Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35079 Jun 12, 2013
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 "Yah.weh" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century.(3)

Why then did the NWT forfeit accuracy to use the word Jehovah, which began to be used in the 14th century? Their answer is because of people's familiarity with it. 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 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.(4)

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, because it is the due time and the vindication of his name Jehovah draws near. Let none now ignore that name!(5)


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)." 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.(6)

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:(7)

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.(8)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35080 Jun 12, 2013
cont.


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.(9)

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.

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, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (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 WS 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:

http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/jehovah%2...
Student

Oregon City, OR

#35082 Jun 12, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
There were over 6 million 10 years ago
And how about those "partaker" #'s that keep going up?
Maybe these "partakes" are replacing people like you, who have been disfellowshiped.
Student

Oregon City, OR

#35085 Jun 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You just quote random scriptures that don't make your point, don't you.
Not one of your scriptures seriously makes any suggestion close to your obscene assertion.
What the numbers indicate is that you are peaking as a cult and are starting to sink faster than your bilge pumps can remove the dead weight. Your cult could last hundreds of years longer.
Satan will not win in the long run, but he is giving you a good ride in the short.
You probably never read the Scriptures I quoted.

So here they are…. Watchtower 9/1/1998 p.9…

.The Bible foretold that true Christians today would be united, brought together into one “land” as one “nation,”(Isaiah 66:8- Who has heard of a thing like this? Who has seen things like these? Will a land be brought forth with labor pains in one day? Or will a nation be born at one time? For Zion has come into labor pains as well as given birth to her sons.)

where they would be “shining as illuminators in the world.”
(Philippians 2:15- that YOU may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom YOU are shining as illuminators in the world,)

This organized “nation” now numbers more than five and a half million
.(Isaiah 60:8-10, 22-
8 “Who are these that come flying just like a cloud, and like doves to their birdhouse holes? 9 For in me the islands themselves will keep hoping, the ships of Tar&#8242;shish also as at the first, in order to bring your sons from far away, their silver and their gold being with them, to the name of Jehovah your God and to the Holy One of Israel, for he will have beautified you. 10 And foreigners will actually build your walls, and their own kings will minister to you; for in my indignation I shall have struck you, but in my goodwill I shall certainly have mercy upon you.

22 The little one himself will become a thousand, and the small one a mighty nation. I myself, Jehovah, shall speed it up in its own time.”)

Every one of the Scriptures point to our grow, read and sob, as Revelation states in twelve, nine…….

So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.

Notice that the Devil or Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth?

Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve. Josh 24:15

We are followers of Jesus Christ,“the Faithful Witness,” and like him we refused to desert the organization to which Jesus had already belonged and make himself a part of Satan’s organization.
Student

Oregon City, OR

#35088 Jun 12, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably never read this
Matt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to make void the law...."
Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.

I CAME, NOT TO DESTROY,***BUT TO FULFILL;***

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35092 Jun 12, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe these "partakes" are replacing people like you, who have been disfellowshiped.

Disfellowship only happens to people who are out of favor. It has nothing to do with the alleged transgression. Stalin sent people to Siberia and the Watchtower cult disfellowships people. Po-ta-toe/po-tat-o.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35093 Jun 12, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably never read the Scriptures I quoted.
So here they are…. Watchtower 9/1/1998 p.9…
.The Bible foretold that true Christians today would be united, brought together into one “land” as one “nation,”(Isaiah 66:8- Who has heard of a thing like this? Who has seen things like these? Will a land be brought forth with labor pains in one day? Or will a nation be born at one time? For Zion has come into labor pains as well as given birth to her sons.)
where they would be “shining as illuminators in the world.”
(Philippians 2:15- that YOU may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom YOU are shining as illuminators in the world,)
This organized “nation” now numbers more than five and a half million
.(Isaiah 60:8-10, 22-
8 “Who are these that come flying just like a cloud, and like doves to their birdhouse holes? 9 For in me the islands themselves will keep hoping, the ships of Tar&#8242;shish also as at the first, in order to bring your sons from far away, their silver and their gold being with them, to the name of Jehovah your God and to the Holy One of Israel, for he will have beautified you. 10 And foreigners will actually build your walls, and their own kings will minister to you; for in my indignation I shall have struck you, but in my goodwill I shall certainly have mercy upon you.
22 The little one himself will become a thousand, and the small one a mighty nation. I myself, Jehovah, shall speed it up in its own time.”)
Every one of the Scriptures point to our grow, read and sob, as Revelation states in twelve, nine…….
So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
Notice that the Devil or Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth?
Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve. Josh 24:15
We are followers of Jesus Christ,“the Faithful Witness,” and like him we refused to desert the organization to which Jesus had already belonged and make himself a part of Satan’s organization.

You are Satan's chosen ones. All false prophets are.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You just quote random scriptures that don't make your point, don't you.
Not one of your scriptures seriously makes any suggestion close to your obscene assertion.
What the numbers indicate is that you are peaking as a cult and are starting to sink faster than your bilge pumps can remove the dead weight. Your cult could last hundreds of years longer.
Satan will not win in the long run, but he is giving you a good ride in the short.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35094 Jun 12, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I CAME, NOT TO DESTROY,***BUT TO FULFILL;***

And WHEN will he do that?

[Hint: the JWs don't believe it has happened yet]
doug

Tsumeb, Namibia

#35104 Jun 13, 2013
yon wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with cultists is that they do not understand Scripture because they don't understand the language or the culture, so there's no point debating them - it's like they're locked in a cage.
Yon, you certainly dont act or talk like a true christian

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#35107 Jun 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
But still true. When the person, by virtue of their character or actions has a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim then attacking them is NOT an Ad Hominem.
That doesn't make it less of an Ad Hominem, because it still doesn't constitute solid proof. After all, you have no way of knowing motivations, thoughts, or what the other person owns or doesn't own.
Dogen wrote:
AH =/= red herring.
So far it sounds like you have a list of fallacies but don't actually understand them.
I do understand them. You trying to save face by putting them in Google doesn't change the realities, specially when your superficial research failed you. An Ad Hominem attack is a subcategory of a red-herring. Anything that diverts attention from the actual topic is a red herring -- which means Ad hominem attacks, which divert attention to the speaker instead of the content, is a form of red herring.
Dogen wrote:
Bad Company Fallacy.
There is no such Fallacy. Perhaps you mean the Guilt by Association Fallacy.
But since that would be an incorrect citation of a fallacy on your part you might just want to retract this one (or ignore it).
The fact that you Googled it and found that it also goes by the name Guilty by Association Fallacy proves (albeit somewhat fallaciously, nevertheless the conclusion is true ;-)) that it is indeed an acceptable name for the same thing. Most fallacies have many names, none particularly more correct than the other (else you'd have another fallacy :P). Your own website shows that it is an alternative way of saying it, and one that I prefer in some circumstances.

The guilt by association was based on the fact that one of the less intellectually endowed among us was implying that we should not believe Justin Martyr because the Catholic Church claimed him (an association he did not choose). Ergo, Guilty by Association. I'll retract something when I'm wrong -- probably never :P. But I'm not afraid to retract something when I have to -- normally when talking to people who actually study rhetoric and Fallacies and didn't have to Google them to stay relevant.
Dogen wrote:
You don't seem to understand that something can be true even if it is stated as a fallacy.
I like to call what you are referring to as the Fallacist's Fallacy. I love that one quite a bit, yes :P. That said, none of your conclusions *are* true, and you haven't provided substantial evidence anyway, so no harm done.
Dogen wrote:
JW's have an artificial martyr complex. Simple as that. The relationship I drew was clear, so it is not a Red herring. Unless my point is exaggerated or distorted it is not a Straw-man fallacy.
It's a straw man because you created a side discussion which wasn't related and then proceeded to try and claim victory in it. That's literally what a Straw-Man is. The martyr complex is irrelevant to the original topic (Red herring), and furthermore, it doesn't exist. You have no way of proving it, and I don't intend to believe something just because you said it with lots of conviction. Explaining why it's genetic vs not, and the other conventions is superfluous and also irrelevant.
Dogen wrote:
Perhaps you should actually read the definition of the fallacies.
Sharpshooter isn't even close.
If you cannot tell mocking (a form of satire) from a fallacy then you should not be trying to cite them as a defense.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong... A simple explanation for what I meant: you see that I (in your opinion) claimed Justin Martyr, and then jump in and say: "Aha! I knew it all along, because JWs like to be Martyrs" and draw the bullseye around it. In other words, I don't think you had the idea of saying we like to be martyrs (the bullseye) until after I passively claimed Justin Martyr (the shot - among others).

Also, mocking and fallacies are not mutually exclusive.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#35109 Jun 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
2 semesters of graduate level statistics, 1 applied graduate research class and a truck load of stats in my masters thesis.
This type of research is not definitive but is very fertile for the generation of testable hypotheses.
What do this initial results suggest as to the reason most JWs leave?
By the watchtower cults own statistics about 1 in 100 witnesses are disfellowshipped and shunned each year and apostasy is not even the the number one cause.
about 1/4 of the people leaving the cult are due to being shunned.
166,000 left the cult in 2005.
45,000 were shunned (and not reinstated) in the same year.
Sounds like the poll knows more about your cult than you do.
Correct.
And makes my point.
Not sure what the point is, since "left" is such a vague term. If someone visited us for a day, and then never came back, did they "leave"? If they leave and come back a few months later, and then leave again, and come back, would you have a way of knowing? Or would it simply seem as though new people are leaving each time?

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#35110 Jun 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what I actually said:
Dogen wrote:
It is a completely legitimate made up word. But it is not the name of Yahweh.
The issue was never if it was a word or not. What made you stupid enough to think that it was?
<quoted text>
No. Wrong again.
1. There is no J or equivalent sounding letter in Hebrew.
2. Jehovah is a word in English, not the name of God (Yahweh).
3. The equivalent of YHWH in English would be "Yahweh"
4. Jehovah is STILL the result of a translation error.
5. You are STILL using an incorrect name for God.
6. Yahweh predicted that people would be lead astray and "forget my name".
Now, you can go back to crying about the dictionary and English words. I am interested in the Name of God. You may now continue to blather about trivialities and your cult dogma.
Most people have been led astray, and did forget his name. And yet you take this verse completely literally, instead of understanding what he meant by people forgetting his name. His name was "I am that I am" do you not think that an equivalent of that meaning and name did not exist in the other languages he created? People would forget what his name meant and who he was -- that's the main point. Aside from that, though, his name is arguably literally lost, since as I've said before, Yahweh is no more than an educated guess which is certainly mis-pronounced, since pronunciation has changed incredibly from back then to now.

IF you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk, and learn Hebrew, and do as the Jews do, and when discussing religion use what you know to be closest to the original language. But you are just an English speaker like me, and as long as that is the case, your using Hebrew words in English doesn't give you the right to think you are closer to the truth. You're just an English-speaker trying to act like someone who has an idea about how to say things when you really don't.

I for one, when I am speaking any language, speak that language, and don't try to revert it back to it's origins as though making it somehow superior that way.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#35111 Jun 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically even disagreeing with the Watchtower or ones fellow cultists is a disfellowship level offense.
But as we saw in the survey many members do disagree with the Watchtower, but they have no voice least they be shown the door.
LOLOLOLOLOL

Expelled for having a beard? I assure you unless they are using their beards to attempt to strangle other people, having a beard in of itself alone is not cause for any sort of "disfellowshipping". Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? Leave it to the ignorant mono-lingual to lie and slander as well. I'd ask for proof, but you'd find people who slander us on-line and champion it as truth all the while I'm looking at the actual biblical list of reasons why a person would be removed and absolutely none of them are affected by having a beard.

If you have a well-maintained beard and are trying to create a revival of the trend, power to you, good sirs. Uncleanness, however, is in fact a serious biblical concern -- whether you have a beard or not.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#35112 Jun 13, 2013
1) Psalms 83:18 KJV "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."

^Proof that the creator's name is Jehovah in *English*.

2) The Watchtower does not claim divine authorship. Anyone who says they do is a liar.

3) Many Elders are loving, honest, good people trying to put in practice the bible's principles. Any others won't be Elders for very long.

4) If you believe something, you will be compelled to talk about it. If you aren't compelled to talk about it because you doubt it, why are you here?

5) Jesus said that whoever isn't with him, is against him. Not a whole lot of gray area there.

6) "Let no man call unclean what God has cleaned." Apparently, some morons never got the memo.

7) Everyone should follow Paul's counsel of meeting regularly as the primitive Christians did. Those who don't are not true Christians.

8) In Israel, covering up a crime was akin to participating in it. The biblical principle carried over to ancient Christianity, and on to this day.

9) Any bible can be used at any time. I personally use the NIV most often even though I don't even like it. KJV sometimes as well (as above). I give all my students the option of picking whatever bible they want to use for their own reading -- they tend to prefer the NWT because it's clear and easy to understand in English. In the lessons, however, I still make them read verses that are conflicting in other versions so that when ignorant mono-linguals on-line try to catch them by surprise, they're ready. Disputes are handled with concordances and interlinears (the s is not a mistake -- it's plural for a reason. That said, I do suggest they get a copy of Emphatic Diaglot for their personal libraries.)

10) Having normal doubts is healthy and necessary to not have stagnant faith. Also, it's more exciting for me to teach someone who doubts than it is someone who doesn't doubt at all, but I can tell will be easily swayed astray because they're not too sharp. That's why I look almost exclusively for staunch atheists or agnostics. When they come into it doubting everything, as I did, their faith is insurmountable once established.

I have a notebook where I write my doubts down, and then keep track of my progress in answering them. So far, all have been answered within 6 months, and most are answered within the week by simply studying harder. While I don't mention them often (lest they fall into the wrong hands and cause harm to those too lazy to find the answer themselves and too arrogant to ask) I do like to go around challenging the younger kids with them, and keep track of their seeking the answer.

Sure the parents think I'm a little odd... But no one has ever questioned my motives, nor will anyone reasonably think to do so.

There's a difference between having a doubt/concern about some aspect of revelations, and having a legitimate doubt of God's most elemental truths. As Paul would argue here, Woe to the moron which, by the time that they should be a teacher and already know the basics, is still not sure if they believe the basics. They should never have claimed to be past the basics in that case! Take one doubt at a time, but when you answer it, answer it fully so that it never returns. If you can't banish it forever with your answer, you haven't actually answered it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35114 Jun 14, 2013
doug wrote:
<quoted text> Yon, you certainly dont act or talk like a true christian

At least he does not act or doubletalk like a (born to lie) watchtower cult member.

You got to give him credit for not being a brainwashed fool.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35115 Jun 14, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't make it less of an Ad Hominem, because it still doesn't constitute solid proof. After all, you have no way of knowing motivations, thoughts, or what the other person owns or doesn't own.


You need to look up the Ad Hominem argument as you clearly don't understand it even after my pristine clarification.
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text> I do understand them. You trying to save face by putting them in Google doesn't change the realities, specially when your superficial research failed you. An Ad Hominem attack is a subcategory of a red-herring. Anything that diverts attention from the actual topic is a red herring -- which means Ad hominem attacks, which divert attention to the speaker instead of the content, is a form of red herring.
<quoted text>
The fact that you Googled it and found that it also goes by the name Guilty by Association Fallacy proves (albeit somewhat fallaciously, nevertheless the conclusion is true ;-)) that it is indeed an acceptable name for the same thing. Most fallacies have many names, none particularly more correct than the other (else you'd have another fallacy :P). Your own website shows that it is an alternative way of saying it, and one that I prefer in some circumstances.
The guilt by association was based on the fact that one of the less intellectually endowed among us was implying that we should not believe Justin Martyr because the Catholic Church claimed him (an association he did not choose). Ergo, Guilty by Association. I'll retract something when I'm wrong -- probably never :P. But I'm not afraid to retract something when I have to -- normally when talking to people who actually study rhetoric and Fallacies and didn't have to Google them to stay relevant.
<quoted text>
I like to call what you are referring to as the Fallacist's Fallacy. I love that one quite a bit, yes :P. That said, none of your conclusions *are* true, and you haven't provided substantial evidence anyway, so no harm done.
<quoted text>
It's a straw man because you created a side discussion which wasn't related and then proceeded to try and claim victory in it. That's literally what a Straw-Man is. The martyr complex is irrelevant to the original topic (Red herring), and furthermore, it doesn't exist. You have no way of proving it, and I don't intend to believe something just because you said it with lots of conviction. Explaining why it's genetic vs not, and the other conventions is superfluous and also irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong... A simple explanation for what I meant: you see that I (in your opinion) claimed Justin Martyr, and then jump in and say: "Aha! I knew it all along, because JWs like to be Martyrs" and draw the bullseye around it. In other words, I don't think you had the idea of saying we like to be martyrs (the bullseye) until after I passively claimed Justin Martyr (the shot - among others).
Also, mocking and fallacies are not mutually exclusive.

Basically your whole rambling post is nothing but a bunch of rationalization and defensive posturing. As you were not able to refute my corrections of your previous post I can see no rational reason to continue to engage you on a subject you don't understand.

Better luck next time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35116 Jun 14, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what the point is, since "left" is such a vague term. If someone visited us for a day, and then never came back, did they "leave"? If they leave and come back a few months later, and then leave again, and come back, would you have a way of knowing? Or would it simply seem as though new people are leaving each time?

If you had looked up the information you would see that these were members of the JW. To be a member you have to be brainwashed,.... er,... BAPTIZED into the cult... um... organization.

Then you get to go around proving you are a brainwashed moron to all your friends and neighbors. But that is off the present topic.

So we are talking fully drenched cult members.

On some of the watchtower recovery sites they talk about different ways of getting away from the cult and causing a little notice as possible. You do know about the technique of "fading", don't you.

There must be 50 ways to leave the JWs.....


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35117 Jun 14, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people have been led astray, and did forget his name. And yet you take this verse completely literally, instead of understanding what he meant by people forgetting his name. His name was "I am that I am" do you not think that an equivalent of that meaning and name did not exist in the other languages he created? People would forget what his name meant and who he was -- that's the main point. Aside from that, though, his name is arguably literally lost, since as I've said before, Yahweh is no more than an educated guess which is certainly mis-pronounced, since pronunciation has changed incredibly from back then to now.
IF you want to talk the talk, then walk the walk, and learn Hebrew, and do as the Jews do, and when discussing religion use what you know to be closest to the original language. But you are just an English speaker like me, and as long as that is the case, your using Hebrew words in English doesn't give you the right to think you are closer to the truth. You're just an English-speaker trying to act like someone who has an idea about how to say things when you really don't.
I for one, when I am speaking any language, speak that language, and don't try to revert it back to it's origins as though making it somehow superior that way.

You are a little thick, aren't you.[rhetorical question, no need for a question mark]

This is getting a bit like trying to explain calculus to a 1st grader and him insisting that it is 'purple', regardless of what you tell him.

According to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology:
"Jehovah ....an erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew divine name YHWH....."

Look it up for yourself.

Second (and with the snotty nosed kid still yelling "purple!") the Hebrew (aka Jewish) people pronounce the name Yahweh as Yah·weh or occasionally Yah·veh.(strike 2)

Third (and still) YHWH is not a common word, but as Yahweh identified himself to his prophet.

Forth, the name is NOT completely lost. We know the name. We know how to pronounce the name. JWs just can't stand the fact that they are demonstrably wrong and scholars and Jews are laughing at you.

The rest of your rant is about language and the English language....

A mistake was made. It was not trivial. Your cult insists on perpetuating it even when people know better.

If you want my permission to be wrong then you have it. But you are still (laughably) wrong.

Keep smiling and pretending.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what I actually said:
Dogen wrote:
It is a completely legitimate made up word. But it is not the name of Yahweh.
The issue was never if it was a word or not. What made you stupid enough to think that it was?
<quoted text>
No. Wrong again.
1. There is no J or equivalent sounding letter in Hebrew.
2. Jehovah is a word in English, not the name of God (Yahweh).
3. The equivalent of YHWH in English would be "Yahweh"
4. Jehovah is STILL the result of a translation error.
5. You are STILL using an incorrect name for God.
6. Yahweh predicted that people would be lead astray and "forget my name".
Now, you can go back to crying about the dictionary and English words. I am interested in the Name of God. You may now continue to blather about trivialities and your cult dogma.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35118 Jun 14, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>
LOLOLOLOLOL
Expelled for having a beard? I assure you unless they are using their beards to attempt to strangle other people, having a beard in of itself alone is not cause for any sort of "disfellowshipping". Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? Leave it to the ignorant mono-lingual to lie and slander as well. I'd ask for proof, but you'd find people who slander us on-line and champion it as truth all the while I'm looking at the actual biblical list of reasons why a person would be removed and absolutely none of them are affected by having a beard.
If you have a well-maintained beard and are trying to create a revival of the trend, power to you, good sirs. Uncleanness, however, is in fact a serious biblical concern -- whether you have a beard or not.

Clearly ServantofStupidity has snapped.

The above is in response to this post.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically even disagreeing with the Watchtower or ones fellow cultists is a disfellowship level offense.
But as we saw in the survey many members do disagree with the Watchtower, but they have no voice least they be shown the door.


----------

WOW!

I know cult has a high rate of mental illness, but that was a sudden onset.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#35119 Jun 14, 2013
ServantOfWisdom wrote:
1) Psalms 83:18 KJV "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."
^Proof that the creator's name is Jehovah in *English*.
2) The Watchtower does not claim divine authorship. Anyone who says they do is a liar.
3) Many Elders are loving, honest, good people trying to put in practice the bible's principles. Any others won't be Elders for very long.
4) If you believe something, you will be compelled to talk about it. If you aren't compelled to talk about it because you doubt it, why are you here?
5) Jesus said that whoever isn't with him, is against him. Not a whole lot of gray area there.
6) "Let no man call unclean what God has cleaned." Apparently, some morons never got the memo.
7) Everyone should follow Paul's counsel of meeting regularly as the primitive Christians did. Those who don't are not true Christians.
8) In Israel, covering up a crime was akin to participating in it. The biblical principle carried over to ancient Christianity, and on to this day.
9) Any bible can be used at any time. I personally use the NIV most often even though I don't even like it. KJV sometimes as well (as above). I give all my students the option of picking whatever bible they want to use for their own reading -- they tend to prefer the NWT because it's clear and easy to understand in English. In the lessons, however, I still make them read verses that are conflicting in other versions so that when ignorant mono-linguals on-line try to catch them by surprise, they're ready. Disputes are handled with concordances and interlinears (the s is not a mistake -- it's plural for a reason. That said, I do suggest they get a copy of Emphatic Diaglot for their personal libraries.)
10) Having normal doubts is healthy and necessary to not have stagnant faith. Also, it's more exciting for me to teach someone who doubts than it is someone who doesn't doubt at all, but I can tell will be easily swayed astray because they're not too sharp. That's why I look almost exclusively for staunch atheists or agnostics. When they come into it doubting everything, as I did, their faith is insurmountable once established.
I have a notebook where I write my doubts down, and then keep track of my progress in answering them. So far, all have been answered within 6 months, and most are answered within the week by simply studying harder. While I don't mention them often (lest they fall into the wrong hands and cause harm to those too lazy to find the answer themselves and too arrogant to ask) I do like to go around challenging the younger kids with them, and keep track of their seeking the answer.
Sure the parents think I'm a little odd... But no one has ever questioned my motives, nor will anyone reasonably think to do so.
There's a difference between having a doubt/concern about some aspect of revelations, and having a legitimate doubt of God's most elemental truths. As Paul would argue here, Woe to the moron which, by the time that they should be a teacher and already know the basics, is still not sure if they believe the basics. They should never have claimed to be past the basics in that case! Take one doubt at a time, but when you answer it, answer it fully so that it never returns. If you can't banish it forever with your answer, you haven't actually answered it.

Oh, so you are a second generation (+) brainwashed cult rug-rat.

Makes sense now. Yes, the immaturity was obvious but, I did not catch the inbred part.

Ain't your fault kid. The cards were stacked against you from the start.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 min UnderstandPeople 444,416
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min It aint necessari... 856,383
Skanks At The Pool (Jul '08) 17 min Bellyflop22 37
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr USaWORLDWarMonger 177,239
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 1,107
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 hr RiccardoFire 5,865
LOUD CRYIN' SPOILED Black Kids in Wal Mart!!!!! 2 hr Impish Demon 75
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr USA Born 596,860
More from around the web