile:

Because they are not cultic -- see my post SDAs: two wings, CRI perspective (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=323781#post323781).

[$cirisme]

Socrates:

[...] Because they are not cultic [...]

These forums have nothing to do with cults. They are here because we think there might be some value and participation in them as boom said.

[dizzle]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344311#post344311)
Socrates:



And of course, this is close to ad hominem itself -- i.e. "This can't be trusted because it comes from an anti-JW site." Really, it's a genetic fallacy, while my comment is a legitimate tu quoque :bounce:

Robyn's post was not ad hominem -- it called the JW cult "quacks" and explained why.



:thumb: I cannot believe that both of us are defending Robyn.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
:thumb: I cannot believe that both of us are defending Robyn.
I knew you'd see things my way in the end...

:shocked:

[Jedidiah]

Non-Trinitarian,

Personally I think he has much bigger issues to worry about than what the Bible means by "abstain from blood."

What does the Bible mean by "abstain from blood?"

beeman

[Socrates]

Today @ 09:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344443#post344443)
Dee Dee Warren:

:thumb: I cannot believe that both of us are defending Robyn.
:point: I won't report you if you won't report me :gape:

:shoot::helmet:

[dizzle]

This is TWeb history.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 06:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345652#post345652)
Dee Dee Warren:

This is TWeb history.
I agree.

[dizzle]

Egad! It's worse than I thought.

[dizzle]

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345258#post345258)
beeman:

Non-Trinitarian,



What does the Bible mean by "abstain from blood?"

beeman

Okay thanks for getting us somewhat back on track.

[Solly]

:lol: too much agreable Christmas spirit going on around here

[Centurion]

I can say that I admire the persistancy of the JW's, I wish more Christians were this way, but I can't say as I condone an organization who rewrites God's Holy word and try to call themselves "God's Chosen".

[Origen]

I think Robyn's initial post wasn't very complete though - they didn't really provide good examples (such as quotes from old WT's about transfusions, etc.).

My way of discussing JW's is usually this: Bible ping pong is difficult to play with them, as they are highly trained to defend their theology. However, focusing on whether the organization itself should be trusted is usually a good method of argument. I'm planning on making several threads regarding this.

- Origen

[dizzle]

I look forward to it Origen.

[NonTrinitarian]

I think Robyn's initial post wasn't very complete though - they didn't really provide good examples (such as quotes from old WT's about transfusions, etc.).

My way of discussing JW's is usually this: Bible ping pong is difficult to play with them, as they are highly trained to defend their theology. However, focusing on whether the organization itself should be trusted is usually a good method of argument. I'm planning on making several threads regarding this.

- Origen
Origin,
I appreciate that you are trying to help us get out of a "cult" but your method will not be that effective, at least not with me. IE., you can show/prove the Wathctower Society did/said all kinds of wrong things. Though I don't believe that my response would be that I already knew they were made up of imperfect men, not true prophets who have a red phone they can pick up and talk directly with God. So if they are wrong on some areas, so be it.

BUT, from my study of the scriptures I have learned that God is not a Trinity. That man doesn't have an immortal soul in him that will burn forever in hell. That the earth will be a paradise one day. That Christians would not kill fellow believers in war just because they live in a different country, and on and on and on. So I look at these and say (assuming you could prove a wrong from the WT), okay, maybe 1914 was not when Jesus was enthroned as king but where else am I going to go? Do you think I will automatically start believing in the Trinity, that's it's okay for Christians to be soldiers and fight for their country, whatever country that may be, etc. etc. etc.?

You have to work from the Bible and you are correct, we are very good (I mean it in a modest way) with using the Bible to explain our beleifs. If you're attempt is to show me that the WT is not perfect, I already agree with you.

[Centurion]

Tell me trinitarian where the Bible says the trinity is false, and where it is wrong for Christians to be soldiers.

[NonTrinitarian]

Tell me trinitarian where the Bible says the trinity is false, and where it is wrong for Christians to be soldiers.
I would like to answer your question here but it would take a book to do so. At least on the Trinity. Please go to the Tennis Court and see my discussion with Bill on the Gospel accounts. The Bible doesn't 'say the "Trinity" is false' because the Bible doesn't mention or teach the Trinity.

As far as Christian soldiers, Jesus taught his followers to put away the sword. Look at all the times the Christians were persucuted and killed in the NT. No accounts, not one, of any of them grabbing a sword and going off to fight the enemy, Jewish or Gentile. They merely fled or died trying. Paul said we have a wrestling, not with flesh and blood, but with evil spirits. James said God's children don't kill their brothers and yet we see Catholics killing Catholics, Protestants killing Protestants, Mormons killing Mormons. And guess which side each one fights for? It just so happens the "right side" is whatever country the person lives in. Imagine that. No matter where a "Christian" is born, he happens to be in the country that is right and has God on its side.

Now, in addition to that, note the following quotes from history.

"A carefull review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius, no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service."-The Rise of Christianity" by Ernest William Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham

"They rfused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire...it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers."-"History of Christianity" by Edward Gibbon

"We who were filled with was and mutual slaughter...have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapins, -our swords into ploughshares."-Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho

"The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight and would not serve int he army even when the Empire needed soldiers."-The New World's Foundations in the Old"-Ruth West, History Proffessor University of Minnesota, 1929

"It's members refused to enter the army or take any part in war...Origin...remarks that 'the Christian Church cannot engage in war against any nation. They have learned from their leader that they are children of peace.' IN that period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service." -"Treasury of the Christian World"-H. Ingli James

It hasn't changed today. Christians still learn peace and wait for God to act. As Jesus said in Luke 21:21,22 to his followers, when we are attacked or see an attack coming, we flee.

[barryrob]

"equal opportunity offender" LOL

Are there any JW's, Mormons, and Moslems around here? I think these new forums might be more fruitful if they were around :wink:

Why is there no 7th Day Adventist forum? Just curious :smile:
Hi. I am a Christian Witnesses of Jehovah, if you have any questions please feel free to ask me and I will do my best to in answering it/them for you.

Christian Love
barryrob

[{Tim}]

As far as Christian soldiers, Jesus taught his followers to put away the sword.First of all, Jesus' followers were not soldiers. So the most that could be directly read from here is that Christians should not form militant bands to promote their religion, even to protect themselves under a hostile government. And if I am thinking of the same event as you, this was also in the context of the lead-up to the Crucifiction, and Jesus was telling his followers not to try to stop it. (If I misunderstood, could you please indicate which bit you were actually talking about?)

Also, in the Old Testament, there were times when God's people (at that time their own nation) were used to punish evil nations. I am not sure how to develop an argument from this, but perhaps someone else would like to try?

Finally: do you believe that it is moral for Christians to sit on the sidelines when their country goes to war against a genuinely evil enemy, for instance Adolf Hitler in WWII? Should christians rely on unbelievers to fight against evils like this?

Tim

[Bammer]

Hi. I am a Christian Witnesses of Jehovah, if you have any questions please feel free to ask me and I will do my best to in answering it/them for you.

Christian Love
barryrob

Hi barryrob and welcome. I appreciate your offer to try to answer questions we might have. I sometimes discuss the bible and JW faith with a JW friend of mine, but I'll certainly keep your offer in mind.

One thing you could take a look at if you would, is the thread about the prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel, and the reign of Artaxerxes. I started this thread a while ago and NonTrinitarian replied, but he/she then didn't reply to my comments, and I haven't really gotten any further with this issue.

Best regards
Bammer

[Pilgrim]

Hi. I am a Christian Witnesses of Jehovah, if you have any questions please feel free to ask me and I will do my best to in answering it/them for you.

Christian Love
barryrob
Ok, here's a question for you, and I'm asking in all seriousness because no one has ever given me a good answer for it...

Q. How do you feel about the fact that there is no word translatable as "jehovah" in the scriptures? How do you feel about the fact that the word comes from a basic misunderstanding and mistranslation of the tetragramiton "YHWH?" If it was me, and there was such a basic mistake at the very begininning of a my faith tradition, it would make me very critical of everything there after.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

First of all, Jesus' followers were not soldiers. So the most that could be directly read from here is that Christians should not form militant bands to promote their religion, even to protect themselves under a hostile government. And if I am thinking of the same event as you, this was also in the context of the lead-up to the Crucifiction, and Jesus was telling his followers not to try to stop it. (If I misunderstood, could you please indicate which bit you were actually talking about?)

Also, in the Old Testament, there were times when God's people (at that time their own nation) were used to punish evil nations. I am not sure how to develop an argument from this, but perhaps someone else would like to try?

Finally: do you believe that it is moral for Christians to sit on the sidelines when their country goes to war against a genuinely evil enemy, for instance Adolf Hitler in WWII? Should christians rely on unbelievers to fight against evils like this?

Tim
Interesting that you bring up Adolf Hitler. Dietrich Bonheoffer wrestled with that exact situation becomming involved in a plot to assasinate Hitler. Writing of the whole thing from prison after the plot failed he was very honest about admitting that even though the plot would have been a worthy undertaking for the sake of the world, it would still have been murder, and a sin for which he would have to answer to God.

He made his choice to do something for the sake of the world and deal with the consequences of the sin later. Very interesting.

[NonTrinitarian]

First of all, Jesus' followers were not soldiers. So the most that could be directly read from here is that Christians should not form militant bands to promote their religion, even to protect themselves under a hostile government. And if I am thinking of the same event as you, this was also in the context of the lead-up to the Crucifiction, and Jesus was telling his followers not to try to stop it. (If I misunderstood, could you please indicate which bit you were actually talking about?)

Also, in the Old Testament, there were times when God's people (at that time their own nation) were used to punish evil nations. I am not sure how to develop an argument from this, but perhaps someone else would like to try?

Finally: do you believe that it is moral for Christians to sit on the sidelines when their country goes to war against a genuinely evil enemy, for instance Adolf Hitler in WWII? Should christians rely on unbelievers to fight against evils like this?

TimAnd yet people would say the US acts in an evil way from time to time. During WWII you had catholics killing Catholics, Protestants killing Protestants etc. Each country saying God was on their side. Secular history is very clear on the matter that 1st century and early 2nd century Christians would not become soldiers and soldiers, once becoming Christians, would not remain soldiers.

Yes, God did use Israel in war in the OT. He did a lot of other things with the Israelites that he doesn't do with Christians. Ie, sabbath keeping, sacrifices, temple, etc.

As far as the atrocities of the world, where do you see in the NT any Christian taking arms against the wicked Roman govt? Even when this govt was killing Christians by the thousands we see no uprising to stop this "evil." Instead the apostle Paul quoted God as saying, 'vengeance is mine, I will repay.'

Arguments like these come from emotion, mostly based on patriotic feelings and national superiority. History and the whole NT demonstrates what Christians would do in this regard.

Interestingly, in the ministry a Catholic woman said her brother was killed in WWII and lashed out at a fellow JW for his not trying to support the US army. The brother offered his condolences for the loss of her brother and made the comment that he can promise her it was not a JW who killed her brother in WWII. Of course this point had no effect on her but it's interesting that this woman could not confidently say that about her faith as in all likely hood it was a Catholic that did this deed. Such is the result of religion getting involved with politics and "christians" getting involved in nationalistic pride.

[NonTrinitarian]

Ok, here's a question for you, and I'm asking in all seriousness because no one has ever given me a good answer for it...

Q. How do you feel about the fact that there is no word translatable as "jehovah" in the scriptures? How do you feel about the fact that the word comes from a basic misunderstanding and mistranslation of the tetragramiton "YHWH?" If it was me, and there was such a basic mistake at the very begininning of a my faith tradition, it would make me very critical of everything there after.

Peace,
PilgrimHow do you feel about the fact the Jeremiah and joshua and jehosaphat are also not found in the OT? Most of the names in the OT are not pronounced in the original language yet we use their anglinized forms with no complaints. JW's have always noted that the exact pronunciation of God's name is not known. Though evidence seems to suggest it was a three sylable name, probably Ya-ho-wah.

What is repulsing is that the Name YHWH appears in the text nearly 7000 times and yet Christendom refuses to acknowledge it. That's more than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus appear in the Bible, combined! It appears more than triple the number of times the term "God" appears in the Bible. Do you get the feeling God values His Name?

From the beginning of the Bible to the end, the name of God is highly exalted. Go here to read more on it.

http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/index.htm

[barryrob]

Ok, here's a question for you, and I'm asking in all seriousness because no one has ever given me a good answer for it...

Q. How do you feel about the fact that there is no word translatable as "jehovah" in the scriptures? How do you feel about the fact that the word comes from a basic misunderstanding and mistranslation of the tetragramiton "YHWH?" If it was me, and there was such a basic mistake at the very begininning of a my faith tradition, it would make me very critical of everything there after.

Peace,
PilgrimTHE NAME OF GOD THE FATHER*

"The NAME of God is described as his 'holy name' more often than all other adjectival qualifications taken together. It was this sense of the sacredness of the name that finally led to the obtuse refusal to use 'Yahweh', leading as it has done to a deep lose of sense of the divine name in EV V*(with the notable exception of the JB** ). The holiness of the name, however, does not remove if from use but from abuse: this is the reason why revelation of the divine name must never confused with any thought of magical power with the divine. Far from man being able to use the name to control God, it is the name which controls man, both in worship Godward (e.g. Lv 18:21) and in service manward (e.g. Rom 1:5). The NAME is thus the motive of service; it is also the message (e.g. Acts 9:15), and the means of power (e.g. Acts 3:16; 4:12)."-'NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY', second edition p.813, also see p.430

*English Versions

**Jerusalem Bible [& New Jerusalem Bible]



It the above we see an interesting comments:-



"The holiness of the name, however, does not remove if from use but from abuse"

Would it not be an "abuse" of God's Name not to use it after he made a deliberate efforts to tell it to mankind? Hence the comment "obtuse refusal" to use it!



There are many differing spelling of God's name World Wide but they all mean to the same person, The One and Only Almighty God "YHWH" however it is spelt in your land:-



*** na p. 8 God’s Name—Its Meaning and Pronunciation ***



Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah

Awabakal - Yehóa

Bugotu - Jihova

Cantonese - Yehwowah

Danish - Jehova

Dutch - Jehovah

Efik - Jehovah

English - Jehovah

Fijian - Jiova

Finnish - Jehova

French - Jéhovah

Futuna - Ihova

German - Jehova

Hungarian - Jehova

Igbo - Jehova

Italian - Geova

Japanese - Ehoba

Maori - Ihowa

Motu - Iehova

Mwala-Malu - Jihova

Narrinyeri - Jehovah

Nembe - Jihova

Petats - Jihouva

Polish - Jehowa

Portuguese - Jeová

Romanian - Iehova

Samoan - Ieova

Sotho - Jehova

Spanish - Jehová

Swahili - Yehova

Swedish - Jehova

Tahitian - Iehova

Tagalog - Jehova

Tongan - Jihova

Venda - Yehova

Xhosa - uYehova

Yoruba - Jehofah

Zulu - uJehova

As the English Language came via Latin and Greek, in connection with Biblical literaturem then this is how the spelling developed accordint to our linguistic line, hence "Jehovah." According to my experience it seems to please God well with "Jehovah" as despite all efforts to remove it or change it (in English) they have come to nothing, so if it is expectable to The Almighty then I am quite happy with his conclusions on this matter, in fact via his people he has filled the earth with his name, according to the spelling in each linguistic group etc. and it continues to work well as it is blessed by him as he himself said:-



Ezekiel 36:23 ‘And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations, which YOU profaned in the midst of them; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among YOU before their eyes.



Ezekiel 37:28 And the nations will have to know that I, Jehovah, am sanctifying Israel when my sanctuary comes to be in the midst of them to time indefinite."’"



Ezekiel 38:23 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.’



Micah 4:5 For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah our God to time indefinite, even forever.



Jehovah's Christian Witnesses are now in every nation on this earth thus the above in now happening and nothing will be able to stop it as this proclamation has God's backing showing he is pleased with the use of "Jehovah" (however it my be spelt in any language) and at the end of the day it is His Will that Matters and it His Will that Will Be Done, this seems now to be confirmed among the nations world wide.



Thank you for your interest.

God Bless

BarryRob

[barryrob]

Hi barryrob and welcome. I appreciate your offer to try to answer questions we might have. I sometimes discuss the bible and JW faith with a JW friend of mine, but I'll certainly keep your offer in mind.

One thing you could take a look at if you would, is the thread about the prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel, and the reign of Artaxerxes. I started this thread a while ago and NonTrinitarian replied, but he/she then didn't reply to my comments, and I haven't really gotten any further with this issue.

Best regards
Bammer
Hi Bammer

Please feel free to ask away as you want being specific in your questions.

BarryRob

[barryrob]

Ok, here's a question for you, and I'm asking in all seriousness because no one has ever given me a good answer for it...

Q. How do you feel about the fact that there is no word translatable as "jehovah" in the scriptures? How do you feel about the fact that the word comes from a basic misunderstanding and mistranslation of the tetragramiton "YHWH?" If it was me, and there was such a basic mistake at the very begininning of a my faith tradition, it would make me very critical of everything there after.

Peace,
Pilgrim
Mistakes do not last "Jehovah" has, is, and as far as I can see will, time will tell all:-

(Micah 4:5) . . .For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah our God to time indefinite, even forever.

God's will be done.

BarrRob

[Trout]

Mistakes do not last "Jehovah" has, is, and as far as I can see will, time will tell all:-


So you agree that there is no basis for translating YHWH, Jehovah?

[barryrob]

So you agree that there is no basis for translating YHWH, Jehovah?Not I do not agree:-


Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?



“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513



*”generic adj. 1 characteristic of or relating to a class; general, not specific or special. 2 Biol. characteristic of or belonging to a genus. generically adv. [Latin: related to *genus].”-Oxford Dic.





1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father*, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”



*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-



John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”



John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.



“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-



John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.



John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them 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.”“



Is The Fathers name God?



*“god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



“name —n. 1 word by which an individual person, family, animal, place, or thing is spoken of etc. 2 a (usu. abusive) term used of a person etc. (called him names). b word denoting an object or esp. a class of objects etc. (what is the name of those flowers?). 3 famous person. 4 reputation, esp. a good one. —v. (-ming) 1 give a name to. 2 state the name of. 3 mention; specify; cite. 4 nominate. have to one's name possess. in the name of as representing; by virtue of (in the name of the law). in name only not in reality. make a name for oneself become famous. nameable adj. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



So what else did Jesus say:-



The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-



Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””



“hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy].”-Oxford Dic.



Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”



Christians are to identify with “the name of the Father”.



What is God The Father’s Personal Name?



Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”



Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.



**Who became “Israel.”



During the formation of the Christian Congregation:-



Acts 15:14 “Symeon has related thoroughly how God [of Israel, Jehovah] for the first time turned his attention to the [non Israelite] nations [who became Christians] to take out of them a people for his name [Jehovah].”



So to identify with The God of Israel who was preached by Jesus and the Apostles shouldn’t we use his Personal name?

Barryrob

[barryrob]

[QUOTE=Paul]"equal opportunity offender" LOL

Are there any JW's,


Yes Barryrob

[Trout]

Not I do not agree:-


Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?



“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513



*”generic adj. 1 characteristic of or relating to a class; general, not specific or special. 2 Biol. characteristic of or belonging to a genus. generically adv. [Latin: related to *genus].”-Oxford Dic.





1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father*, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”



*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-



John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”



John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.



“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-



John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.



John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them 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.”“



Is The Fathers name God?



*“god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



“name —n. 1 word by which an individual person, family, animal, place, or thing is spoken of etc. 2 a (usu. abusive) term used of a person etc. (called him names). b word denoting an object or esp. a class of objects etc. (what is the name of those flowers?). 3 famous person. 4 reputation, esp. a good one. —v. (-ming) 1 give a name to. 2 state the name of. 3 mention; specify; cite. 4 nominate. have to one's name possess. in the name of as representing; by virtue of (in the name of the law). in name only not in reality. make a name for oneself become famous. nameable adj. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



So what else did Jesus say:-



The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-



Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””



“hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy].”-Oxford Dic.



Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”



Christians are to identify with “the name of the Father”.



What is God The Father’s Personal Name?



Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”



Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.



**Who became “Israel.”



During the formation of the Christian Congregation:-



Acts 15:14 “Symeon has related thoroughly how God [of Israel, Jehovah] for the first time turned his attention to the [non Israelite] nations [who became Christians] to take out of them a people for his name [Jehovah].”



So to identify with The God of Israel who was preached by Jesus and the Apostles shouldn’t we use his Personal name?

Barryrob


You didn't make your point barryrob.


In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513

The point was there is no translational basis for the word Jehovah, you in fact made the case of the thread starter in the paragraph I quoted.

[barryrob]

You didn't make your point barryrob.



The point was there is no translational basis for the word Jehovah, you in fact made the case of the thread starter in the paragraph I quoted.

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513


The point is in the above, I speak English.
Barryrob

[Trout]

“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513


The point is in the above, I speak English.
Barryrob


What the above expresses is, there is no basis for translating the YHWH into Jehovah other than it's Latinized usage, in other words, it doesn't appear in the original manuscripts.

[barryrob]

What the above expresses is, there is no basis for translating the YHWH into Jehovah other than it's Latinized usage, in other words, it doesn't appear in the original manuscripts.

There is a prity good reason that "Jehovah" does not appear in the "orinigal manuscripts", could it be that they are in Hebrew.