₦airaland Forum

RikoduoSennin:
@bold section, That same purpose made Translator find the English equivalent of [size=14pt]The Hebrew Tetragrammaton[/size] since the Bible was not originally written in English.

You're a liar, the English word was from the Latinized word derived by Martini NOT from the Tetragrammaton itself.

Hebrew form Yehowah, Latin form Jehova, Martini used Yohoua {Visit Ste. Genevieve Library, Paris, France (folio 162b)}

This is another key place, YEHOWAH was form by Martini which YOHOUA later in LATIN later derived from.
Now the point here is, YEHOWAH which was FORMULATED by Martini this word doesn't have any form of NAME EVER USED IN HEBREW.
So deriving the LATIN WORD 'YOHOUA' is inaccurate which later form Jehovah.
Hope you can get it now?

I fully am aware when I made that statement. I take it that you agree with the above explanation. Well, If you do- then you realised that [size=14pt]Translator have every right to use equivalent words/names to convey the original ideas/names from one language to another without any consideration to Spelling and pronunciations[/size]

NO! Translator's right MUST NOT against the rule of translation which is the derivatives WORD MUST AGREE WITH THE ROOT WORD.

"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."Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation"

Look at the bold words- Tell me the writer is 100% certain that Yahweh is the ACCURATE PRONUNCIATION.

You're wrong this statement doesn't portray 'MAYBE' but ONE OPTION THAT IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER.

Are you saying the root word Yehowah is wrong? On what basis?

Absolutely!

NB: If the ACCURATE pronunciation was important to God, don't you think he would have made absolutely sure that the writers wrote the FULL WORDS WITH VOWELS INCLUDED?

So the pronunciation is not important to God but any NAME DERIVED IS IMPORTANT, very illogical statement.
Mind you the key point isn't only on pronunciation but THE WORD MORE CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE

So your beef is because Many Bible Translators chose to use Yehowah instead of Yahweh, is it?

I don't have any beef with any translations that used Jehovah BUT my point is how your organization will claim that they want to RESTORE the DIVINE NAME and PURPOSELY USED JEHOVAH just because ("...people's familiarities with it"-PONDER ON THIS STATEMENT) when they know that YAHWEH is more closer to the Original than Jehovah.

The Hebrew Scholars who Formed Yahweh- How did they arrive at that conclusion?
So now that Hebrew Scholars seem to have more understanding of ancient Hebrew language: What English Equivalent have they arrive at using the Root word "Yahweh"

You provided answer to this question yourself below in your post which I will point out when I get there.

I have never heard of that man!

Ok! Read this from your own Organization,

"Misconceptions about the holy spirit
Fact: The King James version of the Bible includes at 1 John 5:7, 8 the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” However, researchers have found that those words were not written by the apostle John and so do not belong in the Bible. [size=14pt]Professor Bruce M. Metzger wrote: “That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain.”[/size] —A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament." http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-the-holy-spirit/ (Bold mine)

In fact your organization has paraphrase this man's statement because what Dr. Bruce said is "(Because the manuscript evidence of I John 5:7-8, King James Version, is insufficient, this text should not be used. There is, however, abundant proof for the doctrine of the Trinity elsewhere in the New Testament.)" http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html (bold mine)

This is not the FIRST TIME JWs will do something like this you can browse and see how JWs have MISQUOTED Scholars in their work and what Scholars say about NWT.

The only Root word found in the Manuscript is YHWH (Tetragrammaton) anything else was Formed by someone/people base on different opinion and understanding.

NO! Words were not JUST FORMED without any RULE(S) guiding them.

Many translators use Jehovah or one of its form not only JW.

I've said this before the same Scholars have criticized the usage of JEHOVAH in KJV.

In what way is it close to the original? Because Yahweh contains only two vowels (a and e) while Yehowah contains three (e,o and a).

Now I'll use this to answer your above question about;
A Yoruba man wrote a book and this word was found there 'GBNG' whereas most of the place this word appeared it indicated that it's referring to someone.
So what a Scholar of Yoruba will do are:
1. Understand that this is someone's name
2. Know that something has already missing in those letter, since such word never convey any REAL NAME in Yoruba.
3. Find how to resolve this dilemma by substituting some letters to make it pronounceable and have meaning.
4. So in Yoruba like other languages there's vowel and consonant. So if will begin to insert letters many WORDS will come out, we'll surely get name and some incorrect word i.e [b]GB(e)NG(o), GB(a)NG(o), GB(o)N(e)G, GB(e)N(o)G(a), GB(a)N(e)G(a), GB(e)NG(a) e.t.c
5. From here, I'll only take the two underlined words GB(e)N(o)G(a) & GB(e)NG(a) because the rest isn't even sound as NAME.
6. Now both GBENOGA and GBENGA looks similar but only different with the insertion of the vowel 'O', as a good Yoruba scholar you will know that the INSERTION of vowel 'O' has deformed the PRONUNCIATION and the MEANING of the closest ROOT WORD and every Yoruba man knows that GBENGA is a NAME BUT GBENOGA never convey any true NAME in Yoruba Language.

So what Martini did that distorted the whole thing is the INSERTION OF vowel 'O' which makes the word NONE ANY FORM OF NAME EVER USED IN HEBREW, now had it been that Martini rightfully used the closest word which is YAHWEH instead of YEHOWAH then the derivation 'YOHOUA' in LATIN and JEHOVAH in English from YOHOUA wouldn't have come up.

NWT restored The Divine Name where other Translation remove the name because of superstition.

So it's NWT that have the right to restore it when you said below that Jesus Himself only used TITLE to refer to the DIVINE NAME when He was given the book of Isaiah to read.

[size=14pt]The Greek manuscript we have did not contain the greek equivalent of the divine name because it was removed.[/size] Many Bible writers quoted from the Hebrew scroll where the Divine Name existed. [size=14pt]It does make sense that when Jesus read the scroll of Isaiah he replaced the Divine name with a Title.[/size]

You've shot yourself in the legs with this your statement.

(A) Now, if the GREEK MANUSCRIPTS DID NOT CONTAIN THE GREEK EQUIVALENT OF DIVINE NAME BECAUSE IT WAS REMOVED.
1. Why do why FIND JEHOVAH in many NT books of NWT?
2. Now will the name JEHOVAH appear in NWT Greek version? If Yes! How come? If No! this takes us back to question 1.

(B) @bold-Since Jesus REPLACED the Divine name with a TITLE, then Jesus erred when He said the name of God should be sanctified since JWs hold Matt 6:9 as the reason they keep the name of God and Jesus used a TITLE instead of using the real name.

2. Why Jesus didn't bother to RESTORE the Divine name including the Apostles but an organization that came up in the late 1800 claim to do so?
3. This is evident that both Jesus and the Apostles never used the Divine name which then make Jesus a liar when He claimed that the name of God should be sanctified YET HE COULDN'T sanctify it BUT USING A TITLE, likewise the APOSTLES are false Christians since they didn't know God's name talk less of sanctified it even using the name that was derived from LATIN WORD many centuries later-Jehovah.

Again I ask, what does the same Encyclopedia that support Jehovah says about the Divine name in the New Testament because I see you purposely boycott that part?

I'm waiting for the next excuse you will come with here.

Kay17:
Now you have accepted that there was no consent, how are you able assert there was no rape?! How?!

Why do you enjoy lying against someone?
You said "NOW YOU HAVE ACCEPTED" please wasn't this stressed out from post right from on set?

Beside, you have to make your point clear on "NO CONSENT" that you wrote...
Consent of marrying them or having sexual intercourse with them?

How are you also forcing rape into those verses, isn't this show your dishonesty?

According to the definition of rape you gave above, where was it written that any woman was sexually assaulted as it against their consent?

If you can't provide answers to these questions then forget it.

JMAN05:
When you are ready, let me know.

Ready for what?

NB: Remember to do the necessary thing to the lie you lied about me which you've used style to boycott and act as if you never see the post.

JMAN05:
The purpose of this thread is achieved. So thanks.

You're welcome.
But don't forget to write your organization to stop misinterpreting the scriptures next time since infallible evidence has put it to you what James was driven at.

When you are ready in the other thread, let me know.

So what actually do you want from me after I've told you what you need to do?

Kay17:
What you fail to see, is at the root of the forcible marriage, there was no consent.

It is war Mr man, my Grandma told me that during war some hopeless people will purposely surrender themselves to people who came to ravage their village.

That's why the commandment went on to say that the man MUST even WAIT FOR FULL ONE MONTH so that the woman will mourn for her family (which will can also said that the man must have done everything to console her and gain her consent--though the scripture didn't point this out)

There was no willingness on the part of the bride. [size=14pt]Therefore anything benefits the husband enjoyed regardless of the ceremonious or religious dressing given to it,[/size] was a moral crime against the woman. The equivalent of that today, is kidnapping a woman, marrying her and having sexual intercourse with her. It is still rape. The vital ingredient of consent is lacking.

That aside, if the descriptive aspects of the Bible has no moral lessons for us, why are they in the Bible?

After my explanation you can still come with the bold part.
The verse you quoted uses the past tense of 'enamored' which means TOTALLY IN LOVE
How can the man benefit anything when he has already TOOK HER AS A FULL HOUSE WIFE? Unless if the man just naturally wicked as some people do nowadays in their marriage, so this negates every wrong reason you have attached to it which you're just reading into the Bible.

Please come with another thing.

They were in the Bible for lesson which means you don't need to take only this verse you must consider other verses with it, even salvation in the NT was not based on ONLY one verse you must consider other verses too.


Shalom!

dolphinheart:
I'm asking you , is the use of the name "jehovah " wrong when using it as the name of the almighty God ?.
If you cannot answer the question , let us know. Stop dribbling , stop making reference to other peoples opinion ,let's here ur own view

If my post from the beginning of this thread couldn't answer your question there's nothing I can do than this

Your organization has better answer than I do

"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."

"By combining the vowel signs of 'Adho.nay and 'Elo.him' with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations Yeho.wah' and Yehowih' were formed. The first of these provided the basis for [size=14pt]the Latinized form "Jehova(h)."[/size] The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. [size=14pt]Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation"[/size] Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, 1971, pp. 884, 885.

So your organization vividly knew that Hebrew scholars favor YAHWEH but chose the Catholic monk (in which the statement above even looks as an embarrassment statement against the monk) YET they claimed THEY WANT TO RESTORE THE DIVINE NAME OF GOD.

two questions for you:
1. Has your organization TRULY RESTORED the DIVINE name of GOD?

2. Now will the MONK who FORMULATED this name before being translated into English be among the Little one or the holy ones?

RikoduoSennin:
Your opinion is puzzling.

And yours is...

Yehoshua in Hebrew how is it related to Jesus in spelling and pronunciation.

This is another problem of confusing fact with with lie.

New Testament was written in GREEK not Hebrew so the purpose of finding its equivalent in Hebrew is for translation and according to Encyclopedia which I quoted earlier shows how they were EQUIVALENT.

They restored the Divine name where others remove the NAME. It seems you were hoping to see the Hebrew Tetragramaton there.

NO! What I see is the translation of the word FORMED BY Catholic monk Martini in English which is no way EQUIVALENT to the original Hebrew.

@bold section, Tell me how Greek Iesous and Hebrew Yehoshua are equivalent?
Are they equivalent in Spelling, Pronunciation or in MEANING?

Your OWN early post answer you: "...his disciples did not retain its hebrew form, not its actual spelling but they [size=14pt]TRANSLATE the meaning of the original to its equivalent in Greek (Iesous)[/size]

I know you didn't know the gravity of what you quoted before on your own part.

Read NWT in Hebrew Language and find out if Jehovah is used there first. English Language uses its equivalent which you fail to realise.

why can't you bring it and let us see?

Wrong, JW admitted that Yahweh [size=14pt]may be[/size] Close to the original pronunciation IN HEBREW, but since the NWT you are referring to is in English, The English equivalent (in meaning) of YHWH is used [size=14pt](which is Jehovah).[/size]

I will continue to expose you people's lie
@bold 1-you've shifted to 'MAY BE' which is far from what they claim.
@bold 2-Jehovah is not the EQUIVALENT word since the root word is inaccurate then the derived word will also be inaccurate.

You want to force English language to adopt the Hebrew Word as an English word do you?

Your problem!
What we're basically saying is this, the derivation of God's name MUST COME from the ROOT WORD in any LANGUAGES it's being translated to. So if the DIVINE NAME should be translated into English it should have come from the root word or EQUIVALENT word which suppose to be YAHWEH not the Latin formation which does not in anyway have its form in Hebrew Language.

get that into you head.

[size=14pt]Yes, it is the Widely accepted equivalent IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE.[/size]
You fail to Notice that Yahweh is not AN ENGLISH WORD, and to insist in that means Most names derived from it MUST change in every Bible.

Yes it was widely accepted in English when proper understanding of Hebrew Language has not gone wide but Scholars have also criticized it's usage in English one of them is the most common man to JWs Dr. Bruce.

You fail to know that EVERY WORD must have a ROOT WORD from where they being derived from, so when the ROOT WORD is inaccurate then the derivative word will also be.

The funny part of it is that JWs knew this yet they still went ahead to use Jehovah.

[size=14pt]One of the purpose of NWT is to Restore the Divine Name.[/size] Is Jehovah the English Divine Name of God? YES, even secular books, Encycleopedia and Dictionary says so

Now what does this same Encyclopedia say about the Divine name of God in the Greek NT? I know you can't go further because the same Encyclopedia recognizes that the Divine name was never used by any Greek writers of the NT.

The restoration of the DIVINE name is the key point on this thread, how can JWs claim to restore this name and couldn't use the ONE CLOSED TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE as they know about it rather than follow people just because "...people's familiarity with it" (according to JWs)
Do they restore the name?

Have you read The NWT in Hebrew Language to see what Divine Name of the Divine is used?

You own is to quote it here.

So tell me, What is the Greek or Latin equivalent of Yahweh?

YAHWEH is not ORIGINAL Greek or Latin name which means if it to be translated to these two languages they must agree with the ROOT WORD. This is also a prove that the New Testament writers didn't use this DIVINE NAME since it never appeared in any of the Greek manuscript we have today.

This also prove that NWT was wrong to have inserted the name in the Greek NT.

CAPTIVATOR:
Am laughing at your write-up in chinese ..... I will take you serious when you are able to prove that the words we are familiar with such as " Isaiah" and " Jeremiah" has any form Whatsoever with the pronounciation and spelling in the original hebrew!

My response to one of your brother pathetic questions is enough for you.

Q: Does it really Matter how close the form of Divine Name is to the original pronunciation?
A: No. Jesus' family and friends MAY have refered to him in their day to day conversation as Yeshua or Yehoshua. Whatever the actual pronunciation was, it was not 'Jesus'. However, when the accounts of his life was written in GREEK [size=14pt]his disciples did not retain its hebrew form, not its actual spelling but they TRANSLATE the meaning of the original to its equivalent in Greek (Iesous)[/size] Today it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible eg Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesus PRONOUNCED HESSOOS, Italians spell it Gesu and pronounced Djayzoo.

Imaging now it doesn't matter if the form never close to the ORIGINAL NAME, SMH and you can swallow this pure lie.
Which means anybody can just wake up called God any name they like.

I ENLARGE those part so that you can decipher how it poses a BIG PROBLEM to Watchtower.
@color-it's cleared that TRANSLATION doesn't base on SPELLING but EQUIVALENT WORD IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

Basically, the English name Jesus is EQUIVALENT to the original language Greek and in Greek Iesous is EQUIVALENT to Yehoshua in Hebrew but different spelling.
Now Jehovah in English translated from LATIN is NOT EQUIVALENT to the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, Hebrew but YAHWEH is EQUIVALENT to Hebrew which JWs knew about but still went ahead to use JEHOVAH just because "...people's familiarity with it" (from their OWN mouth) YET they still claimed THEY HAVE RESTORED THE DIVINE NAME, how absurd it that?

dolphinheart:
@ emusan, is the use of the name "jehovah" wrong when using it as the name of the almighty God?

Your organization has better answer than I do

"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."

"By combining the vowel signs of 'Adho.nay and 'Elo.him' with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations Yeho.wah' and Yehowih' were formed. The first of these provided the basis for [size=14pt]the Latinized form "Jehova(h)."[/size] The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. [size=14pt]Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation"[/size] Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, 1971, pp. 884, 885.

So your organization vividly knew that Hebrew scholars favor YAHWEH but chose the Catholic monk (in which the statement above even looks as an embarrassment statement against the monk) YET they claimed THEY WANT TO RESTORE THE DIVINE NAME OF GOD.

two questions for you:
1. Has your organization TRULY RESTORED the DIVINE name of GOD?

2. Now will the MONK who FORMULATED this name before being translated into English be among the Little one or the holy ones?

CAPTIVATOR:
Apostle PAUL CALL ON Ceaser , was he praying to him or making appeal ? Act 25:11

Everyone understood the content of Paul's statement only people like you will twist it.

Using same greek word /epikaleo/ Stephen also made [size=14pt]an appeal to Jesus NOT deliberately but was prompted by the vision he saw[/size] which even makes it clear that the son of man stands at the right hand of Jehovah God in heaven.

@bold-evidence is there that you know the truth but just decided to bend it, how can a true believer MISTAKENLY call another name instead of the name Jehovah? In fact this is enough to show people that you're agent of darkness because we were told that Stephen was FULL WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT before that incident, so you mean HOLY SPIRIT confuse Stephen to do the WRONG THING

So why did Stephen change from calling upon God to Lord Jesus when he already saw Jehovah?

This verse is reach enough to show true believers that Jesus was PRAYED TO "And they stoned Stephen, [size=14pt]calling upon God,[/size] and saying, [size=14pt]Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.[/size]

Stephen first called ON GOD then the writer shows who he called on as Lord Jesus when the writer wrote AND SAYING, Lord Jesus...

In verse 60 ... He bend his knees and direct his prayer to Jehovah, God of Jesus ! Ur problem is that u always think Lord always refer to Jesus whereas JESUS TEACH US THAT HIS FATHER HIS ALSO "LORD" ( Matt 11:25 ) , we follow the footstep of Stephen and Jesus model prayer matt 6:9, " I bend my knees to the Father" Eph 3:14

LOL...Stephen has already made that statement before he bends his knee, read clearly next time before you say thing.

We are not talking about LORD here mr man.

Like I explained to your brother earlier:

Look at what your organization says here:
1. "There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah: which means Jehovah is the one function in those verse.
2. that are quoted in the "New Testament": Why will the NT writers quote them? the answer is given also.
3. in a context speaking about the Son: So the reason why the NT writers quoted them is because IT'S NOW THE SON THAT IS FUNCTIONING IN THOSE VERSE.

With that understood, so let's look at the context of both Joel and Romans
Joel is talking about Jehovah as "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" Joel 2:32 which means this act will be giving to Jehovah;
Now Apostles Paul and Peter quoted this same verse in NT and as will can see that whenever NT writers quoted the OT that is talking about Jehovah IT'S THE SON THAT IS FUNCTIONING so when Rom. 10:13 says "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved"

It's evident that the Son is the one everyone will call on here, with this JWs have committed two major error;

1. By wrongly inserted the word JEHOVAH into that verse which by analysis we can then infer that Jesus is Jehovah.
2. By saying that we can't call on Jesus Christ when the scriptures says "everyone will call on Him to be saved" which is what the very Apostles did in their own time.

Since you've read from your own Watchtower that we can call on Jesus Christ which is the truth about Romans 10:13 & Acts 4:12 and what the very early Apostles & Church did as we read here "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, [size=14pt]with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,[/size] both theirs and ours: 1 Corin 1:2 KJV. Won't you start calling on His NAME?

Now if what you said is right that means when Joel 2:32 says everyone will call on Jehovah then it means PEOPLE WON'T PRAY TO JEHOVAH.

But with the evidence before us CALLING ON JESUS is that people PRAY TO HIM.

This is the lie Watchtower will continue to feed you people without even looking at the key point of what they are saying, let's look at the content of what you posted.

RikoduoSennin:
Q: WHAT IS THE DIVINE NAME?
A: In the Original Manuscript, the Tetragrammaton exist- "YHWH" with no vowels in between THE ORIGINAL pronunciation was lost. [size=14pt]the addition of vowels a and e is from speculation[/size] What is important is the USE OF THE WIDE ACCEPTED NAME for God. YHWH is an abbreviation just like LTD is an abbreviation.

And you believe this JWs have RESTORED THE ORIGINAL NAME, isn't it?

[size=14pt]Because of the Closeness "Yahweh" has to the Tetragrammaton- YHWH, many persons believe it to be CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL PRONUCIATION.[/size]

This is where the problem lies, SO YAHWEH is more closed to YHWH than the one JWs finally chosen yet they claimed they have RESTORED THE DIVINE NAME.

Q: Does it really Matter how close the form of Divine Name is to the original pronunciation?
A: No. Jesus' family and friends MAY have refered to him in their day to day conversation as Yeshua or Yehoshua. Whatever the actual pronunciation was, it was not 'Jesus'. However, when the accounts of his life was written in GREEK [size=14pt]his disciples did not retain its hebrew form, not its actual spelling but they TRANSLATE the meaning of the original to its equivalent in Greek (Iesous)[/size] Today it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible eg Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesus PRONOUNCED HESSOOS, Italians spell it Gesu and pronounced Djayzoo.

Imaging now it doesn't matter if the form never close to the ORIGINAL NAME, SMH and you can swallow this pure lie.
Which means anybody can just wake up called God any name they like.

I ENLARGE those part so that you can decipher how it poses a BIG PROBLEM to Watchtower.
@color-it's cleared that TRANSLATION doesn't base on SPELLING but EQUIVALENT WORD IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

Basically, the English name Jesus is EQUIVALENT to the original language Greek and in Greek Iesous is EQUIVALENT to Yehoshua in Hebrew but different spelling.
Now Jehovah in English translated from LATIN is NOT EQUIVALENT to the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, Hebrew but YAHWEH is EQUIVALENT to Hebrew which JWs knew about but still went ahead to use JEHOVAH just because "...people's familiarity with it" (from their OWN mouth) YET they still claimed THEY HAVE RESTORED THE DIVINE NAME, how absurd it that?

So should we discourage the Spanish and italian bible readers from using the spelling and pronunciation that suit them because it is from from the spelling and pronunciation of Yahweh? No, as long as the various form is easily identified as talking about the same person(Jesus).

What you failed to know even from your own post is that Jesus in English is EQUIVALENT to the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE from which it was derived--Greek and Greek Iesous also EQUIVALENT to the Hebrew word Yehoshua but JEHOVAH in English is from the LATIN word FORMULATED BY a Catholic monk-Raymundus Martini which DOES NOT EQUIVALENT to ORIGINAL LANGUAGE Hebrew.

Can you see that you're confusing fact with lie?

Q: What will happen to other bible names in an English bible, if the Divine Name retains its Hebrew form?

A: Then Bible names like Jesus,Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jehu, Hezekiah, Joash, Joshua, Jeroboam, Jehoshapath, Rehoboam etc, Many hebrew names derived from The divine name will change and they won't be as many of them know them today.

So which one is better to retain the any form this name will come out with or continue to use the wrong name.
MIND you these names are EQUIVALENT TO THEIR ORIGINAL LANGUAGES but Jehovah is never EQUIVALENT.
SINCE JWs know that YAHWEH is more closed to the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE why can't they use it INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE TRADITION OF MEN after they claimed they want to restore the Divine name?

Q: Is Jehovah a wrong equivalent of the Divine Name?

A: No. Many English translations use it not just NWT. Many Language translation translate from this form into their native language, hence Jehovah is a widely accepted form of the Divine name.

Jehovah is WRONG EQUIVALENT of the DIVINE NAME which JWs themselves know which is boldly written in the OP

Q: What Happened to the Divine Name through the ages?

A: THEY banned the use of God's name, they remove it from the Bible (eg Latin Vulgate 2 Century by Jerome), they replace it with titles such as Lord, God etc. But God's name came back into use by 1278 in Dagger of Faith by Raymundus Martini who used the SPELLING - YOHOUA. Another write used Iohouah,Iohoua,Ihouah in 1303, in 1518 another wrote Iehoua as the Divine name. The name first appear in an English bible in the year 1530 when William Tyndale use Iehouah in several verses.

Later the use of the word "Jah" became common hence the Final English form Jehovah.

Beautiful I love this but you couldn't tell yourself the truth by asking simple question which is, does Jehovah EQUIVALENT to the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE in which the DIVINE NAME first appear? because Raymundus Martini ONLY USED the SPELLING and not the EQUIVALENT word remember it is from this the English name Jehovah was derived. Can you now see the reason why YAHWEH is more closed than Jehovah?

Now that JWs knew this, why can't they used the better one instead of holding unto the wrong one since they want to RESTORE the DIVINE NAME?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrew Yeshua-- Greek Iesus--- English Jesus

Hebrew Yahweh--Greek ? ? ? ---- English Jehovah

Mind you Jehovah in English which was derived from the Latin word FORMULATED by Raymundus Martini DOES NOT have any FORM IN HEBREW which is the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE the Divine name first appeared.

dolphinheart:
This thread is just a bad attempt at discrediting jehovahs name. I say again , unless u state that jehovah is not the name of the almighty God , then stop what you are doing.
Are you saying using the name "jehovah" is fake?
Are you saying using the name "jehovah" in reference to the almighty is wrong ?

Read and read my post here if you're confused or don't know what the thread is all about.

Pls believe in ur heart that jehovah is the almighty God, and out of his love for mankind he sent his only begoten son , his first creation to ransom us back to God.

@bold-that's what your organization has made you to believe.

So that everyone exercising faith in this ransome sacrifice might have evalasting life.

If this is true then your organization is on the wrong side for saying only people belong to Watchtower Society will live forever on earth.

The word where NWT rendered as EXERCISING FAITH is from the Greek word [i]pisteuo, pist-yoo'-o;[i] from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by impl. to entrust (espec. one's spiritual well-being to Christ): ­ believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Please do you ENTRUST your SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING to Jesus Christ?

CAPTIVATOR:
JOHN 17:3
You dont even know what it means to call on the Name of the only true God , Jehovah ( Zeph 3:9) AND the one whom he sent Jesus ( Act 4:12).

So the way you call on the name Jehovah is now different from the way you call on Jesus' name. See lie from the pit of hell.

Please the verse in reference here is Romans 10:13 "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved" this verse is talking about the Son FOR SALVATION.

LISTEN
Calling On Jesus name is not all about screamin Jesus , Jesus , Lord Jesus everywhere . Just one scripture

" Not everyone saying to me ' Lord, Lord', will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will"

When you can't listen to yourself.

The point is which NAME are will to call on FOR US TO BE SAVED?

So you know this and you still say that we can't pray to Jesus. Keep them coming.

"many will say to me on that day: Lord , Lord , did we not prophesy in your NAME, and expel demons in your NAME, and perform many powerful work in your NAME?"

So which NAME GIVEN under heaven for us to call on? because from here everything is done in the NAME of Jesus.

"And then I will declare to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness! " - Matt 7:21-23

Those who truly call on Jesus as their Lord are those doing the will of his FATHER . Even Jesus seek not his own will but the will of the Father.

Imaging calling on the NAME of Jesus is doing the Father's will whereas calling on the name Jehovah means praying to Him.

Just listen to yourself the way you're twisting the scripture.

Stephen while was stoning to death called on the name of Jesus, does it mean Stephen is doing the will of the Father at that time?

CAPTIVATOR:
Let me educate you, Yahweh itself is not the corect pronounciation and spelling ! The original pronounciation has been lost . THAT ENOUGH RENDER UR ARGUMENT BASELESS

So if YAHWEH not the CORRECT pronunciation then NWT is lying it says "RESTORE the DIVINE NAME to its rightful place in the English text."

Sorry to dissapoint you about the Origin, that spanish monk never EVER pronounce the name "Jehovah" , [size=14pt]he only used a word from which it was derived[/size]

Disappoint me So the word he FORMULATED is it not the ROOT word where Jehovah was derived? Are you saying Jehovah is now different from the word he formulated?

While [size=14pt]Hebrew scholars admit "Yahweh" to be close to original hebrew language, All language are not the same. An english man parallelism is "Jehovah"[/size] .... While a Cantonese man wil say " Yehwowah" , Someone of Awabakal origin will say " Yehoa" , An Italian Will Say " Geova" ! So also a Japanese will say " Ehoba".

Now that Hebrew scholars admitted that YAHWEH is closer to ORIGINAL Hebrew language and the WORD where Jehovah was derived from never has any FORM IN HEBREW and JWs knew about this, HAS JWS RESTORED THE DIVINE NAME?
Jehovah is not the ENGLISH PARALLELISM of the Hebrew YHWH which is the point here.

While reading Japanese and such ones pronounce " Ehoba" and not Yahweh .... Does it mean he is wrong ? Who even know how they pronounce and spell Isaiah in their language ?

I dont know when u will start understanding this simple truth

The truth you people are avoiding is that the name Jehovah has been wrongly used WHICH JWs KNEW ABOUT but purposely chose it because PEOPLE'S FAMILIARITY WITH IT yet they claimed they have RESTORED THE DIVINE NAME.

Lastly, we are not saying everybody should be using the name YAHWEH as it is in Hebrew but the name which all languages will be derived and pronouncing MUST come from YAHWEH which is more closer to the ORIGINAL NAME.

As it is now, the word where Jehovah was derived from NEVER has any form or CLOSE to the ORIGINAL name which you and your organization knew about that YAHWEH is more closer to ORIGINAL HEBREW than from the WORD formed by a Catholic monk-Raymundus Martini in Latin where Jehovah was derived in English.

TRUE or FALSE?

Let me do the needful by STRESSING OUT some points from this forcibly marriage verse before I reply your post

1. It's what they acquire after the WAR against their enemies. vr 10
2. The DESIRE (the version you quoted used "so enamored" some version used 'desire') is to MARRY HER, which negate your wrong accusation of RAPE. vr 11
3. MARRIAGE RIGHT MUST BE PERFORMED which shifted the woman from the POSITION of being TREATED AS A SLAVE to the POSITION of being TREATED as a FULL HOUSE WIFE. vr 12-13a
4. In fact the man has to WAIT FOR GOOD ONE MONTH before he can do anything with her. vr 13b
5. After ONE MONTH the commandment is "...and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.(the version you use)"

With this I hope you get it.

Kay17:
Lets start with that. Isn't forcible marriage a form of rape?

Now it's a form of RAPE again NOT RAPE ITSELF beside. Why are you just decided to be bending the truth? You've given the definition of RAPE as "Rape is the use of sexual intercourse as an assault against a person with the lacking consent."

At least the husband in such a marriage enjoys the sexual benefits but note, these benefits were not given out voluntarily.

Was the marriage consummated? If yes! Are you telling us that in every legal marriage it's the husband who enjoys the sexual benefit?

First of all, you denied such a verse existing, but I hope you are shamed to see this exist.

Please be more sincere in everything you're doing.
When you first listed your RAPE VERSES my respond to this particular passage was "Again this is clear enough that this passage is talking about marriage though under compulsion..." which is as a result of what they acquired from war. So where did I deny anything?

Second of all, if you find nothing wrong with forcible marriages like this, then you admittedly endorse such marriages in our modern times. So if a man steals your sister and forces her into a marriage endorsed by the Christian God, and forcibly derives sexual pleasure from such a marriage, would you approve of it?!

That was then when the Israelite were making move to SETTLE down in their promise land with WAR up and down which is what I emphasized on, in my first quote to you that THIS ACT IS DESCRIPTIVE and not PRESCRIPTIVE for Christians today.

@bold-please how FORCIBLY will he derive sexual pleasure in considering the highlighted points above?

Now can you compare this with what Muhammad did when he ordered his soldiers to have sexual intercourse with slave women EVEN IN THE PRESENCE of their husbands.

Kay17:
Except you deny there were no elements of Rape. Would you deny an shape with three sides is not a triangle?!

The women that are taken off as war booty, were definitely not taken by their consent. One of the verses stresses on forcible marriages. The truth is, you wish to remain blind to the primitive corruption of your little Bible. The soldiers were advised to commit rape, ravishing women without their consent, is rape; stealing them is rape; [size=14pt]because the Bible covetously avoided the dreaded word -- rape, does not diminish the facts.[/size]

The @bold part is what I need and thank God you made the statement.

Now you're saying "Bible COVETOUSLY AVOIDED the DREADED word -- RAPE, whereas people like you will be accusing the same Bible of incest

So the truth remains the same you have falsely accused Bible with that word.

You also said "one of the verses STRESSES on forcible marriages" Can you tell us what this verse STRESSES out about the forcible marriage? If you're honesty enough.

tola9ja:
I don't need to bash them cos there scripture is already bashing them

What do you think it will happen if something like this was done to Quran?

Do you know how Jesus, Abraham, Noah's name will be rendered inside this book which can also pose a problem for Muslims since they respect these fellows?

How about the verses Muslims scholars always claim they talked about Muhammad in the Bible will be rendered?

I think these are the questions somebody like you as a Muslim should ask before supporting this work done by agent of darkness but you couldn't because you've been brainwashed beyond control.

RikoduoSennin:
NO! JW is not saying that Jesus is Jehovah.

@bold section above, they are saying Jesus came as Jehovah's representative, that is in "Jehovah's name" or his behalf.

John 5:43 "I have come in my Father's name and you do not receive me,if another comes in his own name, him you will receive"

Illustration: Do you introduce An official representative of the president by the rep's personal name or the name of the person (president) he represents?

Please don't take us to square one.

Look at what your organization says here:
1. "There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah: which means Jehovah is the one function in those verse.
2. that are quoted in the "New Testament": Why will the NT writers quote them? the answer is given also.
3. in a context speaking about the Son: So the reason why the NT writers quoted them is because IT'S NOW THE SON THAT IS FUNCTIONING IN THOSE VERSE.

With that understood, so let's look at the context of both Joel and Romans
Joel is talking about Jehovah as "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" Joel 2:32 which means this act will be giving to Jehovah;
Now Apostles Paul and Peter quoted this same verse in NT and as will can see that whenever NT writers quoted the OT that is talking about Jehovah IT'S THE SON THAT IS FUNCTIONING so when Rom. 10:13 says "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved"

It's evident that the Son is the one everyone will call on here, with this JWs have committed two major error;

1. By wrongly inserted the word JEHOVAH into that verse which by analysis we can then infer that Jesus is Jehovah.
2. By saying that we can't call on Jesus Christ when the scriptures says "everyone will call on Him to be saved" which is what the very Apostles did in their own time.

Since you've read from your own Watchtower that we can call on Jesus Christ which is the truth about Romans 10:13 & Acts 4:12 and what the very early Apostles & Church did as we read here "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, [size=14pt]with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,[/size] both theirs and ours: 1 Corin 1:2 KJV. Won't you start calling on His NAME?

CAPTIVATOR:
If you think that "Jehovah" is not a "Biblical name" and therefore should not be used that would mean that a host of other names in the Old Testament as we find in all Bible translations, including the Cathlolic Jerusalem Bible, should also not be used. This would include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jehu, Jehoash, and many more.

I can see your gross misunderstanding of this thread.
Get this now:

JEHOVAH was translated from a word FORMULATED by a Catholic monk-Raymundus Martini in Latin which Hebrew scholars agree that the WORD never has any FORM IN HEBREW which Watchtower Society knew about with this statement from them ""While inclining to view the pronunciation [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah..."[/size]

Which means JWs knew that 'Jehovah' is not the more correct name BUT DELIBERATELY used Jehovah just because "...people's familiarity with it" yet they claim to have RESTORE the DIVINE NAME to its rightful place in the English text. It has been done, using the commonly ACCEPTED English form "Jehovah"

Now if JWs claimed to restore the DIVINE NAME of God and they knew that Yahweh is more close to YHWH and choose to use Jehovah just because people's familiarity with it, have they restored the DIVINE NAME?

If you believe that These names are the original "Biblical Names," then you are grossly mistaken. TO ALL :

"Those who reject the English "Jehovah" and insist on using the Hebrew pronunciation[Yahweh] would do well to ask themselves why they say "Jesus Christ," when that was not the way his name was pronounced in Hebrew. That is the English way, derived from the Greek language. In Hebrew, Jesus would be closer to "Yehshua" and Christ would be "Mash'edahh." So, as we say "Jesus Christ" in the English language, we also say "Jehovah," both being correct when speaking English."

The problem you are overlooking is the ORIGIN of the word Jehovah, the word that Jehovah was translated into English was formed by a Catholic monk-Raymundus Martini which in noway having any form in any word ever used in Hebrew.

Can you get it now?

So the purpose of this thread on point one is the claim of JWs "Therefore, the foremost feature of this translation is the RESTORATION of the DIVINE NAME to its rightful place in the English text..." claiming to RESTORE the DIVINE NAME and deliberately used Jehovah after they knew "Yah.weh" as the more correct way..." proved that they have not restore anything and they are using wrong name which they also put their SALVATION.

So should we call on Jehovah for our salvation or other name? This leads us to the second point on this thread.

Kay17:
Doesn't it ring in your head that I need not mention the exact word 'rape' but the description fits the bill. Because the verses did not use the word 'rape', does not throw out all the elements of rape present. That would be infantile. [size=14pt]Rape is the use of sexual intercourse as an assault against a person with the lacking consent.[/size]

Look at the verses and ask yourself, 'are the elements present'?

Now you resulted to 'ELEMENTS OF RAPE' but your claim initially was that there's a RAPE in the BIBLE which you even said with boldness when you quoted those verse in the Bible as "Rape verses:" shouldn't this furnish us with the reality that you just made a false accusation about the Holy Bible?

Then you went further to define RAPE @bolded, please with sincerity show me where any woman was sexually abuse without their consent in those verse?
Remember we have verses in the Bible that talk about sexual immorality of some people, so don't think maybe the author of those book deliberately hide this act in the verses you quoted.

The OP is a Muslim but if what we read in the Bible is the way history wrote about Muhammad I believe no man will say Muhammad supported rape.

CANTICLES:
Baseless words .... I know you cannot reply any of those 4 questions!

Lol...is like you're serious.

What paralleslism is their in the pronounciation and spealling of Iesous and Yehoshua?

No parallelism but they have the same meaning.

Does the fact that Iesous differ in spelling and pronounciation from Yehoshua stop greek scriptures from using the greek form " Iesous"?

This is baseless, Greek is different from Hebrew Just as Hausa is different from Yoruba but you can find equivalent word in two languages but having the same meaning. So if you're expecting the same PARALLEL and SPELLING word in the two Languages then you mean the two Languages should be the same.

Why dont u just say Yir- meya'hu and stop saying Jeremiah ?

Why dont you just say Yesha - ya'hu and stop using the common english form Isaiah?

English equivalent of Yir-meya'hu is Jeremiah likewise Yesha-ya'hu is Isaiah so if I'm speaking English I use English equivalent words if I'm speaking Hebrew I use Hebrew words.

So tell me, when JWs agree that YAh.Weh is the most correct pronunciation and went ahead to use Jehovah after they claimed to RESTORE THE DIVINE NAME, do they do the right thing?

MAybe you can help your brothers answer this question Please will the Catholic monk-Raymundus Martini, a Spanish who formed this name 'Jehovah' be among the Little flocks or the Holy one?

You're very funny doing the same thing that the OP did.

I'm expecting you to highlight where the word RAPE or SLEPT WITH appeared in those verse but you couldn't.

Or you want to tell me that you don't know the meaning of RAPE again?

If you don't believe in Bible that doesn't mean you should be making false accusation about

I will just point out some key point in what you posted I hope you can get it.

Kay17:
Rape verses:

Judges 21:10-24

[b]So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. [size=14pt]So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?[/size] There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. [size=14pt]When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead.[/size] And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes[/b]

If you're sincere enough you will know that these verses are talking about WIFE not just woman they'll have sexua.l immorality with and abandon even this is done with the consent of their relatives.

Numbers 31:7-18
[b]They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. [size=14pt]Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves[/size][/b]

I know the emphasis here is at the bolded-but the question is does this verse say they RAPE them?

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
[size=14pt]When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD,[/size] your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, [size=14pt]if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.[/size] But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; [size=14pt]but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.[/size]

The question we may ask here is, who is their enemy? I can't go into this now.

Again this is clear enough that this passage is talking about marriage though under compulsion BUT NOTICE THAT verse 10 says "THAT YOU WISH..." and the rest of the verse placed a strict law they must abide with even when they follow their wishes.

Zechariah 14:1-2
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city

Do you mean this verse is also talking about RAPE?

So I ask again, what moral lesson does the 21st century Christian gain from these passages?

The moral lesson we learn here is that we should not disobey God and be a rebellion against His people which can make one enemy of God as those people did and were destroyed.

CANTICLES:
Emusan ... Laughter , creating unnecessary argument since 1600 B.C. E

You never contribute anything big in your life than to be praising your mate underground

What paralleslism is their in the pronounciation and spealling of Iesous and Yehoshua ?

Does the fact that Iesous differ in spelling and pronounciation from Yehoshua stop greek scriptures from usin the greek form " Iesous" ?

Why dont u just say Yir- meya'hu and stop saying Jeremiah ?

Why dont you just say Yesha - ya'hu and stop using the common english form Isaiah ?

Was the name JEHOVAH FORMED BY Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk?

If yes, does the name have any form in Hebrew?

Beside will Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk Catholicism be among the little flocks or holy one that will make it to heaven?

Just continue Dreaming!

As you have been doing always.

If you have not learn anything from the beginning of this thread I'm sorry you can't again.

dolphinheart:
See people trying to discredit others in their attempt to restore Gods name. Instead of lambasting others who delibrately replaced the name.

Your attempt now is to liberate the name Jehovah which has been explained here that the Name JEHOVAH was from by a Catholic Monk 12 centuries ago.
Whereas YAHWEH is more correct in PRONUNCIATION than Jehovah.
Please will the Catholic monk who formed this name 'Jehovah' among the Little flocks or the Holy one?

Jesus wanted people to know that name and unless u tell me that the name "jehovah " is false,

The name JEHOVAH is not the more ACCURATE way of pronouncing the DIVINE NAME of God which Jehovah witness know themselves but they chose the inaccurate name formed by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk.

then I dnt see the need for ur posts.

The need for this post is that, JWs claimed to RESTORE THE DIVINE NAME of God in the English text after they OPENLY AGREE THAT [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way...and Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation."[/size] for this DIVINE NAME yet they can go ahead to use Jehovah the name that doesn't have any form in the Hebrew just because [size=14pt]"...people's familiarity with it"[/size]

Then have they restore the DIVINE NAME?

Even other bible translations are trying more and more in restoring that name into their translation , or are u saying they are wrong to do so?

You're right that's why people use YAHWEH nowadays than to use Jehovah.
But you must also know that YHWH/Yahweh never appeared in any Greek manuscripts in possession today, so I wonder how NWT inserted that name in the Greek NT.

CAPTIVATOR:
FOREMOST ...Scripture reveal that we must call on the Name Of Jehovah ( Joel 2:32; quoted by Peter in Act 2:21 ; and repeated in Rom 10:13).

You're wrong Joel is a prophecy that people will call on the name of God.

But you agree that the context of Romans is SPEAKING ABOUT THE SON which means it's the SON that we will now call upon which is just another way of saying Jesus is Jehovah according to that verse.

MOREOVER, JEHOVAH GOD has out of KINDNESS and reward for Jesus obedience to him, given his son Jesus a name above every other name UNDER the heavens in order for us to be saved , ( Act 4:12, Phil 2:9 ) ! To the glory of God , The Father ( Act 4:12, Phi 2:9).

The word 'OTHER' doesn't appear in that verse it was translators insertion.
So the name will are given to call UPON IS JESUS CHRIST, do you call on this name as the early Christians do?

In view of the above scriptures, TRUE CHRISTIANS [size=14pt]CALL ON[/size] THE NAME OF JEHOVAH [size=14pt]and the name of his son, Jesus![/size] Thereby exercising faith in both , aftrall Jesus said : " exercise Faith In God , also exercise faith in me" John 14:1.

You've shot yourself in the leg @bolded, so if true Christians CALL ON THE NAME OF THE SON, Jesus! which is true according to the scriptures why your organization says we are not to pray to Jesus?

Maybe you will tell us that CALL ON THE NAME OF JESUS IS NOT THE SAME AS PRAYING TO HIM, then I will ask what does it mean when people CALL ON THE NAME OF JEHOVAH?

Our Salvation Depends On Those Two Persons ( John 17:3)

If this is true, have you called on THE NAME OF THE SON as early Christians did for you to be saved?

See the logic behind Romans 10:13;
*Everyone will call on the name of Jehovah Joel 2:32
*The WHOLE CONTEXT OF Romans 10 is ABOUT THE SON in reference to Joel 2:32
*Then, The Son is the one WHO EVERYONE will CALL ON.

CAPTIVATOR:
ALL this copy and paste wont help u

Yet you can pick from it.

Even with that, U still agree Yeshua = Joshua ! "Y " and "J"
Yehosua = Jesus ! "J" subtituted for " Y" again.

Adam means Man...does the A needs to be appeared again?
In translation what the translators are looking for is parallel or equivalent word.

And u said Jesus means " Jehovah is salvation" which clearly reveal u also use Jehovah. Yet creating unnecessary argument here and there . ( even the protestant KJV of yours, retained Jehovah ( Exodus 6:3, psalm 83:18, ASV and some other versions too)

Of course Jehovah is being used today but the point here is the claim that JWs made "While inclining to view the pronunciation [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah..."[/size]

This is where the problem lies the purpose of using Jehovah in NWT is "Therefore, the foremost feature of this translation is [size=14pt]the RESTORATION of the DIVINE NAME to its rightful place in the English text..."[/size]

Now if JWs truly want to RESTORE the DIVINE NAME and as well knew that YAHWEH is more correct in pronunciation than Jehovah why can't they hold to the truth of using YAHWEH so that people will know they truly mean what they claimed? But they went and used Jehovah just because "...people's familiarity with it" yet they want to restore the DIVINE NAME of God.

Let me ask you "Is it JESUS that appear in the sriptures or greek Iesous" ? Since Iesous is parallel to Yehoshua , why form JESUS and not retain Yehoshua ?

Keep your head up man...from what I posted from that link we read "...Thus, the word “Jesus” has parallel meaning with Savior...and “Jesus is the common Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua." So NT was written in Greek and Jesus is a Greek form of Iesous. That's why no Scholar agree that the Hebrew name YHWH ever appeared in the Greek manuscripts which JWs have inserted into their own version.

Translation is based on equivalent/parallel word because no word you can find in its original language with another language.

You can go back to the OP to see where I said the usage of Jehovah in KJV have been criticized by Bruce Metzger whose JWs always quote his work.

Kay17:
God instructed his people to kill, maim and rape other people [size=14pt]on the account of their race;[/size] and the lesson you found in that was 'God's instructions must always be obeyed'!

@bold-Why must you lie for public fame?

You keep dodging my question. Lastly, show me where you see RAPE in those verse if not I won't reply you again.

I can see you misunderstood me here, though God's instruction must be obeyed but I'm not talking about lesson as God's instruction to be obeyed here rather how those people that the Israelite fought with failed to obey and respect God.

But you would later claim atheists are morally deprived people!

Can you show me where I've ever made this claim since I join NL?

We are talking about the OP remember.

Kay17:
Why did you raise questions doubting the existence of those instruction in the first place?!

What are the questions did I raised doubting the existence of those instruction?

What was the moral lesson? Kill, rape, maim once in a while?! Who is the Bible written to, other than every Christian in every century. To you as a Christian in the 21st century, what have you learnt from the instructions?

Ask again show me where you see RAPE in those verse raised by the OP.

Bible was written for us to learn, so if we as a Christian can't learn from it then there would be problem.

So the moral lesson here is how to obey and respect God which is what they failed to do that resulted to those instruction.

Kay17:
Now you are admitting the instructions were given but with reasons unknown to me? I have read the Bible.

NO! I didn't say the reason is unknown to you but God has a reason for giving those commands, if truly you've read Bible as you claimed then you should've read what I'm saying now that those commandments are not prescriptive but meant for those people for particular event that's why it was descriptive as all Christians understood them and no Christian will perpetuate any evil act then use any of those verses as a support.

CAPTIVATOR:
The same reason why you and I adopt JESUS over the more CORRECT pronounciation " Yehoshua" .

Language differences.

For your information we are not talking about Language difference here.

Jehovah is formulated by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk Catholicism whereas Yahweh is closed to original form of YHWH.

Jesus on the other hand is like Yahweh because is very closed to original form of Yeshua-Hebrew, I-e-sous-Greek, Latin-Iesus according to:

"The Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1933), tells us that the word Jesus came into the English language from Middle English, adapted from the Latin Iesus, which in turn was adapted from the Greek Iesous. This in turn was adapted from the Hebrew or Aramaic word Yeshua or Yehoshua. The earlier root was Joshua. This dictionary goes on to explain that the word Joshua derived from the Jah of Jahveh, meaning that “Jehovah is salvation.” [size=14pt]Thus, the word “Jesus” has parallel meaning with Savior.[/size] Dr. David Flusser of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem puts it simply: [size=14pt]“Jesus is the common Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua.”[/size] (Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971, 10:10.) https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/04/jesus-the-christ-the-words-and-their-meaning?lang=eng

Now compare this with Jehovah [size=14pt]"The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word .... (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.[/size] (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."---The New Revised Standard Version Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, To The Reader

So Jehovah isn't in any form closed to pronunciation the DIVINE NAME even your watchtower recognized this that's why they can say "...Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation." Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, 1971, pp. 884, 885

You have to agree that you're not truly using the right name of God.

johnw74:
If the four letter name for God, YHWH is correct,
then YAHWEH would seem the proper full name.

Yeah, that's the essence of this thread as it against the usage of Jehovah by Jehovah's witness after they knew that Yahweh is the more correct one but chose Jehovah simply because "...because of people's familiarity with it.

I wonder how Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk who formulated this name 'Jehovah' won't be among the 'little flocks' or the 'holy ones' but only JWs who chooses to use the name.

CAPTIVATOR:
[size=14pt]U fail to understand that our salvation depends on two persons:[/size] - the ONLY True God _ JEHOVAH - the One whom he sent - Jesus John 17:3

I'm not surprise since you've been deceived beyond measure.

[size=14pt]The context of romans 10 speaks about the son but VERSE 13 mentions the name of Jehovah![/size]

This is where we're going, now that you agree that the context of Romans 10 is about THE SON which name should we call on for us to be saved?

Remember there's no name under heaven given among men to be saved apart from the name Jesus.

Thats our Father in heaven WHOSE NAME must also be sanctified' matt 6:9 [/b] Jesus is the son of God NOT Jehovah himself. Haba " who among the sons of God is like Jehovah ? " Psalm 89:6

You said the name of the Father must be SANCTIFIED not that WE SHOULD CALL on the name TO BE SAVED.

There's different between them, so don't derail this thread stick to the OP.