₦airaland Forum

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.

Kay17:
But there are instructions by God to his people -- the Israelites, to destroy, rape and maim other races.

Please kindly show me where you see RAPE in those verses that OP raised?
Which other races do they maim, if you don't know there is a reason why those commandments were given?

These instructions count as prescriptive elements. In our times, these qualify as war crimes.

Lol..."""It counts as prescriptive elements""" so how many Christians quote verses in the Bible to justify their evil act?

I know you just say that out of nothing to say.

CAPTIVATOR:
^ ^
Examination of Joel 2:32
PURE FABRICATION

"everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved" ! - Joel 2:32 ( God name replaced )

HEBREW MANUSCRIPT
" And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" - Joel 2:32
{ God name retained}

Roman 10:13 is a direct quotation of the hebrew scriptures Joel 2:32 where the name of Jehovah clearly appeared in the Hebrew manuscript NOT the fabricated Lord!

further analysis:
Jehovah is called Lord , Jesus is also called Lord ....... Does that mean they are same person or equal? NO, Jehovah God is Lord over all, OR are u not aware that it was Jehovah God who "made Jesus Lord and Christ" out of loving kindness ( Act 2:32, phil 2:9 ) ?

Your case is pathetic, who says Rom 10:13 is not the direct quotation of Joel 2:32?

Mind you the importance of this is that Jehovah's witness say "There are verses in the [size=14pt]Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the "New Testament" in a context speaking about the Son.[/size] (Isa. 40:3--Matt. 3:3--John 1:23; [size=14pt]Joel 2:32--Rom. 10:13[/size]; Ps. 45:6, 7--Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father's foremost representative." The Watchtower, May 1, 1978, p. 12

So if Rom 10:13 is a quotation from Joel 2:32 and speaks about the Son that means Rom 10:13 is talking about Jesus Christ [b]but NEWT rendered it as "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"

So what Jehovah's witness trying to say here is that Jesus is Jehovah.

johnw74:
God's name was first with Hebrew speaking people.
In Hebrew God's name is:

Yhovah

Pronounced:

yeh-ho-vaw

For much of the rest of the world God's name has been translated from YHOVAH to:

JEHOVAH, if my memory is correct by the Germans.

If YHWH is correct it would seem to be more accurately translated as:

YAHWEH

But YHOVAH is from YHVH.

I wonder why jw nwt changed even the Hebrew theonym (4 letters)?

We are not disputing about this but the Hebrew scholars say Yahweh is MORE CORRECT in pronunciation than Jehovah which Jehovah's Witness know about and agree with.

The question now is why will Jehovah's witness chose Jehovah rather than Yahweh?
Of which the origin of Jehovah is from a Catholic monk.

CAPTIVATOR:
^^Hebrew "Yeshua" , Greek I-e-sous' , English Jesus , why do we call "Yeshua" with the name JESUS , the acceptable english spelling ?

Don't attack strawman here Mr man. You just prove what the OP was saying ""While inclining to view the pronunciation [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way,[/size] we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century."

So JWs agree that Yahweh is THE MORE CORRECT pronunciation but they decided to CHOSE the one FORMULATED after 12th century than the more corrected one, how absurd is that?

sobmos:
so in other words,Jesus is God.

Exactly, but not the Father.

sobmos:
you're confusing me further. By you're statement,you simply mean God and Jesus are one. Adam/ eve = man. The word(Jesus)/God = God. Is that what you're saying?

My point is centered on the word "MAN" just as the word "GOD" can be used for two different people.

2. Salvation is Found in Only One Name!

Should a person call on Jehovah for salvation, which no one ever heard of until the 1270, or should he call on a different name? Let's allow the Apostle Paul to answer this for us, as he too refers to Joel 2:32. Paul wrote:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ­ the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, [size=14pt]"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"[/size] (Rom. 10:9-13)

In Rom. 10:9-13, Paul explicitly stated: (1) that Jesus is Lord; (2) Jesus richly blesses all who call on him; and (3) that these truths refer back to Joel 2:32 in that same passage where YHWH is found in the Hebrew, but here applies them to Jesus! Either the Apostle Paul is wrong or the Watchtower Society is wrong! They can't both be right, since Paul taught we are to call on JESUS for salvation and the Watchtower, in contradistinction, is teaching we are to call on a hybrid name for God which didn't even exist for 13 centuries - Jehovah! By the way, the NWT is not consistent at Rom. 10:9 with the Greek word by rendering it Jesus, unlike they did at Rev. 4:11, where it is also used and translated Jehovah. If they had been consistent at Rom. 10:9, their NWT would read Jesus is Jehovah, which they would never allow.

Shockingly, the Watchtower Society contradicts their own teaching about Joel 2:32 and Rom. 10:13 and their own NWT in the latter reference where they elsewhere write about the Son:

"There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures [size=14pt]about Jehovah that are quoted in the "New Testament" in a context speaking about the Son.[/size] (Isa. 40:3--Matt. 3:3--John 1:23; [size=14pt]Joel 2:32--Rom. 10:13;[/size] Ps. 45:6, 7--Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father's foremost representative." The Watchtower, May 1, 1978, p. 12

Ironically, the NWT rendered Rom 10:13 as "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"

Now to JWs which NAME shall we call on if TRULY Romans 10:13 is about Jesus Christ?



http://www.ovrlnd.com/Cults/NWT.html

I'm going to raise two crucial points on this thread.

NWT---New World Translation is the Jehovah's witness version of the Holy Bible.

1. The Usage of Jehovah in the NWT

In the NWT, the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses, we read the following:

"Therefore, the foremost feature of this translation is the RESTORATION of the DIVINE NAME to its rightful place in the English text. It has been done, using the commonly ACCEPTED English form "Jehovah" 6,973 times in the Hebrews Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures." NWT p. 6 (color, underline, capital & bold-mine)

Why isn't the NWT consistent to use Jehovah every time Lord is found? Their reasonings are as follows:

"By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. [size=14pt]Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there.[/size] This way he can determine the identity to give to ky'ri.os and the.os' and he can then clothe them with personality. Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures." KIT, pp. 18,19 (color, bold & italic mine--for anywhere they appear)

Jehovah is Not the More Correct Way!

Since one of the outstanding features of the NWT is their abundant usage of the word Jehovah, how can they elsewhere admit that YAHWEH is the more correct way to render God's name?

"While inclining to view the pronunciation [size=14pt]"Yah.weh" as the more correct way,[/size] we have retained the form [size=14pt]"Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century." Ibid., p. 23

Why then did the NWT forfeit accuracy to use the word Jehovah, which began to be used in the 14th century? [size=14pt]Their answer is because of "...people's familiarity with it..."[/size] That is another way of saying that they have upheld the traditions of man's inventions since the 14th century at the expense of truth and accuracy, which they knew about.

Notice again how many times this was done in the NWT:
"It has been done, using the commonly accepted English form "Jehovah" 6,973 times in the Hebrews Scriptures and 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures." NWT p. 6

How can the NWT claim that Jehovah is the restoration of the divine name to its rightful place in the English text, since they openly admit Yahweh is more correct? Shouldn't they rather have stated that knowingly they have omitted the more correct name for God, that is Yahweh, and substituted a different name which began to be used in the 14th century -- Jehovah. Furthermore, how can they claim that God's name Jehovah should be vindicated?

"For many centuries, particularly after the days of Jesus and his apostles, the meaning of the name Jehovah has been lost to sight, and even the very name has been pushed into the background. Only in very recent years has God caused his name to be brought forth again to the light and its meaning to be made known to his faithful servants, [size=14pt]because it is the due time and the vindication of his name Jehovah draws near.[/size] Let none now ignore that name!" The Truth Shall Make You Free, 1943, p. 34

[b]The Usage of Jehovah Came From Catholicism

Yet a different piece of Watchtower literature states the same embarrassing information about the word Jehovah, but elaborates as to its Catholic origin in 1270:

"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 the Latinized form "Jehova(h)." [size=14pt]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. Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation."[/size] Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, 1971, pp. 884, 885

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

Bruce Metzger, who criticizes the KJV's misusage of Jehovah, gives additional information: (The KJV makes the mistake of using Jehovah at Ex. 6:3; Psa. 83:18; Isa. 12:2 and 26:4)

"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. (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

Remarkably, the Watchtower has exalted in their own literature the usage of the inaccurate name for God, Jehovah, to a salvation issue:

"Have you been taught to use God's name, Jehovah? If not, your salvation is in jeopardy, for "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved"! -- Acts 2:21; compare Joel 2:32. The Watchtower, August 15, 1997, p. 6

So if one takes in accurate knowledge about God's name and uses that accurate knowledge, as opposed to using the name Jehovah, then he will risk his own salvation, that is, if one accepts what the Watchtower Society declares about this.

Maamin:
@Op, there is no ambiguity on this very topic..the bible is very explicit on who Yahweh is and who Yahshua is as well.

Yet you couldn't tell us who Yahshua is according to the OP

1 Cor.15:27-28 "27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

How does this solve the problem the OP raised?

John 1:1 is very clear as well.
"In the beginning was the word(Yahshua) and the word(Yahshua) was with God(Yahweh) and the word(Yahshua) was God.

Emphasis on the word "with"

As you emphasized on the word WITH do you also emphasis on what the verse says the word (Yahshua) is? "...and the word (Yahshua) was God"

Remember there's no god either in heaven or on earth beside Yahweh.

sobmos:
the part where it says the word(Jesus) was with God,and the Word(Jesus) was God. And it became flesh and dwells among us.

Since this is the part you have problem with, then let's look at it this way from the creation of MAN

The first couple lived alone in the garden. The two are to be viewed as one.
a. Genesis 2:24 - In the garden, two persons, the man and the woman, “became one flesh.”

b. Genesis 5:1,2 :
• “God created man” (singular)
• “He made him” (singular)
• “named them Man” (singular)

Yet it also says:
• “He created them male and female” (plural)
• “He blessed them” (plural)
• “and named them” (plural)
• “they were created” (plural)

NOTE: that the first couple was collectively named “Man.” This was their original name for the woman was not given her individual name “Eve” until after her sin (in Genesis 3:20; see Genesis 2:23). The reference to “man” was interchangeable with “them” and included both the male and the female.

c. Genesis 1:26,27 -
• “Let Us make man” (=“adam”, singular)”
• “God created man” (singular)
• “He created him” (singular)

In contrast the same text also says:
• “. . . let them rule” (plural)
• “male and female he created them” (plural)

Again, the reference to “man” was interchangeable with “them” and included both the male and the female. “Man” meant “mankind.”

d. Mark 10:6-8 - Jesus refers to the first couple and after stating they were one flesh adds
“they are no longer two.”

e. Romans 5:12-19 - In saying that sin entered humanity through “one man” it potentially suggests that the “one man” could also include the first woman.

These verses imply that in the creation account singular references to “man” include the two persons in the garden. This is unusual with the more common meaning of the term “man” referring to the primary person in the couple, the male (Genesis 2:21). Likewise, although the
term “God” can on occasion mean “Us” and “Our” (“Let Us make . . . Our image . . . Our likeness . . .” - Genesis 1:26) likely the more common meaning is the “Father,” the primary person in the ‘Godkind.’

How do you understand this statement?
“In the garden was the woman, the woman was with the man and the woman was man.”

Would it be correct to say “the woman was a man” or “the woman was the man?” No

JMAN05:
No sir. respond to all my posts. "no comment" is not acceptable. and give reply to others you gave a sketchy response to.

waiting. . .

See excuses, didn't I reply your post?

About the NO COMMENT then do the necessary thing by removing all those childish and illogical statement.

NOTE: Don't forget to reply the false accusation you put on me.

JMAN05:
The purpose if the thread is achieved.

So you agree now that JWs has read into those verses what is not the right meaning.
If you don't agree, how come you said the purpose of this thread is archived?

You accept the spiritual replaced the natural and still now believes that true Christians are JWs.

I'm a True Christian and many people out there, then we are JWs right YET we don't belong to your organization then your organization is false for claiming that only people that belong to your organization will the "Holy Ones and Little Flocks" will come from.

So if the gentiles are now allowed to join the "church", they are now members of JWs.

I'm a Gentile according to you, so I'm a JWs true or false?

Thanks for your time in this thread man, go and respond in the other thread let's finish it.

Shalom!

You're welcome! I will only respond when you do the necessary thing.

Shalom!

JMAN05:
I dont agree with that since even the cross references shows what the drink and food referred to, indicating that Paul was highlighting what happened in the past. However since what happened in the OT is a picture of what fulfilled in Christ, Paul was drawing a type from that.

Matthew Henry states "Their drink was a stream fetched from a rock which followed them in all their journeyings in the wilderness; and this rock was Christ, that is, in type and figure. He is the rock on which the Christian church is built; and of the streams that issue from him do all believers drink, and are refreshed. Now all the Jews did eat of this meat, and drink of this rock, called here a spiritual rock, because it typified spiritual things."
That man is not a JW and I guess he believes the trinity.

Now you can't agree with it just because it against your own perverted reasoning.

I think what you miss here is you thinking that CHRIST HIMSELF was present at that time but what this verse is saying is that CHRIST ACTIVITIES was there in the OT even though it's not yet known as HUMAN CHRIST which is what even the commentary you quoted trying to explain as the bolded says "...because it typified spiritual things" notice the word SPIRITUAL.

That's why when JWs says Michael is now Christ then we can infer that Christ was active in OT though He wasn't known as CHRIST then.

Can you get it now?

No sir, you said:

You're a bloody liar

See what I said "...it only says [size=14pt]the message they were receiving is not meant for them but we."[/size]
See what you said [size=14pt]"They had no clear understanding of the message,[/size] so how will they know that Michael will later become the Christ, not to talk of "having" his spirit.

So can you see yourself, in fact it's just a wasting of time with you. If I continue with you I may utter what I shouldn't have uttered.

So take care brother.

JMAN05:
In the name of God who made us, Emusan, are you saying that you didnt say that Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD"?

What is all this? When did I say I deny this?
If you don't provide where I deny what you ascertain here forget my next reply.

You said Jesus is the LITERAL word. and also said that he is the FLESH, not that WORD. OK, it is a contradiction.

The color is your problem and your misunderstanding. Now let me come down to your level.

-The Word of God is the Word of God
-The Word of God took on Flesh but still remains The word of God.
-The Word of God and the Flesh (his humanity) together are called Jesus Christ though each name can be used separately.

Anything about God himself is God. ok, but Jesus is not God, he is on;y the flesh which covers God (The word).

And you can still say He is not God.

2. If we are to agree with your position, it means that the right hand of God is God, the sense of God's sight, His eye is God; his anger is God, his justice is God, his patience is God, his love is God. [size=14pt]How many Gods do you have?[/size]

In fact the bolded made me loose interest in replying you because it's irritating seeing a comment like this from someone who professes himself to be educated

My dear, I asked you that question to know if you ve changed your position. This is certainly not a means to achieve the answer to that question. But it seems you didnt change. Am I right?

Is part of God, God? That's the answer

You didnt reply to this, and I think the question is logical. I said:

The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD. John 1:14. We know that the "FLESH" there is Jesus. And the scripture says the word became flesh, not that he dwells in the flesh called Jesus. Dont you think this makes sense? Dont you agree that the one called "the word" changed and became flesh?

The Word didn't change to FLESH read your Bible very well I don't need to teach you this.

2. God spoke from heaven, and the voice was heard by Jesus. John the baptist was there, but my emphasis on Jesus is for a reason. The main point is: [size=14pt]God transmitted God to the hearing of fleshly covered God,[/size] thereby producing another God. At a whole we observe more than three gods - Fleshly covered god, God in heaven, holy spirit, the word coming out of God's mouth.

Now let me use the bolded part on Holy spirit so that you can see how absurdity your post is;
-Holy spirit can dwell in more than five people and can also speak through only one person among the rest of people He already dwelled
-By your analogy now since Holy spirit is active force (to JWs) which means it's God who spoke through His active force then we can then say God is talking to Himself which dwells in other people.

3. Your position imply that at every occasion that God spoke, [size=14pt]God was producing gods.[/size] How is that?

Not comment.

You said anything about God is God. You never added "as far as they can function alone through God's power". So, the "God" which Jesus (THE FLESH) have on him functions by "God's" power? Doesn't this make him inferior to the source of his power?

I don't even know your problem honestly.
Anything OUTSIDE of you is can be inferior or superior to you but anything ABOUT YOU are you, OK!

But may I ask: Does God need God's power to function? If these gods cannot function on there own without God's power, how can they be equated with the almighty who functions without any other person's power? Or are they half-gods or inferior gods to the Almighty God?

Then what will happen if all these things were removed from God?

Again, if I cut off your hand and have it with me, is that your hand you? Is the hand as complete as what make you Emusan?

Stop calling my name with your awkward reasoning.
While must it be my hand and not your hand?

I understood your point. I was only showing you that they were non-analogous. The holy spirit is an active force, it is not a person, while you posit that God, Jesus and THE WORD are all persons. It is just like you cant say "powers" but "power" (electric).

You don't, if not you wouldn't have made that illogical analogy.

You do not scatter persons as if they were impersonal force.

So where was Holy spirit ever scattered?

[size=14ptThat was the understanding of your fellow johnw74. That's where I got it.[/size] Stop derailing. Search on jw.org and get our view.

You're a disappointment.
And you can't make it clear that you're referring to someone's statement
please stop referring me to jw.org, OK! bring all your claim here.

Wait Sir, you are confusing yourself. Thats for sure because you want to twist it right. You said that Jesus is that word that comes out of God's mouth. Secondly, you also said that [color]he[/color] is the FLESH which contains THE WORD (God).

Can't you see how absurd your reasoning is, as it spells out TWO JESUS?
So take this advise, go back to my previous posts and begin to read bit by bit for clear understanding.

I dont see any separation here sir. You said Jesus are:

- The LITERAL word of God that comes out of God's mouth (this makes Jesus an utterance)

- the FLESH that the WORD dwells in. (This makes Jesus a flesh, carnal)

You also posit that the WORD did not CHANGE to flesh, but that the WORD dwells in Jesus(the flesh). John 1:14 shows that the word became flesh, not that it dwells in the flesh called Jesus.

Read above.

When God speaks, [size=14pt]the utterance is Jesus.[/size] In short, God's sense of sight, smell, right hand, his love, kindness etc [size=14pt]are all Jesuses,[/size] creating more than one Jesus.

No comment.

Even when God said that Jesus should sit at His right hand, the right hand is Jesus. [size=14pt]Jesus was just sitting on Jesus.[/size]

No comment.

Eg, Nation will rise against nation and that God's kingdom will come are not mere promises from God's word, it always come to pass.

You always prove smartness. The possessive pronoun shows that the promises you made mention of belong to THE WORD I can see your twisting tongues dives into another thing now.

Is it the word who made the promise or God?

Now, how can this uncreated God be produced by someone else, yet he is uncreated? Did God almighty emerge through a spoken word, or is He a spoken word in form of a person?

Is the Word of God created? Is there a time God exist without His Word?

Portraying what? Name it?

Read again.

After God's test to Abraham, he said:
Then he said: “Do not harm the boy, and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing because you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”

When did God know that He was Godfearing?

Gen 18:21

I will go down to see whether they are acting according to the outcry that has reached me. And if not, I can get to know it

If God uses His power to foreknow always, why does he engage in this fact finding mission?

Simple question, is God all knowing I mean Omniscient?

If your answer is yes, then why will God acquire knowledge again?
If your answer is no, then why are you talking about God's Omniscient?

Can you please go to wikipedia and check the two meanings of omniscience? University graduate.

Two meaning of Omniscient again
What we're insinuating here is "God's Omniscient" so what do you understand by it?

When did I agree? Is the proof not forthcoming?

Who said the bold face words?

Didn't you say you're not disputing that Jesus wasn't called God's knowledge or knowledge of God or His knowledge (as many way we can put it) in the Bible?

So where did you get the idea from?
After all I have provided you the evidence just that you don't have open mind to receive it.

JMAN05:
What you said is not the belief of JWs, do you take the correction?

Point of correction you're not correcting me, you should correct those JWs who made the claim.

oga, you said Jesus is "THAT LITERAL WORD OF GOD THAT COMES OUT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD". If you have changed this position, let me know, if not, there is no way I wont refer to it.

In fact I'm tired of your reasoning, if you didn't get it this time around I'm sorry I can't help you any more.

THE WORD OF GOD remains THE WORD OF GOD while the WORD taken on Human flesh THE WORD STILL REMAINS THE WORD but the appearing of the WORD in FLESH is called JESUS CHRIST.

Now to your second position:
If Jesus is the word of God, how then do you take him as God, is God composed only of a literal word? You by that position imply that when God speaks, his utterance is God himself. How then can the word produced be the same or equal to the producer?

Nothing like second position and I only have one position.

Anything about God Himself is God, the WORD of GOD can function on His own so The Word is God.

My dear, your previous position is that Jesus is that LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Remember. So have you changed?

And you believe that the LITERAL WORD OF GOD IS PART OF GOD, so can the word of God be created?

The scriptures say "THE WORD became flesh", not that the flesh is Jesus and the content is THE WORD.

2. We can still put it this way: God transmitted his word to the fleshly covered word during Jesus baptism. So, whenever God makes statement, he blots out "Gods". Doesnt that make your "God" inanimate?

Let me laugh at you small, so you mean when God spoke at Jesus' Baptism He was actually talking to Jesus...please read your Bible very well.

I actually want to say something but just have to conceive it so that I won't appear rude because your statement here lacks knowledge which I'm tired for correcting you for.

Your hand is not you, neither is your nose you, are they?

But if they can function alone through my power then they are.

You see your problem? So your god now is a thing.

Or your problem as you think you know God FULLY.

I take this to mean that you stand on that point, as such, my earlier posers stand.

What are these posers of yours?

Oh, Jesus is an active force. Why haven't you said that since? If your Jesus is an active force he can do so. Is he?

Sorry, their are many Gods according to you. Any utterance God makes is God. God was thus transmitting God to the God covered with flesh.

Please stop this your childish statement it's getting out of hand.
Did I say Jesus is active force? I only contrasted your understanding of Holy spirit with what you failed to know about the Word of God.
This is point I'm trying to make here, if Holy spirit can dwell in more than five people YET YOU CAN STILL REFER TO IT (since you believe is a force) as HOLY SPIRIT (Singular) not Holy spirits (Plural) then when God spoke even why the Word of God was on earth in person of Jesus Christ doesn't mean the words are many.

Another implication:

Jesus is not God, but is the flesh God dwells in. [size=14pt]Any believer who God dwells in is thus God.[/size] Impeccable.

Another implication to you!
I need to bookmark that bolded part especially the underlined because it's an evidence of the lies JWs are preaching, how?

You believe that PERSON CAN'T DWELL in another PERSON which are the strong reason of JWs rejecting the personhood of The Holy spirit but here you confirmed that GOD WHO IS A PERSON can actually DWELL in believer as scripture truly said.

My question now is, where did you get the idea of GOD DWELLING in any believer from?

You have two positions I am trying to reason with you here. Your new being that Jesus is the "container" containing THE WORD.

You posit also that Jesus is the LITERAL word that comes out of God's mouth. Which now implies that when God spoke to Jesus(who contains the Word) he transmitted Jesus to flesh-covered Jesus.

You're the one separating my point I only have one point which is Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD either from God's mouth or any sense but to further your delusion in viewing the Word of God as being many (i.e many Gods) or God can't speak again since His Word is now on EARTH which if it's true then there are many Gods so I have to explain to you that THE WORD ONLY DWELL in the flesh not that THE WORD CHANGE-CHANGE-CHANGE to flesh.

God's word is alive to [size=14pt]its promises.[/size] Not that it is a person.

the possessive pronouns ITS means the promises are for the WORD
So please how can inanimate object have PROMISES?
You have shot yourself again.

I dont get you. clearly answer the question, is God the word he himself produces?

Unitarian's view is one God who came to earth n human flesh.
The believe about God is something that is Eternal & Uncreated, so if the WORD of GOD is conscious of HIS OWN existence, not created and eternal then His God.

I am trying to portray what?

If you know what knowledge really means, you relate it to God's. Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

You're portraying it as if God's knowledge is different from God's Omni-scent

Thank God you can provide this definition, now let's look into your definition of knowledge:

Knowledge is something that ACQUIRED BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATION, OR STUDY
Please do you think God acquire knowledge from anything, experience anything before having knowledge, observe and study before possessing knowledge?

Please do more research on what God's knowledge means.
God have said to be the ONLY BEING who possesses LIMITED KNOWLEDGE which is sometimes refers to as God's Omniscient.
So my brother there's no difference between God's knowledge and God's omniscient.

I have given you the difference already. dont skip that.

That's what a primary school student can't even utter.

oga provide the evidence.

At least you said you didn't say Jesus Christ was not called God's knowledge so ask yourself where you see that before you agree.

But it's unfortunate that you don't know that God's knowledge is nowhere difference from knowledge of God which you tried to prove that they are different.