JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 321 by onewithhim]

One thing to point out in this regard is, if you look carefully in some hard copy translations of the bible that do use the replacement LORD in capital letters, there is (sometimes in the forward or in a footnote of Exodus 3:15) an explanation that this replaces the tetragrammaton.

JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 328 by Elijah John]

I think you should translate as literally and accurately as you can. At no point does the NT use "Lord Jehovah." Therefore, that expression should be completely left out. I would prefer translations used YHWH, Adonai, and Elohim exactly as the text does. However, as I said, I can swing with just "God" or the "LORD God," etc. The latter has been done by various translations simply to avoid all sorts of confusion, where laity might complain a new term such as Yahweh. Gee, what happened to "Jehovah," which we're all used to, etc. ? I know you think that adds to the confusion, but I don't. I've tried getting people in my theology classes to use YHWH and many just got all balled up on this issue. So, for the sake of peace with the public, the laity, which the translations are actually intended for, let's just stay neutral on our terms for God.

Given the fact that you believe Jesus is God, sure...it seems no big deal to you. God's "personality" and His Personhood, for you, is manifest in Jesus.

But for those of us who do not believe that Jesus is God, the Name is mighty important. In the case of YHVH, the Name distinguishes Him from false gods, and from Jesus himself. The Name also distinguishes God from say, an impersonal and amorphous force or forces of the Universe that some might generically call "God".

YHVH is specific, personal and relational. To take His name away can depersonalize Him in the minds of His would-be followers.

And from what I have read, I understand that you tend towards Panentheism. And as a scholar, you probably, understand the importance of names in Hebrew culture. Loose translation of YHVH, "I AM that I AM...suggests the Ground of Being, something I would think a Panentheist could appreciate.

Also, I think the Rabbis created an unintended consequence when they put God's Name off-limits. They created a vacum. I think we humans (believers anyway) long for relationship with a personal God. Take away His name, one takes away His Personhood. This depersonalization paved the way for "Jesus-worship".

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 311 by 2timothy316]

I really do not care.

Clearly.

I believe the many names and titles of God should be taught where they are written originally and to erase these names from the Bible and replace them with your bias is a spiritual crime.

If you really want what was written originally then you're going to have to do some homework. There are no original manuscripts around.

Take a look at the following scriptures from the American Standard Version

Matt 22:37 (ASV) "And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

Deut 6:5 (ASV) "and thou shalt love Jehovah [YHWH] thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Jesus was quoting Moses' words in Deuteronomy. What happened to the Tetragrammaton in Matthew? Who left it out? Did Jesus not say it or did the copyist for Gospel of Matthew leave it out? If you say you care what is true, how can you know what is the truth? Do you look to yourself for the answer?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 312 by Benoni]

So what about the Spirit of truth ?

Truth is truth. There are no two types of truth, only one truth. There is belief, which is not to be confused with truth. A person can 'believe' they can fly but truth is revealed when they jump off a bridge and drop like a stone. So always look for what is true. If someone that is trying to convince you there is another type of truth then they are selling something.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 309 by 2timothy316]

I am not a Greek or Hebrew Scholar but all I need to do is search it out on the web. This is not the middle ages. Do you believe in God's Spirit and lead and guide you in all truth or is that just another lie to you dismiss like your word Jehovah placed everywhere?

God's spirit is in His Word the Bible and what need to know find out what is true is in the historical record. I do not buy into that some 'feelings' that come over me are God's spirit or some such nonsense. Truth is real and is not born from someone's 'feelings'.

Also you don't have to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to learn something about a language. You were not a scholar when you learned English were you? The word I bolded was elohim in Hebrew. According to you that is God's name right? Why do you need to look it up? Why suddenly so cautious? Could it be that you know that elohim doesn't always refer to the Almighty God? Are you a truth seeker or just a believer?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 309 by 2timothy316]

I am not a Greek or Hebrew Scholar but all I need to do is search it out on the web. This is not the middle ages. Do you believe in God's Spirit and lead and guide you in all truth or is that just another lie to you dismiss like your word Jehovah placed everywhere?

God's spirit is in His Word the Bible and what need to know find out what is true is in the historical record. I do not buy into that some 'feelings' that come over me are God's spirit or some such nonsense. Truth is real and is not born from someone's 'feelings'.

Also you don't have to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to learn something about a language. You were not a scholar when you learned English were you? The word I bolded was elohim in Hebrew. According to you that is God's name right? Why do you need to look it up? Why suddenly so cautious? Could it be that you know that elohim doesn't always refer to the Almighty God? Are you a truth seeker or just a believer?

Good questions. I have explained many times how it can be clearly seen that JWs DID NOT add God's name, YHWH (pronounced in a number of ways), to the Bible, but Benoni won't recognize my attempts at explanation at all. I got info about the Tetragrammaton off the internet, which he says he goes to all the time for "truth." So why not click on the link I provided for the Tetragrammaton? Plus the fact that many Bible versions have been listed to show that other versions besides the New World Translation have published their versions with "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" throughout, showing that JWs didn't change anything. But that reasonableness is ignored. It would be so nice if everyone would read the posts and give them some thought.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)


(Now there is an example of the Divine Name being taken out of the Scriptures and replaced with "LORD,"and this can be seen to have happened thousands of times....everywhere "LORD" appears, with all upper-case letters.)

[tam]

[Replying to post 335 by onewithhim]

The WTS did not add God's name anywhere in the OT (as far as I know). The WTS did add God's name in the NT. Not just in places that are a direct quote from the OT (which makes sense to me, even if that is not in the copies they are translating from), but also in places where they are 'interpreting' that the author was speaking of God, rather than of Christ.


So while some may have confused the issue of who is being spoken of (God or Christ) in the OT, as OWH said... the WTS has done this in the NT, by placing "Jehovah" in places that are about Christ.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


The WTS renders Lord, here, as Jehovah. But Paul is speaking of the difference between the law (moses) and Christ, and states that in Christ, the veil is taken away. When one turns to CHRIST (rather than the law/Moses) the veil is taken away.


Christ is the Lord being spoken of in this verse. The NWT covers over this truth by changing Lord to Jehovah.

**

So then one can continue the passage correctly, where Lord refers to Christ. The very next verse... flowing from the previous which is referring to Christ:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.


We are made free in Christ, are we not? The Son is the One who sets us free, is He not? Did He not say,

"Therefore if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed."


We have our freedom in Him.

A couple more verses, where the author is Paul again, attesting to this:

Galatians 5:1

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.


Galatians 2:4

This issue arose because some false brothers were brought in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.



And Paul OFTEN speaks of Christ as Lord. As did His apostles and other disciples.


There is NO reason that justifies replacing Lord here, with Jehovah.


Continuing with the passage in 2Corinth:


And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.



Whose image are we being transformed into? Is it not the image of Christ (the last Adam), who is Himself the image of God?



So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;� the last Adam a life-giving Spirit. The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.




Here (as one example) the WTS has decided to replace Lord with Jehovah, purely as a matter of their own interpretation, and not as a direct quote. Their interpretation can certainly be refuted. So here in the NT, they have done what they rebuke others for having done in the OT.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 336 by tam]

Isn't turnabout fair play? Many conventional (Trinitarian) Christians see Christ all throughout the "Old" Testament...since that is the case, what is wrong with folks seeing Jehovah all throughout the New Testament?

Sure, one could argue because the Greek text does not usually include the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. But neither does the Hebrew text support the idea that "Christ" inhabits the "Old" Testament.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 335 by onewithhim]

The WTS did not add God's name anywhere in the OT (as far as I know). The WTS did add God's name in the NT. Not just in places that are a direct quote from the OT (which makes sense to me, even if that is not in the copies they are translating from), but also in places where they are 'interpreting' that the author was speaking of God, rather than of Christ.


So while some may have confused the issue of who is being spoken of (God or Christ) in the OT, as OWH said... the WTS has done this in the NT, by placing "Jehovah" in places that are about Christ.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


The WTS renders Lord, here, as Jehovah. But Paul is speaking of the difference between the law (moses) and Christ, and states that in Christ, the veil is taken away. When one turns to CHRIST (rather than the law/Moses) the veil is taken away.


Christ is the Lord being spoken of in this verse. The NWT covers over this truth by changing Lord to Jehovah.

**

So then one can continue the passage correctly, where Lord refers to Christ. The very next verse... flowing from the previous which is referring to Christ:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The scriptures you cited may very well be referring to Jehovah; there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ. If the NWT is wrong, how is the import of the verses really changed? Doesn't all power and authority go back to the Father, Jehovah, anyway?

The Father, who Paul always refers to as "God," is very much included in his letters....more than most people realize. He is always the top honcho, if you will, the one that is the most supreme. So to place Jehovah's name in the verses which you cite is not unreasonable.

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ....God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (I Corinthians 1:3,9, NASB) The Father, Jehovah, is always mentioned, and in the most high position of authority.

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God...Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction..." (2 Corinthians 1:1-4, NASB)

"Paul, an apostle not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ AND God the Father, who raised him from the dead, ...Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins so that he might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, TO WHOM BE THE GLORY FOREVERMORE." (Galatians 1:1-5, NASB)


I could go on, through each of Paul's letters, to show the same thing, that he always mentions God, the Father (Jehovah), and attributes more power and glory to Him than anybody else, including the Son. (So why quibble about His name being placed anywhere? He is the Most High [Psalm 83:18, KJV] and the Source of however much glory and authority that Jesus has.)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 338 by onewithhim]

I agree with you owh. Paul was no Trinitarian and always made the distinction between Jesus and God.

But unfortunately, we have little evidence that Paul honored the Name of God, seems to have preferred "Christ".

Contrast this to Jesus, who taught us to hallow God's Name.

And to King David, who honors God's name over and over and over again in the Psalms, and implores us to do the same.