A huge problem with the JW religion:

[Subduction Zone]

You reason falsely. Maybe when you can create a universe with billions of living beings you can understand. Until then it takes faith. You cannot even create a single blade of grass.

Reasoning falsely is your failing. Do you know what a non sequitur is? That is what you tried to use. But then the JW church gives their members a rather cultic logic. Would you like to try to learn how we know that Genesis is myth? The good news about n Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark being myths is that means one does not have to believe in an evil and incompetent God to be a Christian.

 

[cataway]

That’s a theological — not a linguistic analysis. I’m talking linguistics.


Not according to Genesis.

Nope. The writer of Proverbs had no concept of Jesus. He wasn’t writing about Jesus.

I did speak of this in a different thread . it was explained to you

 

[sojourner]

I did speak of this in a different thread . it was explained to you

I’ve had the best professors. I don’t need tutoring over the Internet by someone who is into bible revision.

 

[cataway]

I’ve had the best professors. I don’t need tutoring over the Internet by someone who is into bible revision.

no, what you did not like is you were shown scripture that do apply and that you did not know were there.
I should ask which bible should I use to reach you ?​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve had the best professors. I don’t need tutoring over the Internet by someone who is into bible revision.

The Bible restored.

You would think that the Jehovah's Witnesses could start to see their error if they studied the history of the Bible. Their name alone should tell them of their flaws. "Jehovah" is merely a poor anglicization of the Hebrew word for God. Yahweh is closer.

 

[cataway]

ahhh but then to be fair you would also have to change every name, that's in the bible, that starts with the letter J ??

 

[sojourner]

no, what you did not like is you were shown scripture that do apply and that you did not know were there.
I should ask which bible should I use to reach you ?​

The scriptures simply aren’t cogent. Nor is the eisegesis you provided.

please don’t feel as though you have to “reach me.” See my post above for teams why.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible restored.

You would think that the Jehovah's Witnesses could start to see their error if they studied the history of the Bible. Their name alone should tell them of their flaws. "Jehovah" is merely a poor anglicization of the Hebrew word for God. Yahweh is closer.

It’s a flawed attempt to mush together “YHVH” and “Elohim.” The two come from different writers and different traditions. They don’t belong together and the “hybrid” (that’s the nice term) does not appear in the texts.

 

[sojourner]

ahhh but then to be fair you would also have to change every name, that's in the bible, that starts with the letter J ??

To be “fair,” we should just let the texts say what they say without torturing them. No need to “reconcile” anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ahhh but then to be fair you would also have to change every name, that's in the bible, that starts with the letter J ??

Pretty much. Jesus's name was not Jesus for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s a flawed attempt to mush together “YHVH” and “Elohim.” The two come from different writers and different traditions. They don’t belong together and the “hybrid” (that’s the nice term) does not appear in the texts.

I was unaware that they tried to do that.

 

[cataway]

I was unaware that they tried to do that.

yep its appalling

 

[sojourner]

I was unaware that they tried to do that.

J (from Yahweh [J is interchangeable with Y]) e (from Elohim) h (from yaHweh) o (from ElOhim) v (from YahWeh [V is interchangeable with W]) ah (a twist of YahwEH). Even though the vowels a and e from Yahweh aren't even in the bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

J (from Yahweh [J is interchangeable with Y]) e (from Elohim) h (from yaHweh) o (from ElOhim) v (from YahWeh [V is interchangeable with W]) ah (a twist of YahwEH). Even though the vowels a and e from Yahweh aren't even in the bible.

Anything from Hebrew is going to be some sort of transliteration since the alphabets are quite different. Do they actually go to such extremes to turn Elohim into Jehovah? I guess I should not be surprised. Cultic behavior will cause all sorts of oddities when dealing with one's religious book.

 

[sojourner]

Anything from Hebrew is going to be some sort of transliteration since the alphabets are quite different. Do they actually go to such extremes to turn Elohim into Jehovah? I guess I should not be surprised. Cultic behavior will cause all sorts of oddities when dealing with one's religious book.

JWs didn't do it; it was done in either the 17 or 1800s as a "method" of assigning something "standard" to translations for the different appellations for "God." Why the JWs cabbaged on to such a tortured device, I have no idea. Now they're claiming that it's the "real name for God." Again: no basis in anything resembling evidence for this.

 

[sooda]

Pretty much. Jesus's name was not Jesus for example.

There is no J in the Hebrew language, except in Modern Hebrew. Also, the word Jehovah is not a real Hebrew word. It's a Christian version of the four consonants that form God's name.

 

[TiggerII]

sojourner said:

"J (from Yahweh [J is interchangeable with Y]) e (from Elohim) h (from yaHweh) o (from ElOhim) v (from YahWeh [V is interchangeable with W]) ah (a twist of YahwEH). Even though the vowels a and e from Yahweh aren't even in the bible."

Subduction Zone answered:

"Anything from Hebrew is going to be some sort of transliteration since the alphabets are quite different. Do they actually go to such extremes to turn Elohim into Jehovah? I guess I should not be surprised. Cultic behavior will cause all sorts of oddities when dealing with one's religious book."
.............................
No one is changing "Elohim into Jehovah." Instead the KJV translators in 1611 (and a few English translations before that) anglicized the Hebrew YHWH into "Jehovah." It has become as traditionally used by English-speakers as "Jesus." - see Ps. 83:18 in KJV.

And should we follow the probable original Hebrew name of the Messiah and call him Yehoshua/Yeshua? Or maybe we must use the name as it is written in the NT Greek scriptures - Iesous (Yay-soos)? I doubt that we will find many who will not continue to use the traditional English "Jesus."

 

[sojourner]

sojourner said:

"J (from Yahweh [J is interchangeable with Y]) e (from Elohim) h (from yaHweh) o (from ElOhim) v (from YahWeh [V is interchangeable with W]) ah (a twist of YahwEH). Even though the vowels a and e from Yahweh aren't even in the bible."

Subduction Zone answered:

"Anything from Hebrew is going to be some sort of transliteration since the alphabets are quite different. Do they actually go to such extremes to turn Elohim into Jehovah? I guess I should not be surprised. Cultic behavior will cause all sorts of oddities when dealing with one's religious book."
.............................
No one is changing "Elohim into Jehovah." Instead the KJV translators in 1611 (and a few English translations before that) anglicized the Hebrew YHWH into "Jehovah." It has become as traditionally used by English-speakers as "Jesus." - see Ps. 83:18 in KJV.

And should we follow the probable original Hebrew name of the Messiah and call him Yehoshua/Yeshua? Or maybe we must use the name as it is written in the NT Greek scriptures - Iesous (Yay-soos)? I doubt that we will find many who will not continue to use the traditional English "Jesus."

Depends on how much of a stickler one is pretending to be with regard to literalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sojourner said:

"J (from Yahweh [J is interchangeable with Y]) e (from Elohim) h (from yaHweh) o (from ElOhim) v (from YahWeh [V is interchangeable with W]) ah (a twist of YahwEH). Even though the vowels a and e from Yahweh aren't even in the bible."

Subduction Zone answered:

"Anything from Hebrew is going to be some sort of transliteration since the alphabets are quite different. Do they actually go to such extremes to turn Elohim into Jehovah? I guess I should not be surprised. Cultic behavior will cause all sorts of oddities when dealing with one's religious book."
.............................
No one is changing "Elohim into Jehovah." Instead the KJV translators in 1611 (and a few English translations before that) anglicized the Hebrew YHWH into "Jehovah." It has become as traditionally used by English-speakers as "Jesus." - see Ps. 83:18 in KJV.

And should we follow the probable original Hebrew name of the Messiah and call him Yehoshua/Yeshua? Or maybe we must use the name as it is written in the NT Greek scriptures - Iesous (Yay-soos)? I doubt that we will find many who will not continue to use the traditional English "Jesus."

You missed the point. "Elohim" was also transliterated into Jehovah, quite improperly. But not originally by the JW's as I thought.

 

[TiggerII]

You missed the point. "Elohim" was also transliterated into Jehovah, quite improperly. But not originally by the JW's as I thought.

If you mean the 8 places found in Psalms 14 and 53 where the existing text uses Elohim, the 1984 version of the NWT tells us in footnotes at these 8 places: "One of 8 scribal changes from YHWH to Elohim. See App[endix] 1B."

And App. 1B explains: "According to Gins.[Int], pp. 368, 369, in some instances the Jewish Sopherim substituted Elohim for the Tetragrammaton. We restored the original reading in eight places and rendered it as 'Jehovah' ...."

So if anyone believes otherwise, the WTS has provided its reason for the rendering of Jehovah in each of these 8 places and lets the reader decide how valid it is. If you don't like the NWT using 'Jehovah' in these 8 places, they have pointed out the reason in each instance, and you are welcome to substitute 'God.'

This is much more honest than the typical trinitarian-translated Bibles which have substituted 'LORD' (and even 'Lord') for YHWH in over 5000 places! Many do so with no explanation in these places.