YHWH

[Wootah]

Y - the hand
H - reveals
W - the nail
H - reveals

How is anyone that believes YHWH is God able to negate the evidence above that YHWH is Jesus?

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/je ... -is-yahweh

YHWH is the name above all names correct?

Philippians 2:9-11 says — Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Anyone want to directly confront both pieces of evidence?

[PinSeeker]

I think you miss the point that God doesn't share His glory...

Fair enough, but I know -- because it's obvious -- that the Watchtower Society, in its strident effort to shape Scripture to its preconceived narrative, misconstrues that point very purposefully and egregiously. Scripture -- God's Word -- should shape our beliefs rather than the other way around.

Grace and peace to you.

That is a below-the-belt comment and doesn't address in a helpful manner the post I wrote.

It surely wasn't meant in any "below-the-belt" manner or any like manner thereof. As for being helpful, sometimes love is a tough thing. I surely don't mean to compare myself to Jesus, of course, but He was not unloving when He was tough on the Pharisees. And I don't even mean to compare myself to Paul, who himself does not compare to Jesus or compare himself to Jesus, but Paul was not unloving in any of his letters, either.

You didn't take into consideration what I was saying.

Oh, but I did.

I did not twist any scriptures...

Not knowingly, I'm sure. Not to be insulting in any way; I surely don't mean to do that. But it is what it is.

...and the WT Society never does either.

In your opinion. And like I said, you're more than welcome to say that my viewpoint is my opinion, because it is, but it's just... right.

It is the only group I have seen that DOES NOT "shape Scripture to its preconceived narrative."

I see. I mean, if I were you I would really give this statement here that you just made very careful consideration. But of course that's up to you. If you do so, I would urge you to focus on the "only group" part, but I realize that the "only group" part itself is a source of pride among Jehovah's Witnesses, and frankly, that's a huge part of the problem.

I explained how God could give Jesus glory without taking away any glory from Himself. Yet you cannot allow yourself to try and understand my point.

Yes, you did "explain" (I would use a different word, there; "rationalize" comes immediately to mind). I do understand your point, and I understand the ramifications of it, which I related. Coupled with how Jehovah's Witnesses view Christ, what that viewpoint unintentionally does to the integrity of God and His Word is the issue. That's my point, which you can't allow yourself to try and understand, and the reason you can't try and understand it is not because you're "not smart enough" or anything like that, but rather because of, well, sin: pride and idolatry, among other things. One cannot commit any sin without first having broken the first two of the Ten Commandments. Again I would say, surely, no offense intended; quite the opposite.

You have no further comment except, in effect, "you're wrong, and the WTS is nefarious?"

LOL! This is at best an extremely disingenuous insinuation. Anyway, well, finally, maybe, but I have been very thorough throughout this and other threads. My comments have been quite extensive.

Grace and peace to you.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #201]
Yes your comments have been extensive but devoid of meaningful content. You do not explain in a specific manner WHY what I say is incorrect. You give blanket statements that are meaningless.

[PinSeeker]

Yes your comments have been extensive but devoid of meaningful content.

To you, yes. That's painfully obvious. But like I said, that's a God thing, not a PinSeeker thing. As I've said many times, my job is merely to proclaim.

You do not explain in a specific manner WHY what I say is incorrect.

Oh, but I did. Extensively. You just apparently ignore it all because it refutes the narrative of the Watchtower.

You give blanket statements that are meaningless.

Well, some "blanket statements," but many others not so much. But all meaningless" to you, I know; as I said above, that's painfully obvious.

Grace and peace to you.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #203]

I'm truly sorry, but my line of thinking will never blend amicably with yours. I see no reason to continue the discussion with you. I could go on with you, but it would be going around in circles, so I'm out.

[PinSeeker]

I'm truly sorry...

Well, no, you're not. That's part of the problem. No need to apologize to me, though...

...my line of thinking will never blend amicably with yours.

Well, that's right, not unless your "line of thinking" changes. But the problem is not between you and me...

I see no reason to continue the discussion with you.

Fair enough.

I could go on with you, but it would be going around in circles...

That's what I've been saying for some time now...

...so I'm out.

Yep. Cool. Grace and peace to you.

[onewithhim]

To people who wonder: "Should we use God's Name?"

It's interesting that an article forwarding the 1901 American Standard Version said regarding the propriety of consistently using God's name, Jehovah, and including it in their version:

"We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the Lord's personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title[LORD] seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that 'Jehovah' is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahwe or any of the other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in his popular version meet statedly with 'Jehovah' and learn all that 'Jehovah' has been to and done for His people."

It is also true that many English Bible translations use "Jehovah" or another form of God's name. As well, God's name is found in numerous non-English Bible translations.

Indeed, God told Moses regarding his name Jehovah: "This is my name forever, and a memorial of me to generation after generation." (Exodus 3:15, The Living Bible; NWT; Young's Literal Translation)


.

[onewithhim]

It would be interesting for people to reply to the previous post. Any comments (backed up with Scripture and reason)? Isaiah 1:18, KJV

[onewithhim]

It would be interesting for people to reply to the previous post. Any comments (backed up with Scripture and reason)? Isaiah 1:18, KJV

Anything to say?

[Difflugia]

To people who wonder: "Should we use God's Name?"

It's interesting that an article forwarding the 1901 American Standard Version said regarding the propriety of consistently using God's name, Jehovah, and including it in their version:

"We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the Lord's personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title[LORD] seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that 'Jehovah' is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahwe or any of the other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in his popular version meet statedly with 'Jehovah' and learn all that 'Jehovah' has been to and done for His people."

I found the quote interesting enough that I used Google to find the source.

I agree with the overall sentiment and that's an important reason that I like the ASV, but the bit you bolded is outdated. I was certainly true in 1901 that the average American reader knew God's name as "Jehovah," but that has become such an anachronism that the logic offered would now actually be an argument against using "Jehovah" in a modern translation. In the last 120 years enough linguistic research has been conducted with enough public awareness that the exact same argument would now apply to "Yahweh." While there is still some uncertainty (various researchers quite plausibly argue for variants as "Yahu," "Yahuwah," or Larry Gonick's tongue-in-cheek suggestion, "Yahoo Wahoo"), the public's perception of God's name matches the majority academic consensus, "Yahweh."



I've been recently trying out the WEB, a public domain update to the ASV to modern English that has updated the ASV's "Jehovah" to "Yahweh." It's growing on me.

[heistrue]

[Replying to post 2 by PinSeeker]


Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

Yes, so may I ask, who can verify that there is any " evidence " there in the first place ?
The JWs for example, say that their " J " stand for Jehovah in spite of the fact that ( the ) Hebrew/Jewish langiage has no " J "...