₦airaland Forum

Rilwayne001:
Can you explain the above to your fellow xtian brother Emusan,. I believe he needs explanation such has the above, he is a TRINITARIAN.

Can you do that for him please?

Why must you involve me?

When last did I discuss on Islamic thread?

Beside am I the only TRINITARIAN on this forum?

RikoduoSennin:
He wants JW to use the Form:

YHWH in Hebrew = Yahweh

JHVH in English = Jahveh or Jahweh

See how it rhyme with the short form of God's name: Jah in English.

The curious thing is, Is there any official Church document that use this form Jahveh or Jahweh? I think not, because their main focus in on the pronunciation rather than the meaning/ idea behind the name.

You've not cleared the mess you put yourself into, you claimed Jesus USED a TITLE for God's name
Now why Jesus didn't bother to restore God's name instead of using a title?
Wouldn't this prove that Jesus blasphemes which He said the name of God should be sanctified yet He couldn't sanctify it?
Since Jesus used Title where your organization get the Hebrew word Jehovah into Greek book of Christians from?

This are the question you cover your eyes from as if you didn't see them.

dolphinheart:
So the word "jehovah " is fake, not real name of God in english language and should be discarded right? Ok o

That's the truth which your organization even knew about.

By the way, which bible translation are u using ? Does it contain the name "jehovah"?

I used many translation KJV is among them but I've said earlier that scholars have criticised the usage of Jehovah in KJV.

Are we supposed to term as inacurate any translation that uses the word jehovah in its english translations?

Yes! but God doesn't bother about that because;
1. God has already given believers a new name to call upon for salvation.
2. God has more than one name.

Why is it now occuring more and more in many translations when scholars say its a fake word and its not the real name of God?

You can only find it in the oldest translation.

To the questions
1. Yes

You can still say yes when evidence has been given to you that Jehovah is an inaccurate name for Divine name.

2.I dnt know , I dnt know the monk or what he did behind close doors, I cnt read the heart, and its not my job or my place or my ability to know who will be saved or which class they belong

You should know, because the person who FORMED that name which is now the main pillar of your organization must have received it by revelation and his work must have made him to be part of the holy ones and little flocks.

Then this render your organization claim as only people who belong to your organization as true Christians useless.

JMAN05:
i have given answer to that sir. but will u change if u see proof? Just give me answer to that question and i will add to what I ve said earlier about that Hebrews.

[size=14pt]Because if u are not sincere in this discussion,[/size] I won't discuss with u. thats my method now, u can't change that. are u willing to change sir?

@bold-Are you and your organization being sincere at anytime?

Asking someone to change, please change to where? To your lie and scholarly teaching or updating teaching?

Just like your Watchtower always misquotes scholars by inserting (...) to deceive you people the site you quoted has done the same.

I won't reply in detail to all your post because I'm still looking for these scholars' work to see what they actually says.

BIBLESPEAKS:
Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

So you agree with Origen here that Christ was DIVINE?

Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah."　
-----------------------------------

And you want us to swallow this without reference...

Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that "Michael is no other than Christ."
-----------------------------------

And no reference again.

Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: "We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan."
-----------------------------------

As usual (...), what was actual inside this ... that your author omitted?

Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.　 The word Michael　 lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”
----------------------------------

This is the reason I said your Watchtower always misquotes scholars.

Adam first statement that your author omitted is, Verse 9. Yet Michael the archangel] Of this personage many things are spoken in the Jewish writings "Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh says: Wherever Michael is said to appear, the glory of the Divine Majesty is always to be understood." Shemoth Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 104, 3. [size=14pt]So that it seems as if they considered Michael in some sort as we do the Messiah manifested in the flesh.[/size]

So it was opinion of the Jews that Adam is contrasting with the Apocalypse, which stems out from his point "...hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”

Hence, Adam didn't say Jesus Christ is the created Micheal in fact this stems out from his commentary on the same Jude 1:4 "The only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.] monon despothn yeon kai kurion hmwn ihsouv criston aruoumenoi. These words may be translated, Denying the only sovereign God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. But yeon GOD, is omitted by ABC, sixteen others, with Erpen's Arabic, the Coptic, AEthiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate, and by many of the fathers. It is very likely that it was originally inserted as a gloss, to ascertain to whom the title of ton monon despothn, the only Sovereign, belonged; and thus make two persons where only one seems to be intended. The passage I believe belongs solely to Jesus Christ, and may be read thus: Denying the only sovereign Ruler, even our Lord Jesus Christ. [size=14pt]The text is differently arranged in the Complutensian Polyglot, which contains the first edition of the Greek Testament: kai ton monon yeon kai despothn, ton kurion hmwn ihsoun criston arnoumenoi. Denying the only God and Sovereign, our Lord Jesus Christ.[/size] This is a very remarkable position of the words, and doubtless existed in some of the MSS. from which these editors copied. The Simonians, Nicolaitans, and Gnostics, denied God to be the creator of the world; and Simon is said to have proclaimed himself as FATHER to the Samaritans, as SON to the Jews, and as the HOLY GHOST to all other nations. All such most obviously denied both Father, Son, and Spirit."

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
--------------------------------------
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
-------------------------------------
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
-------------------------------------

Looking for the books

John Wesley:

Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13. For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. [size=14pt]The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.[/size]

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."

These are just a contrasting statement on personage of Micheal with that of Christ he didn't say Michael is Christ. This is more evident when you read his comment on Jude where he suppose to affirm Michael as Jesus but nothing like that happened;
V. 9. Yet Michael-It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any revelation or from ancient tradition. It suffices, that these things were not only true, but acknowledged as such by them to whom he wrote.

The archangel-This word occurs but once more in the sacred writings, 1Th 4:16. So that whether there be one archangel only, or more, it is not possible for us to determine.

When he disputed with the devil-At what time we know not.

Concerning the body of Moses-Possibly the devil would have discovered the place where it was buried, which God for wise reasons had concealed.

Durst not bring even against him a railing accusation-Though so far beneath him in every respect. But simply said, (so great was his modesty!)

The Lord rebuke thee-I leave thee to the Judge of all.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace [size=14pt]the elect angels[/size] from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. [size=14pt]Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels,[/size] for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. [size=14pt]The elect angels joined with him (Christ), the glorious Michael, as their captain,[/size] while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, [size=14pt]and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.[/size] (Bold, color & bracket-mine)

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”
------------------------------------

Can you see how your author has misunderstood this statement?
1. Christ is not part of the elect Angels
2. Michael was part of the elect Angels
I think the point Edwards trying to bring out here is the fact that ""And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb..."
Micheal was never referred to as LAMB.

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982
------------------------------------

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
------------------------------------

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.
------------------------------------

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------

Please I never see where any one said the Angel of the Lord is Michael here, can you show us?


Finally, if truly this people teaches that Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael without changing in their teaching;
1. why would JWs change the teaching of Jesus being Micheal FIVE times before they finally come to conclusion that Jesus is Michael?
2.Is it God who is inspiring all these changes?
3. What have JWs taught that have not been talked about by anybody before YET they are still claiming INSPIRATION for their work?

JMAN05:
Sir, Jude quoted an OT scripture where the divine name appeared. The correct thing should be "YHWH rebuke you". consult cross references.

Since Jude quoted OT where the Divine name appeared, why YHWH is NOT INSERTED EVERYWHERE the NT writers quoted OT where the Divine name appeared in NWT?

What occurred here is " princes", not archangels. Have you seen where the word "archangels" (emphasis on plural) occurred in the bible before?

There could be more than one princes, but not more than one archangels.

If they could be more than ONE PRINCES how Micheal which supposed to be ONLY ARCHANGEL still be among the PRINCES?

Which one higher in rank Archangel or Chief prince?

If Archangel is higher than Chief prince, why would Micheal can be classified as ONE of the Chief princes again?

Which I believe, you don't even know that ARCH means Chief also:

743. arcaggelov archaggelos, ar-khang'-el-os
Search for 743 in KJV

from 757 and 32; a chief angel:--archangel.

See Greek 757 (archo)
See Greek 32 (aggelos)

Come with another lie.

JMAN05:
So you are saying that [size=14pt]Jesus can't be called chief prince?[/size]

This is another place you will be lying at the face of the scriptures, he didn't say Jesus can't be called CHIEF PRINCE haba...

The verse says [size=14pt]"ONE[/size] of the chief prince" which means there are many Chief prince and Micheal happened to be ONE of them this negate Jesus being [size=14pt]ONLY begotten[/size] of the Father.

See how you keep twisting someone's statement.

PastorOluT:
So going by ur rationale, [size=14pt]Michael is one of the chief princes,[/size] meaning he is not the only chief prince. So that would negate the theory that [size=14pt]Jesus is the only begotten son if He is Michael?[/size]

I didn't just know how JWs can reconcile those two @bold statements.

You can see how far they can go just to limited Jesus Christ.

The evidence that you don't ponder over your statement before creating this thread is too obvious.

CAPTIVATOR:
Am calling on you professed christians to come out and defend urselves.

Are you a professed Christian or not?

While I was a kid, I was made to bliv that ALL righteous persons go to heaven while the sinners go to hellfire ! This is made possible because humans are said to possess a ghost within them.

Is it that "human are said to..." or what the scriptures say?

[size=14pt]BUT THE FAULTY CHRISTIANITY will still tell u that Jesus died for your sins , accepted[/size]

Why must you accept? Then see how what you accepted stands against you.

... My reader , there is a problem here If u dont see it, I will help u remove that religious spectacle.

Have you removed the religious spectacle in yours first?

Goliath, philistines , sons of Amon, Sons Of Edom and many other countries that are not isrealite WORSHIP IDOLS and thus when they die they will be judged and will go to hellfire

Show me where you read this in the Bible?

QUESTION: WHY DID JESUS CAME TO DIE FOR OUR SINS AGAIN ? AFTRALL PEOPLE ARE ALREADY GOING TO HELL?.

Yet you organization says people will be saved according to their good work. since people will be saved ACCORDING TO THEIR GOOD WORK, why must Jesus come to die for SIN again?

ON the other hand ... Abraham , Noah, noahs three sons and their wives , Sarah, Abigeal , Jonathan son of Saul are good people , when they died they have go to heaven.

Since these people were saved through their GOOD WORK without anybody died for them, what is the essence of Jesus coming to earth if we people have already been saved by good work?

QUESTION: OF WHAT PURPOSE IS JESUS DEATH SINCE PEOPLE ARE MAKING HEAVEN WITHOUT HIM ?

I can't stop laughing at your ignorance,
Of what purpose is the death of Jesus since your good work can save you?

Faulty! ...... Its either the ghost doctrine is a LIE or Jesus Death is useless to Mankind . ONE of these two doctrines is a fabrication .

The question is which ?

Just consider how ridicule your questions sound.

CAPTIVATOR:
YOU are finally exposed again .. Uv said the derivative word must come from the root word !

The greek writers didnt follow such illicit rule of yours. Greek Esaias WAS NOT DERIVED FROM the root hebrew word Yeshayahu. The difference is clear

Greek Ieremias WAS NOT DERIVED FROM the root hebrew word Yirmeyahu , The diference is very clear ! [size=14pt]They only use an acceptable GREEK FORM.[/size]

You're still confusing things here,

As you rightly said @bold both Isaiah and Jeremiah were USED BY THE GREEK WRITERS which is EQUIVALENT TO HEBREW before it became ACCEPTABLE these word WERE NOT TRYING TO BE DERIVED FROM THE ORIGINAL HEBREW.

NB: I made mention of equivalent word in original language.

But in case of Jehovah, Martini was trying to FORM its EQUIVALENT WORD in original Hebrew NOT THAT HE USED LATIN EQUIVALENT, this is very clear and two things in view.

Grow up from all this trash u read all over the internet , [size=14pt]the present Greek manuscript we possess are not the originals AND There are evidences that the greek writers preserve the tetramagaton in the greek text.[/size]

- Matthew wrote his account in hebrew language that owns the tetramagaton NOT Greek . It was Somone unknown that translated it to greek

Yet you said in above that "AND There are evidences that the greek writers preserve the tetramagaton in the greek text." Is the unknown person a writer? If Yes! When was translator became writer?

- the book of Revelation uses the word " Hallelu jah" which means " Praise Jah" , Jah is an abreviated form of the name Jehovah.

Nobody disputed the use of it in Hebrew.

Does the God's name appear in Christians book that's the question?

Remember you said it yourself below.

Read More : Bible scholars acknowledge that God’s personal name, as represented by the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), appears almost 7,000 times in the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures. [size=14pt]However, many feel that it did not appear in the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures.[/size] For this reason, http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-scriptures/#

Notice the bold part.
Please where is the evidence you said "...evidences that the greek writers preserve the tetramagaton in the greek text."

CAPTIVATOR:
Emusan beautifully exposed!

And you can't show where this happened

Open ur eyes bro , this is a disputed text .. Even many trinitarian translations doesn't contain " me" either , KJB, Jubilee, King James, AKJV, ASV, Darby, websters , WEB, Young.

It's not disputed.
You said many but absolutely it was there. If NWT is accurate why must it omit the word?

And for your information the kingdom interlinear translation is based on Wescott and Hort greek text Whereas The NWT is a comparison of different master texts apart from Wescott and Hort.

Including the work of Johannes Greber the spirit-ism.

As earlier noted screaming Jesus or Lord around the internet is not the point even sinners say Lord Jesus to cover their evil deeds, what matters to Jesus is doing his fathers will. - Matt 7:21-23

Not about screaming the name Jesus Christ is what we are talking about here Mr man, please read in between the line before you post.

The point here is Romans 10:13 calling upon the NAME of the Lord to be saved which your organization says this is a quote speaking about the Son. So the point is PRAYING TO Jesus.

Moreover, what differenciate a christian from a Jew is that while we christians call on the name of Jesus while bending our knees to the Father,

But Stephen the first Martyr bends his knee and call upon the name of Jesus.

believing he is our mediator THEY bliv they dont have to approach the Father through Jesus name .. Describing the kind of environment the Apostles did their preaching.

Can we pray to Jesus?
Did Apostles called upon the Name of Jesus (which means they pray to Him) the way people of Old called upon the of Jehovah?
That's the point here.

ALL the apostles direct their prayers to God througH the name Jesus - ACT 4: 24-30 thats the example I follow.

Please show me where they prayed through the name of Jesus in those verses? I'll laugh you if you refer to vr 30.

But EVERYONE WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE SON TO BE SAVED, have you called upon Jesus' name for you to be saved?

"but in everything by prayer .... Let your petitions be made known to God " Phi 4:6,7
'throw all your anxieties upon God becaus he cares for you - 1pet 5:6,7

And if we ask Jesus ANYTHING He will do it. So who should we pray to?

CANTICLES:
See moonlight tales .... When did yoruba become the basis for selecting vowel sounds?

Does Yoruba Language has vowel and consonant?

@ Bolded , Has anyone been bearing Yahweh or Yehowah before so as to qualify which one is name and which one is not a name ?

From my illustration just as Gbenga (mind you this might not be the actual intent of the writer for GBNG) is closed to GBNG as a plausible name in Yoruba Yahweh is closed to Hebrew with the addition of vowel 'O' makes it losses any form in Hebrew.

Just a simple explanation.

dolphinheart:
Bro ,abeg no vex , but u fit just for my sake answer the question.

OK! The English word Jehovah comes from the inaccurate Latin word YEHOWAH formed by Martini a Catholic Monk, when he wrongly inserted three vowel into the Tetragrammaton of Divine name for God to form YEHOWAH.

So since the root word where Jehovah comes from is inaccurate then the derivative word Jehovah is inaccurate too though people have wrongly using it which you can also find in some versions like KJV, ASV but Scholars have said that this word have been wrongly used by those translation.

The astonish part is that JWs knew this yet they still went ahead to use the same word just because "...people's familiarity with it" and claimed they have RESTORED the Divine name.

Can you answer those questions I put to you now?
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?

dolphinheart:
All I want to know is if we cant use in english the word "jehovah " as the divine name of the almighty God . in ur personal view, is it wrong to use that name ? For the benefit of laymen Like me, pls give us an answer

Sorry to ask you this, what is your problem?

If you can't read my post and draw your conclusion from it, please and please don't quote me again for goodness' sake.

CAPTIVATOR:
Mr JW say, [size=14pt]the form Isaiah And Jeremiah ARE NEVER CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL HEBREW NAMES,[/size] AND ur hipocrisy will make u accept them over the original Yeshayahu and Yirmeyahu which should hav been retained . but none of the two are retained despite everyone know they are the originals. INTERESTINGLLYYYYYY,GOD preserve his word to the extent that when we say Jeremiah, Isaiah AND JEHOVAH .... EVERYONE could identify the person been reffered to. smiles

The bold part is a pure lie both Isaiah and Jeremiah were used by the writers of the NT which gives the Translators better idea of how to render them in English.

Or you want to tell us that when the NT writers used these words they weren't conveyed the true meaning and pronunciation?

If the Divine name has ever APPEARED in Greek NT, translators would have resolved this problem since but as NO NT writers use it I wonder how JWs get the Divine name into their own NT rendering.

CAPTIVATOR:
Mr JW say , am suprised u dont even know the word "God" was added to that verse. its NOT part of it content.

Ohhhhh...it's now you can see added word in one's translation but you can't you own added and omitted word in NWT.

The exact Greek word-for-word rendering in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation for John 14:14 is:
if ever anything YOU should ask me in the name of me this I shall do.
According to that Greek text, the Lord Jesus taught his disciples to pray to himself and he (Jesus) shall do it. In contrast to the Greek, the NWT inaccurately reads:

If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it. Obviously, 'ME' has been removed by the NWT because of the implication of praying to Jesus.

You agree that THE NAME of Jesus will be CALLED UPON which is the truth we found the NT,
1. Have you CALLED ON THIS NAME BEFORE?
2. Why your organization says we can't pray to Jesus when it's evident that people will CALL ON HIS NAME?

Though you've claimed that CALLING UPON the name of Jesus is doing His Father's will but see the reason why this is just another attempt of twisting scriptures.

1. Both Christians and Jews know that God is being referred to as FATHER; and Paul is a Jews, so why will Paul be persecuting those who are TRULY DOING THE WILL OF THE FATHER since he persecuted those who called on the name of Jesus Christ? "But Ananias answered, [size=14pt]"Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who CALL UPON THY NAME."[/size] Acts 9:13-14 RSV (bold & capital, mine)

2. If someone is doing the will of THE FATHER it's a thing ONLY GOD Himself could know, NO HUMAN BEING CAN TRULY KNOW IT. Then how come people know this if we should go by your perverted interpretation of the scriptures? "And all who heard him were amazed, and said, [size=14pt]"Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name?[/size] And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests." acts 9:21 RSV (bold, mine)

Don't be surprised that Watchtower has mislead you.

RikoduoSennin:
See the Bold Section and see the Root word- The TeTragrammaton. Note: there is not consonant in the original manuscript. You wrote how the consonants were added for the root word (Yehowah) where Jehovah came from
, HOW DID THE VOWEL COME ABOUT FOR YAHWEH?

What are you saying here? YHWH are they consonant or vowel?
Or you mistake vowel for consonant?

Do you have a Beef with Yehowah?

I don't! But thank God you've said it yourself that Jesus REPLACED the Divine name with a TITLE, so tell us where your organization get there own Divine name in the GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.

Did the Hebrew Scholars favor the use of Yahweh( which is a Hebrew word) in English Language Translations?

Explained in my above post.

If So, most names in the Bible will change base on SAME principle.

Nothing will change mr because some names were DIRECTLY used by the Apostles in the New Testament which gave the clue of what the represented in original Hebrew.

YES!

I asked two questions but you can only answer one
Even this one you answered is still false so back to the same question, will the MONK who FORMULATED this name before being translated into English be among the Little one or the holy ones?

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.