Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
jasoncran said:
he is the only one that doenst call the jw as the "truth". and has some more liberal and less dogamtic approach to the jw.

that is what i was commenting on.

all others that are baptized say that that have the truth , and that comment you made is what the tract society preaches, all those that believe in jehovah are united.

mohrb has never stated that.

To clarify: That's because the bible is "The truth." I believe JWs do a very good job believing what the bible actually teaches. And, as much as we agree with the bible, to that extent, we are "the truth." However, what we say isn't "truth" because it's us that says it. Like everyone else, we're only as "true" as we are "true." (rather overly simple, I guess)

The problem with so many ex-JWs is that they set their standards FAR too high, believing that the human teachings of the WBTS are equal to God's teachings. That is not the case, nor does the WBTS claim that to be the case. True, some articles have been written quite arrogantly... and that's a WEAKNESS because that's the reason so many people are over-confident in the man-made organization. Therefore, when they find any flaw in the men, they assume the whole message to be a lie. However, all humans are flawed. From the governing body to the pope to an atheist bum on the street. All humans have weakness. All humans can be wrong. Therefore, no... I don't call the congregation "the truth" because I find it to be an arrogant statement. However, I do believe that we do the best job sticking to the truth than any other group I've seen.

... One doesn't HAVE to be a fundamentalist radical in order to be a part of a congregation. Yes, I'm sure there are JWs that think far too highly of the WBTS organization. Just like I'm sure there are members of any given denomination that believes that anything said from that pulpit is equal to the word of God, and that their pastor is completely sinless. Unfortunately, that is not true.

By virtue of being a denomination, every denomination will have problems, misunderstandings, or poor wording from time to time. That doesn't make the overall message they teach false.
 
nadab may disagree with that, but i am curious to see what he will say on that.


you are most unusual for a jw. very unusual.
 
Mohrb said:
jasoncran said:
he is the only one that doenst call the jw as the "truth". and has some more liberal and less dogamtic approach to the jw.

that is what i was commenting on.

all others that are baptized say that that have the truth , and that comment you made is what the tract society preaches, all those that believe in jehovah are united.

mohrb has never stated that.

To clarify: That's because the bible is "The truth." I believe JWs do a very good job believing what the bible actually teaches. And, as much as we agree with the bible, to that extent, we are "the truth." However, what we say isn't "truth" because it's us that says it. Like everyone else, we're only as "true" as we are "true." (rather overly simple, I guess)

The problem with so many ex-JWs is that they set their standards FAR too high, believing that the human teachings of the WBTS are equal to God's teachings. That is not the case, nor does the WBTS claim that to be the case. True, some articles have been written quite arrogantly... and that's a WEAKNESS because that's the reason so many people are over-confident in the man-made organization. Therefore, when they find any flaw in the men, they assume the whole message to be a lie. However, all humans are flawed. From the governing body to the pope to an atheist bum on the street. All humans have weakness. All humans can be wrong. Therefore, no... I don't call the congregation "the truth" because I find it to be an arrogant statement. However, I do believe that we do the best job sticking to the truth than any other group I've seen.

... One doesn't HAVE to be a fundamentalist radical in order to be a part of a congregation. Yes, I'm sure there are JWs that think far too highly of the WBTS organization. Just like I'm sure there are members of any given denomination that believes that anything said from that pulpit is equal to the word of God, and that their pastor is completely sinless. Unfortunately, that is not true.

By virtue of being a denomination, every denomination will have problems, misunderstandings, or poor wording from time to time. That doesn't make the overall message they teach false.

The Bible is indeed "truth", for Jesus said in prayer to his Father: "Your word is truth."(John 17:17) Furthermore, Jesus said of those who are his disciples, that "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free."(John 8:32) Thus, the sixty-six books of the Bible are "truth".

And by knowing the "truth"and applying it, individuals are set "free" from the political system of things that has manipulated the masses of mankind for thousand of years (Rev 13:3), from greedy commercialism and love of money that has enamored persons of all nationalities (1 Tim 6:9, 10), and from the shackles of false religion (Babylon the Great) that has held people in bondage especially since the Noachian Flood.(Rev 18:4)

Unlike the churches, who have introduced traditions and religious teachings that are contrary to the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses are striving diligently to follow the pattern of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 2:21) and of the first century Christian congregation, that Jehovah's holy spirit directed.(Acts 15:28) The standards set by God are indeed high, and are in fact so elevated that Jesus said: "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."(Luke 13:24)

And Mohrb, the Watchtower, Bible and Tract Society is only the legal instrument of the "faithful and discreet slave".(Matt 24:45) Those who are truly Jehovah's Witnesses clearly recognize that the "faithful and discreet slave" class has been appointed by Jesus to provide spiritual "food at the proper time."(Matt 24:45b)

You apparently feel that what comes forth through the various publications are "human teachings of the WBTS", and that "some articles have been written down quite arrogantly...and that's a WEAKNESS because that's the reason so many people are over-confident in the man-made organization." Since, you don't truly believe that Jehovah is directing the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses through the "faithful and discreet slave", then why are you pretending to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses ?

The Bible definitely states that there is only "one faith" that measures up to Jehovah's requirements (Eph 4:5), that has his blessing, that is fulfilling the responsiblity to preach "this good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth."(Matt 24:14) Only one organization makes known and carries God's name of Jehovah. At Psalms 15:1, David asks: "O Jehovah, who will be a guest in your tent ? Who will reside in your holy mountain ?"

He then answers his own question and says: "In his eyes (those "practicing righteousness", verse 2) anyone contemptible is certainly rejected, but those fearing Jehovah he honors."(Ps 15:4) Who, but only Jehovah's Witnesses are ' fearing Jehovah'. All other so-called Christian religions either give lip service to the name or hides it, using only titles such as "Lord" or "God". Jesus was unashamed of his Father's name, to be called "the faithful and true witness" of Jehovah.(Rev 3:14)

In addition, Jehovah's Witnesses are non-denominational, for we are not of the stock of the hundreds of denominations of Christendom. Jehovah's Witnesses are a restoration of the one true religion that Jesus established while on the earth, for Isaiah 2:2 says that "it must occur in the final part of the days that the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills, and to it all the nations must stream."

They are the only religious organization that has beaten "their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears", whereby "nation will not lift sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."(Isa 2:4)
 
yup they havent changed at all.

just as i suspected, mohrb, is the only that is like that i know.
not that i mind, just an abboration.
 
The best things to discuss when talking to a Jehovah Witness is the Watchtower's History of false prophecy, change in doctrine, and how Watchtower Theology does not match up with the Holy Bible, such as the teachings of the Divinity of Christ, the existence of Hell, The Anointed class & other sheep, etc.
Even though it's corrupted, I use the Jehovah Witness' own bible "The New World Translation" to disprove Watchtower Doctrine, even their own translation clearly teaches the Divinity of Christ, the existence of an Eternal Hell, Salvation by the blood of Christ alone, etc. When talking to Jehovah Witness, stick on the important subjects, and not on blood transfusions, whether Christ died on a cross, the name Jehovah, celebrating holidays/birthdays, voting/military serves, etc. These subject are important but are irrelevant to their salvation, and they will try to avoid subjects such as hell, Watchtower history/false prophecy & divinity of Christ & talk about these un-important subjects. And most important of all, be kind & gentle.

"The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will"
(2 Timothy 2:24-26)

"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence"
(1 Peter 3:15)
 
Kevin, it's good to have you on the boards and so active. I spent a lot of time going back and forth with Mohrb (Chris). We've disagreed a lot, but he is 1st class. At first, I didn't know how to take him, but he solidified himself in his consistent amicability. We spent many threads debating whether a JW should be considered a Christian in the first place. I don't believe they are based on their understanding of who Jesus is. I could understand that this is hard for someone to hear, but I firmly believe this. Chris, in spite of my stance, has been a terrific person to share with.

APB for Mohrb! Where are you, Chris?

Nice to have you here, Kevin!
 
I've been around. Most of the threads seem to be going off on different tangets, and I'm enjoying seeing where they go. Unfortunately, I'm more of a "listener" than anything else. I have been keeping an eye out for places to jump in though. Also I've been a bit busy... work's demanding mandatory overtime, plus I'm going to start tutoring a kid who's not doing well in his physics class this weekend.


I guess I should respond to Kevin, though. Not much positive I can say, unfortunately. It seems to be the typical person who's been indoctrinated with the idea that "JWs are different, so instead of open communication to understand the reason for their differences... just attack them for anything you can take out of context."

... Yes, Russel interpreted a prophecy in Daniel as suggesting that Armageddon would come in 1914. He made arrogant claims, and he was wrong. When it didn't come in 1914, he thought maybe "1914 was the 'last year' and it would come in 1915... or perhaps it was the setting in motion of the chain of events that would lead to the end.... Considering the biggest war in history started that year... a war that's directly lead to wars that are still being fought today... perhaps it was the start of some "chain of events" we won't fully understand until it's over. Who knows? Yes, his interpretation of a bible prophecy was incorrect. No, that doesn't make JWs today "False prophets." .... then, yes, around the '70's, JWs (among others) did note that 1975 marked the 6000th anniversary of human existence... which "could be significant" ... The WBTS was careful NOT to make it into a prophecy... only to state that it was a logical time for something significant to happen based on human math. Again... that doesn't make us "failed prophets" ... that means that we saw an anniversary pass that ended up not being that special.

... The WBTS admits that it's made up of imperfect, fallible people. Attacking individuals does nothing to prove our understanding of the bible wrong.
 
Hello Chris.
I guess I should respond to Kevin, though. Not much positive I can say, unfortunately. It seems to be the typical person who's been indoctrinated with the idea that "JWs are different, so instead of open communication to understand the reason for their differences... just attack them for anything you can take out of context."
Ya, it's unfortunate that we do tend to get drawn into silliness at times.
I've been guilty myself of tongue in cheek sarcasm at times, and I am determined to stop that and to be respectful of everyone.

It's more difficult to engage others who do attack, and who are blatantly arrogant and insulting and my personal instinct is to shoot back at times but that has more to do with who I used to be as opposed to who I am now that Jesus has come into my life. I used to be a singer in a hard rock band and I have had my full share of drugs, women, drink, fighting, prison and loss.
Jesus transformed my life and yet there are times when I struggle to keep my words in check.
I am trying very hard to be respectful and to not come across as arrogant.

I have met a great number of J.W. as they come to our door, and I can honestly say that they have all been extremely respectful and intelligent. The people I have talked to are people I would be proud to have as friends.
My beloved Aunt Isabel and Uncle Norm were J.W. and I loved them tremendously. They would always go out of their way to make us kids (back in the 60's) feel important. My aunt would always come visiting and head straight to wherever I was, and she always had some little gift for me, usually some coloured pencils and different pens.

The reason I do engage in these discussions is that I have a strong belief that God's Bible (book) was intact and as He wanted it the first time around. My God created everything with a word, and I find it impossible to even consider that He was incapable of getting His word to us the way He intended it to be right from the start.

I feel as though it is a duty as a Christian to at least try to share God's message, and saviour God Jesus' special mission with as many as I can without being a pest, or beating people over the head with the book.

I think that my J.W. brothers and sisters are on shaky ground when they attempt to defend their new interpretation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The manuscripts are here for all scholars and laymen to study, and it is not something that is really open to interpretation in that the Hebrew and Greek is an understood language today, and we know exactly what the oldest manuscripts say. The real facts are that the KJV is virtually intact, and the N.W.T. is seriously in error.

The fact that the very people in charge of the N.W.T. translation had no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek languages with the exception of one, Franz, who had only a few months of schooling and could not translate some simple Hebrew scriptures into English in a Scottish courtroom, is disturbing to say the least.
I think the real problem is the J.W. who I have spoken to will defend these interpreters in spite of these serious issues.
The bible has an enormous wealth of corroborating manuscripts in several languages which can be, and have been at length, cross referenced at checked for accuracy. As I have stated, the N.W.T. is seriously in error.

There is a very serious warning at the end of the bible in Revelation which tells us that anyone who adds or takes away even a single letter from the scriptures as they were in the beginning, is going to suffer the same fate as satan and his followers. This must have been ignored; however the N.W.T. has the same warning in their book.

It becomes impossible to defend the re-interpretations of the original scriptures when we have other semi plagiarisms such as the Koran that take scriptures directly from the bible, and add their own philosophies and propagandas to further their own specific human causes.

So I would ask a J.W. this; you would like people to accept your bible based on your belief that the original scriptures where incorrect interpretations in spite of the fact that the oldest known manuscripts, and there are thousands of them, all correspond to each other. Now am I t believe that some conspiracy team of fanatics ran around the old world gathering up every single copy and manuscript and added and took away without anyone noticing?

I have to assume a J.W. purposefully rejects the KJV for example; version in favour of the N.W.T. based on the belief that there must be some ancient biblical manuscripts somewhere which their interpreters used as a source to “correct†the mistakes of the original bible.
Or, as I have been told by a J.W. at my door, their interpretation team may not have been able to understand the Hebrew or Greek languages, but God supernaturally worked through those people and gave them the “correct†version that He had messed up on the first time.

Well, that explanation can be used by any person, or group who would change the scriptures to further any cause and how can we refute such a claim?
It is very difficult to argue against a faith based belief.
My question to a J.W. would be how do you respond to the Muslim version of God’s word?
It is yet another interpretation of the original scriptures and their prophet gave the exact same argument your people gave; God made a mistake with the first book He gave us, and through the Koran, God corrected His mistake through Mohammad. Your people tell me that through the N.W.T. God corrected His first two mistakes – the original scriptures and the Koran.

See how slippery it gets when we don’t give God the credit He deserves in that He does have the power and the ability to get His message to His creation right the first time around?

My entire purpose for becoming engaged in this discussion is that I honestly believe with all my heart and soul, that the J.W. are a good, descent and genuinely honest people who are being misinformed.
Now it wouldn’t matter much if the original scriptures didn’t relay a continuing theme throughout the Old and New Testament that we are a sinful fallen creation of God, and that right from the beginning of God’s word He had laid out a special plan of redemption for us in order to enable each and every person to have an equal opportunity to accept Jesus/God’s special sacrificial death and to be completely cleaned of our sins to the point where God Himself promises not just to forgive, but to actually forget all our sins once we confess Jesus is God and confess our sins to God.

Once we take Jesus’ divinity out of the picture, we are left believing we are responsible for our own salvation, and God warns us that there is absolutely nothing that we can do which would clean us of our sins, and that without Jesus, we are doomed.

So, I understand that J.W. must feel like they are being attacked by arrogant self righteous people, and I’m sure that is true sometimes, however, it is certainly not my position.
I am a sinner and no better or worse than any J.W. or anyone else for that matter.
My intentions are purely out of love of my brothers and sisters who I believe are in danger of losing their eternal salvation based on the original scriptures, and more specifically, based on God’s own words.

May God bless you and your family richly my brother.

John Bronzesnake
 
Kevin Lowery said:
The best things to discuss when talking to a Jehovah Witness is the Watchtower's History of false prophecy, change in doctrine, and how Watchtower Theology does not match up with the Holy Bible, such as the teachings of the Divinity of Christ, the existence of Hell, The Anointed class & other sheep, etc.
Even though it's corrupted, I use the Jehovah Witness' own bible "The New World Translation" to disprove Watchtower Doctrine, even their own translation clearly teaches the Divinity of Christ, the existence of an Eternal Hell, Salvation by the blood of Christ alone, etc. When talking to Jehovah Witness, stick on the important subjects, and not on blood transfusions, whether Christ died on a cross, the name Jehovah, celebrating holidays/birthdays, voting/military serves, etc. These subject are important but are irrelevant to their salvation, and they will try to avoid subjects such as hell, Watchtower history/false prophecy & divinity of Christ & talk about these un-important subjects. And most important of all, be kind & gentle.

"The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will"
(2 Timothy 2:24-26)

"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence"
(1 Peter 3:15)

Great advice brother, thanks.

Bronzesnake
 
BAH!


... I just spend 2 hours working on a very carefully worded post... hit submit... it told me to log in and lost the whole thing....
:mad
 
Mohrb said:
BAH!


... I just spend 2 hours working on a very carefully worded post... hit submit... it told me to log in and lost the whole thing....
:mad

Doh! :wall

If I spend a lot of time on a post, I always highlight & copy what I've written before I do anything. This site can be quirky. Did you try clicking back in pages? That usually works for me too.
 
Mohrb said:
BAH!


... I just spend 2 hours working on a very carefully worded post... hit submit... it told me to log in and lost the whole thing....
:mad
Eeww that hurts!
Last night I had been working on some evolution stuff and spent about two hours gathering info and writting up my analysis when my wife comes downstairs because a fuse poped upstars.
Well instead of flicking on the appropriate fuse she reste the entire panel!
So of course my computer shut down and I also lost everything!

The good news is that I always do all my work on MS Office 2007, and so that program has a feature that allows you to retrieve lost work!
Whew!

I do feel for you brother.

John
 
Let's try this again... I've been frustrated all day though, so this'll be the brief version:


Bronzesnake said:
I think that my J.W. brothers and sisters are on shaky ground when they attempt to defend their new interpretation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The manuscripts are here for all scholars and laymen to study, and it is not something that is really open to interpretation in that the Hebrew and Greek is an understood language today, and we know exactly what the oldest manuscripts say. The real facts are that the KJV is virtually intact, and the N.W.T. is seriously in error.
Says who? Later in the post you mention the warning not to add or subtract a single letter from the word of God.... take a look at the KJV's rendition of verses like Jeremiah 16:21
"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD."

... Considering it's God himself speaking, stating that he will "cause them to know [his] hand and might; that they should know my name is (let's just replace this part)" ... can you think of a more offensive, disrespectful thing a person can do than erase God's name like this?

Also... you suggest that JWs have some sort of "new" interpretation of the scriptures. Obviously we disagree with what the original scriptures say... but as far back as there is record of people specifically believing that Christ was a second diety, there is also a record of people believing that Christ was the -son- of God... and that his Father alone was God. Unfortunately, these people were excommunicated and killed for disagreeing. A lot of people throughout history have questioned "the church" to various extents. That's how all the denominations we have today formed. Specifically monotheist Christians have been around for quite some time... Isaac Newton being one famous one. However, he feared speaking publically about his beliefs because the church would have had him executed like the others. However, since "the church" has lost the authority to kill, quite a few monotheistic congregations have sprung up. To name a few:


American Unitarian Conference
Arian Catholicism
Bible Students
Christadelphians
Christian Conventions (aka, Two by Twos) publish no doctrinal statements; classified as nontrinitarian by observers
Church of Christ, Scientist; that is, the Christian Science religion
Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
Church of the Blessed Hope (also known as the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, but not part of "General Conference")
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (Not to be confused with the Seventh-day Adventist Church)
Doukhobors
Friends of Man
Jehovah's Witnesses
Living Church of God
Molokan
Monarchianism
Muggletonianism
New Church
Oneness Pentecostals
Polish Brethren
Socinianism
Swedenborgianism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
The Way International
Unification Church
Unitarian Christians
Iglesia ni Cristo
True Jesus Church
Members of the Church of God International
United Church of God


The fact that the very people in charge of the N.W.T. translation had no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek languages with the exception of one, Franz, who had only a few months of schooling and could not translate some simple Hebrew scriptures into English in a Scottish courtroom, is disturbing to say the least.

Again.... according to what? What was the context of the question asked, and what was the actual response? From the snippets of the court transcript I've seen on anti-JW web sites, it stated that one of the translators (franz) was "asked to translate a simple hebrew phrase" and could not. However, in those transcripts he claimed to be on the committee, not that he had any part in the actual translation. Perhaps he was the one to find translators, or perhaps he dealt with obtaining the various manuscripts used to translate and confirm the scriptures. Being "on the translation committee" doesn't necissarily make one a translator. Even if he were a translator, he could have very well been working with greek texts. Does not knowing hebrew invalidate one's capability to translate greek? Or, is it not POSSIBLE that the attorney could have read off a few words, and Franz may have said that he had to see the phrase (and preferably context) to ensure an accurate translation?

All that those sites say is that "Franz was given a simple hebrew phrase, and he was unable to translate it." This measure of unspecificity (real word?) should bring up a red flag or two.
 
Quote Mohrb: ". take a look at the KJV's rendition of verses like Jeremiah 16:21
"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD."

... Considering it's God himself speaking, stating that he will "cause them to know [his] hand and might; that they should know my name is (let's just replace this part)" ... can you think of a more offensive, disrespectful thing a person can do than erase God's name like this? "


Hi Chris

If someone was to say -- "The Lord God" or --- "The God of Abraham" or ---- "The Spirit of God", I would understand that they mean the One true God creator of heaven and earth. Words convey what one is trying to express. So if you were to express to me that Jehovah said this or that or did this or that and you give scripture. I have no problem in understanding what you are trying to convey.

But when someone magnifies God's name above His Word, then I do have a problem. The reason being, is because God has magnified His Word above His name, not the other way around. When anyone magnifies HIs name above His Word, then they are going against what God has conveyed to us.

The interesting thing about the name of God, is that His name expresses who and what God is. So in order for Moses to tell the children of Israel who sent him, God told Moses to tell them that -- "I am that I am" has sent thee. Notice that God did not tell Moses to tell them that Jehovah has sent thee. This is because the name of God conveys much , much more than a simple name can convey.

Jesus Christ told us in the gospels, that he came in His Father's name. And Jesus Christ is not called Jehovah. (Jah) means God, even though in the Hebrew language there are no "J's". So it is in the pronuciation, not the written form. For instance - the name Jahleel means -- God waits..

So the (Jeh) sounds like (Jah) both mean -- God. As well as the written form - "Yah"

Another example would be this name --- "Jehoshaphat", this name means -- "Jah" - God -- is judge.

Jesus is -- "Jes", not "Jah". The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew - "Saviour" , which comes from the Hebrew word - "yasha". But since the "Je" conveys the same as "Jah", as well as the "ya" in this Hebrew word, one could conclude that the name -- Je - sus -- is Jah - God which saves. "Ya" and "Jah" are actually the same. All we are dealing with is pronunciation, not perfect spelling.

Another word which means "save" in the OT Hebrew is -- "chayah" > Cha - yah. < Yah = Jah = God

Then there is the word and name - "Christ", which you can not find in the OT at all. And there is a reason why. Which at this time I am not premitted to explain in detail.
 
I understand your point. If the verse was simply a person speaking about Jehovah, and it was translated as "God" as opposed to God's name... I wouldn't be too offended. But read the verse again:

"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah."

It seemed like you were suggesting that God's name wasn't really all that important as long as his message is intact.... and I agree that the message itself is important also... but read how powerful this verse is. The whole point is that we might know that his name is Jehovah. In this case, do you not see ANYTHING wrong with erasing the name when God himself was so strongly declaring it?
 
Mohrb said:
I understand your point. If the verse was simply a person speaking about Jehovah, and it was translated as "God" as opposed to God's name... I wouldn't be too offended. But read the verse again:

"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah."

It seemed like you were suggesting that God's name wasn't really all that important as long as his message is intact.... and I agree that the message itself is important also... but read how powerful this verse is. The whole point is that we might know that his name is Jehovah. In this case, do you not see ANYTHING wrong with erasing the name when God himself was so strongly declaring it?
There is also an argument to be made that the translators of the N.W.T. removed the name of God every time they replaced "Lord" with Jehovah.
Every time they removed a reference to Jesus as God. I could also be very offended.
There are thousands of ancient manuscripts available my friend, so there is no reason to keep believing the N.W.T. is a more accurate translation.
The Muslims are telling us the same thing about their book the Koran; why not believe in that book?

If any other book had been abused like the Holy Bible there would have been charges of plagiarism.
We, none of us, have any excuse for not knowing which book is authentic. If we leave our investigations up to the "leaders" of our "church" then we leave our eternal salvation in the hands of men and will have no one to blame except ourselves when Jesus comes to Judge the unbelievers.

We have access today unlike any other time in history.
these scriptures are easily accessible via internet for any who would seek them out.

If all we can do is claim all these thousands of manuscripts are the propaganda of a vast conspiracy, that all these ancient manuscripts were put together two thousand years ago in order to fool JW and Muslims, then we are left to our own fate.

It is my honest prayer that all those who reject Jesus Christ, God will be miraculously transformed into His kingdom before it's too late Amen.

John
 
Indeed. There are many manuscripts available for people to research for themselves.

But, again, it's quite dishonest for you to suggest that JWs discount the original manuscripts in favor for any particular translation. The whole reason JWs had the NWT translated in by 1961 is because there were spots in the KJV that simply didn't match up with the original manuscripts, which is what matters.
 
Mohrb said:
I understand your point. If the verse was simply a person speaking about Jehovah, and it was translated as "God" as opposed to God's name... I wouldn't be too offended. But read the verse again:

"Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah."

It seemed like you were suggesting that God's name wasn't really all that important as long as his message is intact.... and I agree that the message itself is important also... but read how powerful this verse is. The whole point is that we might know that his name is Jehovah. In this case, do you not see ANYTHING wrong with erasing the name when God himself was so strongly declaring it?


Hi Chris

God magnified His Word above His name. What I see Chris, is a magnifying of His name above His Word.

When we see the word "name" in Jeremiah 16:21, it is not talking about knowing His name literally. It is talking about knowing who God is, by way of His hand and His might.

As I explained above, His name conveys many things. But in this paticular verse the Lord God is talking about His power and strength. His hand represents His power and His strength. And verse 21 is talking about showing the gentiles , not the Israelites. If you read the context properly from verse 17 thru verse 21, you will notice that God will show His power and strength unto the gentiles. So when it states at the end of verse 21 - "they shall know that my name is The Lord", God is talking about the gentiles knowing, not the Israelites. And He is not talking about the gentiles knowing his name literally. He is talking about the gentiles knowing His power and might.

In this verse it states --- "The Lord" (kjv), but it should have been translated -- "The Lord God" < "yah"

Try and not misunderstand what I am trying to say. There is nothing wrong with the word "Jehovah". But when we magnify His name above His Word, we are not dealing with His Word in proper reverence to The Lord God.

What the KJV is guilty of, is the leaving off of the title "God" at the end of the verse.
 
Mohrb said:
Indeed. There are many manuscripts available for people to research for themselves.

But, again, it's quite dishonest for you to suggest that JWs discount the original manuscripts in favor for any particular translation. The whole reason JWs had the NWT translated in by 1961 is because there were spots in the KJV that simply didn't match up with the original manuscripts, which is what matters.
I guess we could settle this debate by simply by providing examples of the ancient manuscripts which coroborate the N.W.T. re-translations, or which show the K.J.V. to be in error.

Take care Chris.

John
 
Back
Top