Some of you have already arrived at where I am now. For the rest, allow me to take you on the journey.
I was barely twenty when I started to take “the truth” seriously. I decided to read the Bible from cover to cover. The Hebrew scriptures were tough going in parts, particularly the prophets. I found the Christian Scriptures[i] were much easier and more enjoyable to read. Still, I found it challenging in places because of the stilted, often pedantic language used in the NWT.[ii] So I thought I’d try reading the Christian Scriptures in the New English Bible because I liked the easy-to-read language of that translation.
I quite enjoyed the experience because the reading simply flowed and the meaning was easy to grasp. However, as I got deeper into it, I began to feel like something was missing. I eventually came to the conclusion that the complete absence of God’s name from that translation had sapped it of something vital for me. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, use of the divine name had become a source of comfort. Being deprived of it in my Bible reading left me feeling somewhat disconnected from my God, so I went back to reading the New World Translation.
What I didn’t realize at the time was that I was missing out on an even greater source of comfort. Of course, I had no way of knowing that back then. After all, I had been carefully taught to ignore the very evidence that would lead me to this discovery. Part of the reason for my failure to see what was before my eyes was our Organization’s myopic focus on the divine name.
I should pause right here because I can just see the hackles rising. Allow me to explain that I think the rightful restoration of the divine name in translations of the Hebrew Scriptures is most laudable. It is a sin to remove it. I’m not being judgmental. I’m merely repeating a judgment passed long ago. Read it for yourself at Revelation 22:18, 19.
For me, one of the great revelations of my journey to an awareness of God was understanding the rich and unique meaning of the name, Jehovah. I consider it a privilege to carry that name and make it known to others—though making it known implies much more than simply publishing the name itself as I had once believed. It was undoubtedly this respect, even fervor, for the divine name that had caused me and others so much consternation upon learning of its complete absence from the Christian Scriptures. I came to learn that there are 5,358 manuscripts or manuscript fragments of the Christian Scriptures in existence today, and yet, in not a single one does the divine name appear. Not a single one!
Now let’s put that into perspective. The Hebrew Scriptures were written from 500 to 1,500 years before the first Christian writer put pen to parchment. From existing manuscripts (all copies) we have learned that Jehovah has preserved his divine name in almost 7,000 places. Yet, in the more recent manuscript copies of the Christian Scriptures, God has not seen fit to preserve a single instance of his divine name, it would seem. Sure, we can argue that it was removed by superstitious copyists, but does that not imply a shortening of God’s hand? (Nu 11:23) Why would Jehovah not act to preserve his name in manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures as he did in their Hebrew counterparts?
This is an obvious and troubling question. The fact that no one could provide a reasonable answer to it had bothered me for years. I only realized recently that the reason I couldn’t find a satisfying answer to the question was that I was asking the wrong question. I had been working on the assumption that Jehovah’s name had been there all along, so I couldn’t understand how it was that God Almighty would allow it to be eradicated from his own word. It never occurred to me that perhaps He didn’t preserve it because He never put it there in the first place. The question I should have been asking was, Why didn’t Jehovah inspire the Christian writers to use his name?
Re-authoring the Bible?
Now if you have been properly conditioned as I was, you might be thinking about the J references in the NWT Reference Bible. You may be saying, “Wait a minute. There are 238[iii] places where we have restored the divine name into the Christian Scriptures.”[iv]
The question we should be asking ourselves is, Have we restored it in 238 places, or have we arbitrarily inserted it in 238 places? Most would answer reflexively that we have restored it, because the J references all refer to manuscripts that contain the Tetragrammaton. That is what most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe. As it turns out, they do not! As we’ve just stated, the divine name does not appear in ANY of the extant manuscripts.
So what are the J references referencing?
Translations!
Yes, that’s right. Other translations. [v] We are not even talking about ancient translations where the translator presumably had access to some now-lost ancient manuscript. Some of the J references point to fairly recent translations, far more recent than the manuscripts available to us today. What this means is that another translator using the same manuscripts we have access to, chose to insert the Tetragrammaton in lieu of ‘God’ or ‘Lord’. Since these J reference translations were into Hebrew, it may be the translator felt the divine name would be more acceptable to his Jewish target audience than Lord which points to Jesus. Whatever the reason, it was clearly based on the translator’s bias, and not on any actual evidence.
The New World Translation has inserted ‘Jehovah’ for ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ a total of 238 times based on a technical process called ‘conjectural emendation’. This is where a translator ‘mends‘ the text based on his belief that it needs fixing—a belief which cannot be proved, but is based solely on conjecture. [vi] The J references essentially amount to saying that since someone else has already made this conjecture, the translation committee of the NWT felt justified in doing the same. Basing our decision on another translator’s theories hardly seems like a compelling reason to risk messing with the word of God.[vii]
“…If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city…” (Rev. 22:18, 19)
We attempt to get around the application of this dire warning as regards our practice of inserting ‘Jehovah’ in places it doesn’t appear in the original by arguing that we are not adding anything at all, but merely restoring what was wrongfully deleted. Someone else is guilty of what Revelation 22:18, 19 warns of; but we are just setting things right again.
Here is our reasoning on the matter:
“Without a doubt, there is a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures. That is exactly what the translators of the New World Translation have done. They have a deep respect for the divine name and a healthy fear of removing anything that appears in the original text.—Revelation 22:18, 19.” (NWT 2013 Edition, p. 1741)
How easily we toss out a phrase like “without a doubt”, never considering how misleading its use is in an instance such as this. The only way that there could be ‘no doubt’ would be if we could lay our hands on some actual evidence; but there is none. All we have is our strong belief that the name should be there. Our conjecture is built only on the belief that the divine name must have been there originally because it appears so many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It seems incongruous to us as Jehovah’s Witnesses that the name should appear almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures but not once in the Greek. Rather than look for a scriptural explanation, we suspect human tampering.
The translators of the latest New World Translation claim to have a “healthy fear of removing anything that appears in the original text.” The fact is, “Lord” and “God” do appear in the original text, and we have no way of proving otherwise. By removing them and inserting “Jehovah”, we are in danger of changing the meaning behind the text; of leading the reader down a different road, to a comprehension the Author never intended.
There is a certain presumptuousness about our actions in this matter that calls to mind the account of Uzzah.
” 6 And they came gradually as far as the threshing floor of Na′con, and Uz′zah now thrust [his hand] out to the ark of the [true] God and grabbed hold of it, for the cattle nearly caused an upset. 7 At that Jehovah’s anger blazed against Uz′zah and the [true] God struck him down there for the irreverent act, so that he died there close by the ark of the [true] God. 8 And David became angry over the fact that Jehovah had broken through in a rupture against Uz′zah, and that place came to be called Pe′rez-uz′zah down to this day.” (2 Samuel 6:6-8)
The fact is the ark was being transported incorrectly. It was to be carried by the Levites using poles specially constructed for the purpose. We don’t know what motivated Uzzah to reach out, but given David’s reaction, it is entirely possible that Uzzah acted with the best of motives. Whatever the reality, good motivation doesn’t excuse doing the wrong thing, especially when the wrong thing involves touching that which is sacred and off limits. In such a case, motivation is irrelevant. Uzzah acted presumptuously. He took it upon himself to correct the error. He was killed for it.
Changing the inspired text of God’s word based on human conjecture is touching that which is sacred. It is hard to see it as anything other than a highly presumptuous act, no matter how good one’s intentions may be.
There is of course another strong motivation for our position. We have taken the name, Jehovah’s Witnesses. We believe we have restored God’s name to its rightful place, declaring it to the world at large. However, we also call ourselves Christians and believe we are the modern renaissance of first century Christianity; the only true Christians on earth today. It is therefore inconceivable to us that the first century Christians would not have engaged in the very same work as we do—that of declaring the name, Jehovah, far and wide. They must have used Jehovah’s name every bit as often as we now do. We may have ‘restored’ it 238 times, but we really believe the original writings were peppered with it. It has to be so for our work to have meaning.
We use scriptures like John 17:26 as justification for this position.
”And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” (John 17:26)
Revealing God's Name or His Person?
However, that scripture makes no sense as we apply it. The Jews to whom Jesus preached already knew God’s name was Jehovah. They used it. So what did Jesus mean when he said, “I have made your name known to them…”?
Today, a name is a label you slap on a person to identify him or her. In Hebrew times a name was the person.
If I tell you the name of someone you do not know, does that cause you to love them? Hardly. Jesus made known God’s name and the result was that men came to love God. So he’s not referring to the name itself, the appellation, but to some more expansive meaning to the term. Jesus, the greater Moses, didn’t come to tell the children of Israel that God was called Jehovah any more than the original Moses did. When Moses asked God how to answer the Israelites when they asked him ‘What is the name of the God who sent you?’, he wasn’t asking Jehovah to tell him his name as we understand the term today. Nowadays, a name is just a label; a way to differentiate one person from another. Not so in Bible times. The Israelites knew God was called Jehovah, but after centuries of slavery, that name had no meaning to them. It was just a label. Pharaoh said, “Who is Jehovah so that I should obey his voice…?” He knew the name, but not what the name meant. Jehovah was about to make a name for himself before his people and the Egyptians. When he was finished, the world would know the fullness of God’s name.
The situation was similar in Jesus’ day. For hundreds of years, the Jews had been subjugated by other nations. Jehovah was again just a name, a label. They didn’t know him any more than the pre-Exodus Israelites knew him. Jesus, like Moses, came to reveal Jehovah’s name to his people.
But he came to do so much more than that.
“If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him: “Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “ (John 14:7-9)
Jesus came to reveal God as Father.
Ask yourself, Why didn’t Jesus use God’s name in prayer? The Hebrew Scriptures are full of prayers in which Jehovah is named repeatedly. We follow that custom as Jehovah’s witnesses. Listen to any congregation or convention prayer and if you pay attention, you’ll be astonished at the number of times we use his name. At times it is so overused as to constitute a kind of theocratic talisman; as if frequent use of the divine name confers some protective blessing upon the user. There is a video on the jw.org site right now about the construction at Warwick. It runs for about 15 minutes. Check it out and while watching it, count how many times Jehovah’s name is spoken, even by the Governing Body members. Now contrast that with the number of times Jehovah is referred to as Father? The results are most telling.
From 1950 to 2012, the name Jehovah appears in The Watchtower a total of 244,426 times, while Jesus appears 91,846 times. This makes complete sense to a Witness—it would have made complete sense to me only a year ago. If you break this down by issue, that averages out to 161 occurrence of the divine name per issue; 5 per page. Could you imagine any publication, even a simple tract, where Jehovah’s name would not appear? Given that, can you imagine a letter written under inspiration of Holy Spirit where his name would not appear?
Look at 1 Timothy, Philippians and Philemon, and the three letters of John. The name does not appear once in the NWT, even factoring in the J references. So while Paul and John make no mention of God by name, how often do they refer to him in these writings as Father? A total of 21 times.
Now pick up any Watchtower issue at random. I chose the January 15, 2012 issue only because it was at the top of the list in the Watchtower Library program as the first Study issue. Jehovah appears 188 times in the issue, but He is referred to as our Father only 4 times. This disparity is made all the worse when we factor in the teaching that the millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses worshipping God today are not counted as sons, but as friends, making the use of ‘Father’ in these few instances a metaphorical relationship, rather than a real one.
I mentioned at the start of this post that the final piece of a puzzle had recently come to me and suddenly everything fell into place.
The Missing Piece
While we have speculatively inserted Jehovah’s name 238 times in the NWT 2013 Edition, there are two other more significant numbers: 0 and 260. The first is the number of times Jehovah is referred to as the personal father of any human in the Hebrew Scriptures.[viii] When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or Moses, or the kings, or the prophets are depicted either praying to or talking with Jehovah, they use his name. Not once do they call him Father. There are about a dozen references to him as the Father of the nation of Israel, but a personal father/son relationship between Jehovah and individual men or women is not something taught in the Hebrew Scriptures.
In contrast, the second number, 260, represents the number of times Jesus and the Christian writers used the term ‘Father’ to depict the relationship Christ and his disciples enjoy with God.
My father is gone now—sleeping—but during our overlapping lifetimes, I do not recall ever calling him by his name. Even when referring to him while speaking to others, he was always “my father” or “my dad”. To have used his name would have just been wrong; disrespectful, and demeaning to our relationship as father and son. Only a son or daughter has the privilege of using that form of intimate address. Everyone else must use a man’s name.
Now we can see why Jehovah’s name is absent from the Christian Scriptures. When Jesus gave us the model prayer, he didn’t say “Our Father Jehovah in the heavens…”? He said, “You must pray…this way: “Our Father in the heavens…”. This was a radical change for the Jewish disciples, and for the gentiles as well when it came their turn.
If you want a sampling of this change in thought, you need look no further than the book of Matthew. For an experiment, copy and paste this line into the search box of the Watchtower Library and see what it produces:
Matthew 5:16,45,48; 6:1,4,6,8,9,14,15,18,26,32; 7:11,21; 10:20,29,32,33; 11:25-27; 12:50; 13:43; 15:13; 16:17,27; 18:10,14,19,35; 20:23; 23:9; 24:36; 25:34; 26:29,39,42,53; 28:19.
To understand just how radical this teaching would have been in those days, we have to put ourselves into the mindset of a first century Jew. Frankly, this new teaching was viewed as blasphemous.
“On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (John 5:18)
How shocked these same opposers must have been when later Jesus’ disciples started referring to themselves as God’s sons, calling Jehovah their own Father. (Romans 8:14, 19)
Adam lost sonship. He was expelled from the family of God. He died in Jehovah’s eyes that day. All men were then dead in God’s eyes. (Mat. 8:22; Rev. 20:5) It was the devil who was ultimately responsible for destroying the relationship both Adam and Eve enjoyed with their heavenly father, who would talk with them as a Father would his children. (Gen. 3:8) How successful the Devil has been over the centuries in continuing to destroy hope for a return to this precious relationship squandered by our original parents. Large segments of Africa and Asia worship their ancestors, but have no concept of God as a Father. The Hindus have millions of Gods, but no spiritual Father. For Muslims, the teaching that God can have sons, spirit or human, is blasphemous. The Jews believe they are God’s chosen people, but the idea of a personal father/son relationship is not part of their theology.
Jesus, the last Adam, came and paved the way for a return to what Adam had thrown away. What a challenge for the Devil this presented, for the idea of a personal relationship with God like that of a child toward a father is an easy concept to grasp. How to undo what Jesus had done? Enter the Trinity doctrine which confuses the Son with the Father, making them both God. Hard to think of God as Jesus and yet God as your Father and Jesus as your brother.
C.T. Russell, like others before him, came along and showed us that the Trinity is bogus. Soon, Christians in congregations around the world were again seeing God as their Father as Jesus intended. That was the case until 1935 when Judge Rutherford began to make people believe that they could not aspire to be sons, but only friends. Again, the father/child bond is broken by false teaching.
We are not dead to God as Adam was—as the world at large is. Jesus came to give us life as God’s sons and daughters.
“Furthermore, [it is] YOU [God made alive] though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins…” (Ephesians 2:1)
When Jesus died, he opened the way for us to be God’s children.
“For YOU did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but YOU received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!” 16 The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.” (Romans 8:15, 16)
Here, Paul reveals a wonderful truth to the Romans.
As stated at the annual meeting, the guiding principle behind the latest release of the NWT is found at 1 Cor. 14:8. On the basis of not sounding an “indistinct call”, it strives to provide easy to understand cross cultural renderings such as ‘food’ instead of ‘bread’ and ‘person’ instead of ‘soul’. (Mat. 3:4; Gen. 2:7) Yet, for some reason, the translators saw fit to leave the esoteric Arabic term, abba, in place at Romans 8:15. This isn’t a criticism, though the apparent inconsistency is puzzling. Nevertheless, research reveals that this term is important for us to understand. Paul inserts it here to help his readers to comprehend something critical about the Christian relationship with God. The term, abba, is used to express tender endearment toward a Father as by a beloved child. This is the relationship now open to us.
An Orphan No More!
What a great truth Jesus was revealing! No longer is Jehovah simply God; to be feared and obeyed and yes, loved—but loved as a God not as a father. No, for now Christ, the last Adam, has opened the way for the restoration of all things. (1 Cor. 15:45) Now we can love Jehovah as a child loves a father. We can feel that special, unique relationship only a son or daughter can feel for a loving father.
For thousands of years, men and women had wandered like orphans through life. Then along came Jesus to show us firsthand that we were no longer alone. We could rejoin the family, be adopted; orphans no more. This is what is revealed by the 260 references to God as our Father, a reality missing from the Hebrew Scriptures. Yes, we know God’s name is Jehovah, but for us he is papa! This wonderful privilege is open to all humankind, but only if we accept the spirit, die to our former way of life and are reborn in the Christ. (John 3:3)
This marvelous privilege has been denied us as Jehovah’s Witnesses through the insidious deception that kept us in the orphanage, distinct from the select, privileged few who called themselves God’s children. We were to be content as His friends. Like some orphan befriended by the heir apparent, we were invited into the household, even allowed to eat at the same table and sleep under the same roof; but we were constantly reminded that we were still outsiders; fatherless, kept at arm’s length. We could only stand back respectfully, quietly envying the heir his loving father/son relationship; hoping that one day, perchance a thousand years from now, we might also attain to that same precious status.
This is not what Jesus came to teach. The fact is we have been taught a lie.
"However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name; 13 and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God." (John 1:12, 13)
"YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26)
If we exercise faith in Jesus' name he gives us the authority to be called God's children, an authority no man—be he J.F. Rutherford or the current men making up the Governing Body—has the right to take away.
As I said, upon receiving this personal revelation, I felt elation, then wonder that such an incredible loving kindness could be extended to one such as I. This gave me joy and contentment, but then came the anger. Anger at being fooled for decades into believing I had no right to even aspire to being one of God’s sons. But anger passes and the spirit brings one peace through increased understanding and an improved relationship with God as one's Father.
Anger over an injustice is justified, but one cannot allow it to lead to unrighteousness. Our Father will set all matters straight and will repay to each one according to his deeds. For us as children, we have the prospect of eternal life. If we have lost 40, or 50, or 60 years of sonship, what is that with everlasting life before us.
“My aim is to know him and the power of his resurrection and to share in his sufferings, submitting myself to a death like his, to see if at all possible I may attain to the earlier resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 3:10, 11 NWT 2013 Edition)
Let us be like Paul and use what time remains to us to reach out for the earlier resurrection, the better one, so that we may be with our heavenly Father in the kingdom of his Christ. (Heb. 11:35)
[i] I’m referring to what is commonly called the New Testament, a name we eschew as Witnesses for arguable reasons. Another option, if we are looking for something to distinguish ourselves from Christendom, might be The New Covenant Scriptures, or NC for short, because ‘testament’ is an antiquated word. However, the purpose of this post is not to debate terminology, so we’ll let sleeping dogs lie.
[iii] This number was 237, but with the release of the New World Translation, 2013 Edition an additional J reference has been added.
[iv] Actually, the J references number 167. There are 78 places where our reason for restoring the divine name is that the Christian writer is referencing a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs.
[v] At the five day elders school I attended, we spent a considerable amount of time on the Reference Bible and the J references were well covered. I found it revealing from the comments made that all believed the J references pointed to Bible manuscripts, not to Bible translations. The instructors admitted privately that they knew the true nature of the J references, but did nothing to disabuse their students of their wrong notion.
[vi] On 78 occasions the justification is that the Bible writer is referencing a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures where we know from manuscript evidence that the divine name did appear. While this is sounder basis for inserting the divine name than that of the J references, it is still based on conjecture. The fact is, the Bible writers did not always quote from the Hebrew word-for-word. They often referenced these scriptures phraseologically and under inspiration may have inserted ‘Lord’ or ‘God’. Again, we cannot know for sure and making a change to God’s word based on conjecture is not something that Jehovah has allowed us to do.
[vii] It is of interest that the J references have been removed from the NWT 2013 Edition. It seems that the translation committee feels no further obligation to justify its decision. Based on what was said at the annual meeting, we are counselled not to try to second guess them but to trust that they know more than we do about Bible translation and to just be happy with the result.
[viii] Some will point to 2 Samuel 7:14 to contradict this statement, but in fact what we have there is a simile. As when Jesus said to his mother at John 19:26, “Woman, see! Your son!”. Jehovah is referring to the manner in which he will treat Solomon once David is gone, not that he would adopt him as he does Christians.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-10-18 10:15:38
You've got it.
Comment by A searcher for truth on 2013-10-18 12:22:24
This a Very thought provoking article, and I do concur with you on this about your analysis of God's name in relation to the heavenly Father.
To me he is the "Heavenly Father" and in my personal prayers I use my "Heavenly Father" or "my Father who is in the Heavens".
When referring to him in my conservations with others, I refer to him as "God the Father" or "Father God".
Of course the next step in our thinking is that we all have the "Heavenly hope", except that some will be the "first fruits" chosen for their special assignment for the "priesthood", as the figurative "New Jerusalem" is coming down to earth.
Brother Russell spoke of two classes in Heaven, the first-fruits of the "wheat-like harvest, and the secondary class being the rest of the "wheat-like harvest".
He might not have been too far of the mark here in his understanding.
But I believe that the "priesthood" (144,000) is coming down to earth to teach and bless all the nations here on the earth.
Some will already be here as they are still alive at this time, but will change into a far superior body, one that is incorruptible as far as matter is concerned.
Perhaps they will also be multidimensional.
Coming and going from earth to heaven and from heaven back to earth, like "Jacobs ladder", the one that he had a vision of.
1 Corinthians 15
51 ¶ Behold, I speak a mystery to you: we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed.
52 In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.[LITV]
And at sometime in the future, perhaps within 1000 years or so, we will have paradise here on the earth.
Death more or less will be a thing of the past as people will live very long lives here on this planet as they will at long last be given the key to longevity,.
War will be no more, and violence and wickedness will be a thing of the past, and everyone will have a roof over their heads and plenty of food etc.
Man will have at long last learned how to manage their own planet that they have inherited as a progressive race.
And sometime in the future, they will reach for the stars.
Oh such wonderful things and adventures are awaiting mankind who at that time period will all be confirmed "Sons of the Kingdom" and "sons of God".
Meanwhile those who die during this time perhaps because of mishaps and after their time span here on earth, will have a resurrection to the Heavenly realms where Jesus stated that he has prepared a place for all his followers.
In his Fathers house, there are many dwelling places.
John 14
1 ¶ Do not let your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.
2 In My Father's house are many dwelling places. But if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you![LITV]
This is how i see it and understand it, from my perspective.
Comment by anderestimme on 2013-10-18 14:03:40
Awesome article, Meleti. I feel more elated and angry already.
Reply by Hugo I. Matias on 2013-10-19 00:46:46
You don't need to learn Greek or Hebrew. We have The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, and even if you don't understand Greek, you will be able to understand the literal word for word translation :)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-19 07:42:48
Further to that, may I recommend use of bible.cc which is an excellent research site. Typing in a Bible verse will give you a couple dozen parallel renditions. Then using their interlinear tab which covers not only the Greek Scriptures but the Hebrew as well, gives you the added feature of linking to Bible commentaries. Each Greek or Hebrew word in the interlinear has a number above it. Click this number to see not only how the word is defined in the original language, but to see where and how it is used in other parts of the Bible. Try it, for instance, with the word "obey" found at Heb. 13:17 and see how that word is actually used elsewhere.
Comment by Shannon on 2013-10-18 15:25:12
I thought that this article was very eye opening! I would like to know what sources are you using to backup the argument that Jehovah's name did not appear in the original greek manuscripts. If it did not... This changes everything as far as I am concerned...
Reply by anderestimme on 2013-10-18 19:59:27
Hi Shannon,
I'm not Meleti, obviously, but I can at least make a start at answering your question. No one knows for sure whether the Divine Name was in the original manuscripts, since none have survived. But it is not in any of the ancient manuscripts that have come to light thus far.Reply by shannon on 2013-10-18 22:45:27
Thanks very much for your response! My thoughts are... translate the bible as written! Is that too much to ask? Apparently i need to learn Hebrew and greek to read Gods word.... this is very troubling to me...
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-18 21:17:42
Hi Shannon,
Proving a negative is always harder than proving a positive. For example, to prove that the Tetragrammaton doesn't appear in any of the 5,300-plus manuscripts extant today, I would have to have access to all of them and read them in their entirety. It is much easier and efficient to have those who might disagree to show us a single instance of the divine name in any of these. The New World Translation Committee are arguably the chief proponents of the belief that the divine name appeared in the original writings of the Christian Scriptures. It follows that if there were a single instance of the Tetragrammaton in any of the extant manuscripts, they would be shouting this from the rooftops as it would constitute proof at last.
The book, Truth in Translation by David BeDuhn, is where I first learned that no ancient manuscript of the Christian Scriptures contains the divine name. It is an excellent book and gives high marks to the New World Translation for its lack of bias by comparison with the other translation he reviews. However, he acknowledges that with regard to the insertion of the divine name in the NT, we are biased. There is a review of his book online. Scroll to the end to see the review with quotations from the Appendix of his book. Here's the link: http://tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.html
In Appendix A5 of the New World Translation 2013 Edition the translators give the following two reasons to justify their policy.
"In deciding to do this, the translators took into consideration two important factors: (1) The Greek manuscripts we possess today are not the originals. Of the thousands of copies in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were composed. (2) By that time, those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios, the Greek word for "Lord," or they copied from manuscripts where this had already been done."
Do you notice the flaws in these statements? "(1) The reason for inserting the divine name where it doesn't appear in the manuscripts we have is that these are only copies." A strange statement given that all the Hebrew manuscripts we have for the OT are also copies. We are quite happy to accept that those use the divine name almost 7,000 times, though none of them are originals. There are no original writings of any of the Bible books. All are copies, so if that should give us reason to doubt what is written, then where do we stop doubting? Additionally, this statement contradicts what we say in Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2, page 314.
"The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero."
As for the second point made in Appendix A5, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. They state as an historical fact something which cannot be proven, and which they make no attempt to prove. They are trading on our trust in them. Even if it were true that all the copyists of the Bible from that period in history removed the divine name wherever they found it, that doesn't prove that there was a divine name to remove in the first place from any of the NT writings.
Next, they give nine bullet points which they term "evidence". They write, "The decision was based on the following evidence:"
As you read each bullet point, pause and ask yourself, "Is this really evidence that the Tetragrammaton existed in the original manuscripts of the Christian writers?"
As I read through the list myself, I see that this is an excellent example of the use of logical fallacies. Actually, it deserves a post all its own. My next project.
I hope I have helped to answer your question.
Your brother,
Meleti
Comment by erick on 2013-10-18 17:39:28
Nice post Meleti. It is wonderful, scary, and shocking to begin to take the wool out of one's eyes.
Anger is a common feeling when one begins to realize these things. I know I went thru that phase. But I could have questioned long ago what I was being taught but I neglected my responsibility to make sure of all things.
You can find thousands of different teachings in this world. It is up to the individual to look inside their heart for truth. It is nobody else's responsibility.
Comment by shannon on 2013-10-18 22:40:21
Thank you very much for your reply! I meditated on the thought of the "slave" taking the liberty of adding Jehovahs name in this way. I've personally always used another translation at the hall but like you i found myself resorting back to the nwt for personal bible reading because of the delibrate omission of jehovahs name.... Looks like i have a new topic to research in my personal study..... let me ask you this... does the omission of jehovahs name bother you just as much as the way nwt translators are adding jehovahs name anywhere they feel like it?(sorry for typos and grammatical errors in advance...on a mobile device)
Reply by robcrompton on 2013-10-19 04:33:06
You can easily learn to spot where the divine name appears in the original Hebrew when reading other translations of the Bible. The convention is to print the subsitution LORD in capitals. During the late second temple period utterance of the name had virtually ceased and a reader on seeing the name Yahweh (Jehovah) written, would see also the vowel points for the word Adonai (Lord). So he would see Jehovah and say LORD.
Try reading your non-NWT Bible in this way. You might find it's an interesting habit to get into.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-19 07:35:46
Both things bother me, but for different reasons. The punishment for removing something from God's word is the same as that for adding something to it. Removing Jehovah's name in the Hebrew Scriptures distances the reader from God. Using only a title depersonalizes the Almighty and allows for confusion to be introduced. It is a grave sin. On the other hand, adding the divine name where it doesn't appear is tampering with the meaning that Jehovah intended. Jehovah sent his son that we might know the Father through the son. The name, Jesus, appears over 900 times in the Christian Scriptures. If the Hebrew Scriptures were reduced down to the size of the Christian Scriptures, Jehovah's name would appear about 1,700 times. This shows how very important Jesus' name is, second only to Jehovah's. By over-focusing on Jehovah's name, we have diminished Jesus' role. The fact that we can put an illustration in The Watchtower showing the hierarchy of what we believe is Jehovah's visible organization, depicting Jehovah at the top but removing Jesus from the picture entirely, and not raise a word of protest from the rank and file, shows the result of this over-focus on the divine name. (w13 4/15 p. 29)
The fact is, Jehovah inspired the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures to record his name so that it would become known to the world. He inspired the writers of the Christian Scriptures to focus on his son because through the son, the father is revealed. If you have a brother or sister, you will rarely call them by that term, but you will use their name. This is in part because you may have many brothers or sisters and so use of the name is critical to differentiate one from another. But you only have one father, so you honor that unique relationship by abstaining from use of his name. "Father" is all that is ever needed.
Our use of Jehovah in the Christian Scriptures has obscured Jesus' revelation of that wonderful relationship to the point that most Jehovah's Witnesses miss it entirely and so more easily buy into the fiction that we are not his children, but only his friends.
Having said all this, I have come to realize that the omission of God's name from the OT has had the same purpose as its inclusion in the NT. Both distance us from our God and Father.Reply by shannon on 2013-10-19 09:27:39
Well said. I believe don't believe that the overuse of Jehovahs name could ever diminish Jesus' role as my Savior And Mediator.however a translation should not be interpretation. No one should take liberty with Gods word. That being said.... I have studied other translations but always ignored the kingdom linear, I'm going to take a look at it this weekend. Thanks!
Comment by robcrompton on 2013-10-19 04:42:54
I should have added that the other substitution was Elohim (God). these two correspond to the words Kyrios (Lord) and Theos (God) in the Greek.
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-10-19 06:12:20
Our world is but a jigsaw
Its puzzle-piece the sky
Which always seems a gaping flaw
That cannot know the eye
For we can never be complete
By searching nonetheless
Beyond the heavens vast elite
Where only One can bless
For we are merely flesh and blood
With yearnings of our soul
We cannot see beyond the mud
Nor hear the bells that toll
The only words that set us free
From all that tears apart
Are those that make us rise to be
The children of His heart
Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2013-10-19 08:32:43
Thank you Meleti. We have convinced ourself that we have and use the divine name as his "witnesses." In reality, we have subverted the true pathway to reconciliation with God - adoption as sons through brotherhood with the Christ. Just as Pharisees closed the door to the kingdom of the heavens, so too as the organization blocked the understanding and access to "the glorious freedom of the sons of God."
Our present reading of Paul's letters brings to our attention over-and-over again the opportunity to know the true God as our father.
Only then and in this way will we know the father and get to know his true name. In the meantime, perhaps for our protection, his true name is not known to us and neither will a translated imitation of that name make us his sons.
It is left for God's due time to reveal what actions elders and congregations should take to have understanding of spiritual light restored. Individual acceptance of the "spirit of adoption as sons of God" is the beginning.
Thank you for your work.
Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-10-19 14:45:37
It strikes me that this may have been a primary motivation for the NWT committee to have been formed in the first place.
Consider this: The Watch Tower Society purchased the rights to make a set of key plates for the ASV in 1944, which contained the Divine Name in the Hebrew scriptures over 6,870 times (see Proclaimers Book pg 607). And yet only two years later a new translation of the Greek scriptures is proposed.
Why was a reworking of the Greek scriptures such a priority?
If you think about it the answer seems obvious. Rutherford had been putting more and more emphasis on the Hebrew name of God ever since he named the organization “Jehovah's Witnesses” based on a text that had little to do with Christianity. But once this ball was in play, the name was (and still is) consistently promoted as one of the major distinctions from the rest of Christendom. And yet, even though the name was rightfully present in the Hebrew scriptures in the ASV, it appears to have been rightfully absent in the Greek scriptures of the same translation. The organization was therefore open to the question as to why a Christian community would fly this banner if the NT didn't contain the name, and also in view of the fact that Christian disciples were told to be witnesses of Jesus (Acts 1:8).
A solution would be to create a version of the Greek scriptures that featured the divine name, and find a way to justify that.
That has been the strategy that JW leadership has had to contend with ever since. Hence the disingenuous use of the “J references", which now appear to have been abandoned as “evidence” since the word is well and truly out as to what these really are. So the new appendix attempts a new set of “evidential” data, which upon inspection holds no more weight than the old.
The last subheading under appendix A5 and the following two pages are more confusing and unsubstantiated than the J references were. Where is the weight behind saying that the divine name is used in all these other languages in the Greek Scriptures (many of them obscure languages) if you are not going to give the references as to what the translations are? It's completely meaningless as far as I can see, and even weaker than the previous misrepresentation of the J references. For all this section says it could be a single offbeat translation that has been officially published and had a run of a few copies in each of these languages. They only vaguely identify three of these versions - the Rotuman Bible (1999), the Batak (1989) and a Hawaiian version (unnamed) of 1816. For all we know the rest could be by people who taken it upon themselves to translate the NWT into these other languages. It just doesn't say. If there were any real weight to these versions, I think they would not hesitate to make them explicit.
It seems that they have unsuccessfully attempted to inject new life into a flawed, biased, and misleading theory.
ApollosReply by Meg on 2015-10-28 11:46:45
First of all, I want to say that I really appreciate your site. Obviously, I wouldn't be here, if I weren't experiencing some alarm bells going off, myself.
But I did have a couple of thoughts to share on this subject, and two points to make, one, an opinion, and one, a historical fact.
1) Re 22:18, 19
This is a scripture I have referred to MANY times, as I'm sure most of you who are reading this have too. It is an especially handy scripture to help reason with someone who has a Mormon faith background. But after really pondering this scripture, and its context, I've concluded the following: The entire book of Revelation is a complete prophecy, given to the Apostle John, 'by Jesus, from God', with specific application and relevance to the 'Last Days'. It seems to me, that the application of the words "...if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of THIS prophecy", seem to suggest that these words are applicable to THIS prophecy specifically.
I am not suggesting that 'adding or taking away' from the Bible as a whole are not grave sins, however, I have always felt that the words were actually only intended to apply to this specific scroll, as it states.
2) I did some research a while back on the subject that you brought out..the appropriateness of adding Jehovah's name to the Greek scriptures, where it is not contained in the original manuscripts. All of us understand that Jehovah's name was indeed removed from the original Hebrew text, and substituted with generic titles for the Almighty in place of all of the 7K times its written. But I discovered something interesting. I did not KNOW that by the time Jesus actually walked the face of the earth, the tradition that was imposed by the Jewish leaders of not using Jehovah's name due to superstition and fear, was already 600 YEARS OLD. In other words, people of Jesus day, were already 600 years 'into' that bogus tradition. THAT is why Jesus said the words "I have made your name KNOWN , and will MAKE it known." He stated these words, because the use of Jehovah's name, at that time, was NOT known, due to the unrighteousness that the religious leaders of that day were practicing. That is one reason (of many) that he called them 'blind guides'. And a primary reason why he stated that the #1 things that we should pray for, in his model prayer, was the 'sanctification of his name'.
Just my thoughts.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-10-28 19:00:51
Hi Meg, and welcome. I appreciate that Jehovah's Witnesses have been taught that Jehovah's name was not used in the first century due to superstition, but have you found any evidence from credible sources to support this teaching?
Not that this would change the facts that we are still adding his name in dozens of places where we have no valid reason to do so, but still, if it turns out that this superstition argument is sketchy, or even proven false, it undermines the one reason JWs give to support their conjectural emendation of Scripture.
As for the argument that the stipulation of Re 22:18, 19 is restricted to the vision given to John, I would submit the following texts to show that the principle applies to all of God's words: De 4:2; De 12:32; Ga 1:8; 1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:9Reply by Meg on 2015-10-30 13:42:18
The encyclopedia Britannica would be one source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh
And I agree with you on the points you have made (and appreciate the scriptural references that you provided to substantiate your argument. Until the time that Jehovah/Yahweh provides us with a 'new' scroll, as the book of Revelation tells us we will receive (and provides the time period, and the events that have to happen in advance of receiving it), it is pretty clear that the time for 'adding' or 'taking away' ANYTHING from the bible isn't now.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-10-30 15:04:51
Thanks Meg, it's nice so see a source other than the Watchtower for this. Of course, this doesn't justify the insertion of the divine name in the Christian Scriptures, nor does it justify the mistaken belief that Jesus preached so that people would know God's name. There is no reference to him telling people, "By the way, everyone, he's called YAHWEH". Knowing someone's name to us means knowing the actual name, the label or appellation, by which the person is known. To a Hebrew, it meant knowing the person himself, his character.
This is what Jesus did by revealing the fullness of God in his own character. He was the perfect image of the Father. Knowing him means knowing the character, i.e., the name, of the Father.Reply by Meg on 2015-10-31 00:09:54
Agreed. No justification for insertions. With respect to your point regarding my secular source for that information, ironically, I didn't learn that fact from any Watchtower, but rather through my own independent research. I just began thinking about the subject one day, and realized that I actually had no idea WHEN the Jewish leaders began the practice of removing the Divine name from common day usage among the Jews, and so I started to research that subject. Does anyone else recall whether or not the information was actually published in a WT?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-01 08:55:52
There are a number. Here's one from the Insight book.
*** it-2 p. 6 Jehovah ***
When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?
So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus’ statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.
Reply by Meg on 2015-11-01 15:40:40
Interesting! The first statement in the Britanicca does seem to contradict the Insight book, on this subject, for a certainty.
"After the Babylonian Exile (6th century bce), and especially from the 3rd century bce on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely local religion, the more common noun Elohim, meaning “God,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures."
Comment by mark on 2013-10-19 16:04:00
I think its interesting that Jehovah at times has changed the name of an individual to establish a new identity or purpose for that person.God changed the name of Abram which means “high Father” to Abraham meaning “Father of a multitude”.Sarai”my princess”to Sarah “mother of nations”
Also Jacob to Israel,Saul to Paul,Simon to Peter.
The name which is given in this present age is the name of Jesus Christ which means “Jehovah is salvation”.Jehovah accomplishes his purpose to redeem mankind, through his son, so a different name is supplanted! Is this the reason why the new testament is devoid of YHWH?Just a thought!Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-21 07:26:03
Thanks for adding another piece toward solving the puzzle.
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-10-19 21:27:55
In Hebrew culture, names represented the entire character of the individual. Consequently, “Immanuel” (meaning “With Us Is God”) was foretold to be the "name" of the Messiah as to what he was, i.e. the epitome of God, whereas the name "Jesus" (Gr., ᾿Ιησοῦν (I·e·soun′); Heb., ישוע (Ye·shu′a‛, “Jeshua,” meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”) tells of his character as to what he would actually accomplish.
Reply by mark on 2013-10-20 08:28:23
“Immanuel” (meaning “With Us Is God”) Awesome!
Comment by mark on 2013-10-20 07:56:22
Inserting the name Jehovah where it wasn’t meant to be, is a serious issue.I now realise how important it is to get it right!
For example, Romans 10:13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Jehovah will be saved”.I used this scripture a great deal, it sent a powerful message to the listener and I was proud to know it myself!One thing I never bothered to do was read the surrounding text and check the greek.Or even should I say, read the whole lesson that was being taught by Paul!
…11.For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who (call on Him); 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF LORD(JEHOVAH) WILL BE SAVED."…
Paul is simply saying that Jesus is Lord and to call (upon him). It makes no sense then in verse 13 to suddenly proclaim that they call upon Jehovah.Its like you have to take a double take!!
Christians where persecuted on account of his name”Jesus”.The apostles where no doubt expelled from synagogs for applying the same passages of scriptures to Jesus Christ as Paul did in his letter to the Romans.Yes, they where a different audience.They where Jews, Pharasees. But, could you imagine an an Apostle, being expelled from the synagog for proclaiming “call on the name Jehovah”.They would just look at each other and say “so what”?
As Meleti's article points out in John 14:7 “If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”.What a profound statement from Jesus!A few years ago this scripture would have little significance.Understanding correctly Paul’s lesson in Romans helped me understand more closely the importance of knowing the Son.Reply by Jude on 2013-10-21 00:41:19
I just have a quick thought on Romans 10:13, mark. I think that verse is actually a quote from Joel 2:32 where it says all those calling on the name of Jehovah will be saved. However, most Witnesses miss the point being made by that verse. They often use - perhaps misuse - Romans 10:13 to stress the importance of using the name Jehovah. But if you actually examine the verses preceding Romans 10:13 it becomes obvious that that isn't the point that Paul was making.
When you read verses 11 and 12 it becomes obvious that Paul, when quoting Joel, was actually stressing the point that everyone, regardless of their background will be saved if they exercise faith in Jesus. In other words he was stressing the ALL part of the verse - not the JEHOVAH or LORD part. I believe he was quoting that verse just to show the impartiality with which God will grant salvation to everyone exercising faith - not to emphasize which name to call on.
Paul borrowed a text that spoke about Jehovah and applied it to Jesus because his purpose in borrowing the text was primarily about the impartiality that the text highlighted and not the exact identity of who to call on. But in any event, I believe that when we call on the name Jesus, we are also calling on the name Jehovah because Jesus is the way of approach to Jehovah. Jesus even said that his Father gave him his own name. (John 17:12) And when you consider that the name Jesus means "Jehovah is salvation", faith in the name Jesus is a very fitting way to call on the name of Jehovah for salvation. In other words, there is a deeper spiritual meaning behind "calling on the name Jehovah" that involves faith in the name Jesus. The organization's anti-Trinitarian oversensitivity and getting hung up on trying to translate Lord as Jehovah to suggest that it has to be the literal name Jehovah, easily blinds many witnesses from seeing the deeper implication that the fulfillment of Joel 2:32 is connected with faith in the name Jesus. (Acts 4:12)
It's important for many JWs to understand that because many Trinitarians try to use the fact that Paul was talking about Jesus and quoting a text that uses Jehovah (in Hebrew) to try to suggest that Jehovah is Jesus. But when you understand the Paul's true reason for quoting Joel you realize that the Trinitarian's reasoning is wrong.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-21 07:13:06
Thanks for sharing this with us, Jude. It helps deepen our understanding. I also appreciate your mention of John 17:12. I'd forgotten about this verse. It clearly has greater meaning for us now that we have an expanded understanding of "name" as used by Jesus and the Bible writers.
Reply by mark on 2013-10-21 15:18:33
Thanks Jude.you explain quite well the lesson Paul is teaching.”everyone, regardless of their background will be saved if they exercise faith in Jesus”
It brings to mind Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Comment by kev c on 2013-10-20 15:06:45
Well done brother for sharing these important thoughts with us. Many of your points in the atticle have been on my mind as well. Loved your point about the father son relationship interestingly when my children were teenagers they did used to call me and my wife by our personal names for some reason which i never had a real problem with they also called us mum and dad as well. But when the brothers and sisters heard it they had a massive problem with it saying it was distespectful. But when i said well which way do you address your spiritual father. They couldnt answer. As for the so called restoration of the divine name in the new testament. I really dont know what gives them the right to do that. Even in intances where its a qoute from the hebrew scriptures such as the qoute from joel 2 v 32. At romans 10. Reading the context shows the name to be called on for salvation is the name of jesus. It seems to me anyway please correct me if im wrong. I think technically the qoute from revelation 22 about changing the words of this scroll it could be argued that it could only be applied to the book of revelation. But even so the name has been added even there as well. Good reasoning in the entire article well done my bible jigsaw puzzle now has another piece in place. Thanks very much. Meleti
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2013-10-20 15:13:42
Reminds me of Jesus' final words in Matthew 23:13, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in."
As the old saying goes: What goes around comes around.
Comment by Examiner on 2013-10-21 04:22:21
Your epiphany is hardly original. In the 1990's former Governing Body member Ray Franz wrote extensively about this very subject in his wonderful book "In Search of Christian Freedom."
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-21 07:10:14
I make that point at the very beginning of the post.
Reply by Andronicus on 2013-10-21 14:32:57
I’ve recently felt uncomfortable, Meleti, about referring to myself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This came about after reading Acts 11:26 which states that the disciples were “by divine providence”, or, as Young’s Literal Translation reads, “divinely called”, Christians. It appears to me that God wanted the followers of Jesus to be called by this name. I can understand the necessity of distinguishing ourselves from the rest of those who refer to themselves as Christians, but I don’t think “divine providence” should be tampered with. I mentioned this during the Bible Highlights part which covered Acts chapter 11 and got no negative feedback. I think this was one of Brother Rutherford’s, “flashes of light”, which tended to put Jesus in the shadow of the FDS.
Reply by Chris on 2013-10-23 07:05:26
I agree. In fact calling ourselves a JW or a Catholic or an Adventist is not too dissimilar to saying " I belong to Paul, others to Apollos or Cephas" 1Cor.1:12
As to who Jesus regards as an individual wheat or weed time will tell. But we can be certain that teachers will bear a heavier judgement. James 3:1
Interestingly 1Cor.1:13 goes on to talk about not being baptized into Paul etc which gives pause to consider the post 1985 baptism questions of the WTS.
To attempt to baptize someone through another agency or middleman is totally unsupported by scripture. Another example of the WTS acting as a broker.
As for Rutherford's "flashes of light" it is more than anecdotal that he was influenced by the spirit of the fruitage methinks.
Comment by StillHaveFaith on 2013-10-25 03:25:38
Thank you Meleti, for your excellent investigative "detective" work, regarding all of your articles as well as this one. The meaning behind your symbol of the Magnifying Glass is very appropriate, and perhaps your alias should be "Sherlock Holmes"....SMILE.
I have had many spiritual "awakenings" through the process of coming to an understanding of serious issues of false doctrines taught by the WTBTS, which have been logically clarified through the articles and comments here at Boroean Pickets. Considering the primary teaching of the Christian Scriptures, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, providing the "ransom sacrifice for all"....
“For this very reason God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” [Phillipians 2: 9-11] NWT
Considering this, what could be a more serious false teaching??!!! Claiming that Jesus sacrificial blood only covers a select few has always been one of the greatest complaints of “Christendom” against Jehovah's Witnesses. They are correct in recognizing this, although incorrect in teaching the Trinity and Hellfire. But now I am wondering, “Who is in bigger trouble with Jehovah and Jesus Christ?”, the many other Christian denominations or Jehovah's Witnesses??? Is it worse for them to teach the Trinity and Hellfire or is it even worse for the WTBTS to teach millions of trusting people that the vast majority are not true children of God our Father???
While all of the other Christian denominations teach that ALL Christians should partake in the bread and wine representing Christ's sacrifice, the WBTS has disregarded this command that Jesus gave to “do this in remembrance of me”, except for those few “anointed”.
When I was first investigating Pastor Russell, I found a lot of information on the various Bible Students websites. I noticed a long list of his teaching subjects which are still influencing JWs today, although many things have been “revised” especially by Rutherford. I sent an email to one of the website hosts asking “Which doctrine is the most important one that JWs and Bible Students diverge on?” I was sitting in front of my computer a few days later, and the words “Ransom for ALL” came into my mind as clear as a bell. I opened my email minutes later and read this 3 word response to my question: “Ransom for ALL”. That was all that he said, but as I have gradually come to recognize the reality of this, those 3 words say ALOT.
I have often wondered what would have happened if the Bible Students would have continued on after Pastor Russell's death.... which teachings would have remained and which teachings would have been revised, if it were not for Rutherford taking over the WBTS by legal manipulation and forcing out all those who did not comply with him. It appears to me that Rutherford did a lot of damage during his 25 year reign as “King”. But who is really behind all false religious teachings and deceptions? SATAN.
“Oh what a tangled web we [they] weave when first we [they] practice to deceive”.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-25 08:26:43
Thank you for sharing this.
The "Ransom for ALL" or in our case, "not for ALL" was the breaking point for me. Even when I came to realize that the 1914 doctrine was without support in Scripture, I still believed we were the true faith. We just got a prophetic interpretation wrong; again.
It was the realization that we had subverted the faith of millions into believing something other than the Good News of the Christ that broke the branch for me. Paul spoke clearly about the outcome for someone who dared to "pervert the good news about the Christ". (Gal. 1:6-9)
We believe that Babylon the Great is the world empire of false religion. It will be destroyed. Your point is valid. Which is the greater falsehood, the Trinity teaching, the hellfire teaching, or perverting the good news about the Christ and denying millions the opportunity to enter into the joy of their master.
The difference between a lie and an untruth is moral. I may erroneously believe an untruth, but there is no sin in that. Once I know it to be untrue and yet still believe it and teach it, then it becomes a lie. Liars and those liking and carrying on a lie do not inherit everlasting life. (Rev. 21:8; 22:15)
I'll keep the magnifying glass clean, but it is the comments from forum participants like yourself that help me keep it focused.
Comment by Come, Lord Jesus on 2013-11-03 00:56:47
Thank you Meleti for this extraordinary insight on the scriptures. Knowledge carries with it the responsibility for action. If the name Jehovah cannot be restored to the Christian scriptures because it was never there, then is it not your (our) obligation to actually restore the name of the Lord to its rightful, inspired place. This task is self-limited to the 238 emendations of the NWT Committee. Excuse the slowness of my response, but with excitement I have been re-reading the Christian scriptures with this new understanding, to discover the spirit of adoption extended to me by God through brotherhood with the Christ.
Off the top of my head, the name of the meeting place of the congregation must become Kingdom Hall of our Lord and Christ. The new organization name must be Executive Committee of the Christian Congregation of our Lord's Witnesses.
Elders must be appointed by the "laying on of hands" to impart the spirit gifts received from the Lord.
Now that public talks from iPads are permitted from the platform, you and Apollos can rework the outlines into a handy down-load library of ePub slides. A new Memorial Talk needs to be prepared for the Year of our Lord 2014 - or Year 1 - if it be the Lord's will.
No need for Hospital Liaison work, since we spiritual shepherds of the flock of God will no longer be trying to tell the Medical professional how to practice their science.
We could go on at length in this vision, but look! The fields are white and ready for harvesting. Pray to the Lord of the Harvest, etc, etc.
Comment by Fred Franz and the Divine Name in the Greek Scriptures | Beroean Pickets on 2014-01-28 17:56:59
[…] It is a subject that has been discussed extensively on this site. A few months back, Meleti expressed some personal feelings in his article Orphans. […]
Comment by Love Kindness | Beroean Pickets on 2014-02-06 10:58:37
[…] forum to be untrue. We teach that the majority of Christians have no heavenly hope. Again, untrue. We have prophesied falsely about the resurrection coming in 1925. We have given false hope to […]
Comment by Despicable Me Minion Rush Hack on 2014-03-08 03:35:03
Thanks for one's marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed
reading it, you could be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark
your blog and definitely will come back in the foreseeable future.
I want to encourage you to continue your great posts, have a nice evening!
Comment by Leroy on 2014-05-14 01:12:15
Thanks for finally writing about >Orphans | Beroean Pickets <Liked it!
Comment by Are We Apostates? | Beroean Pickets on 2014-05-22 00:08:44
[…] baptized from Christ’s time (C.E. 33) forward to the end should have the heavenly hope. All these should be partaking of the emblems at Memorial time and not just those who claim to be […]
Comment by 2014 District Convention: “Sacred Secrets of the Kingdom Progressively Revealed” | Beroean Pickets on 2014-06-26 08:01:01
[…] we have written extensively on this subject, so we will not repeat those arguments here. (For even more information, click the category “The […]
Comment by WT Study: “You Will Be Witnesses of Me” | Beroean Pickets on 2014-09-22 09:51:53
[…] kingdom. (Mt 6:9) It hasn’t been established yet. The other sheep refer to gentiles, not some secondary salvation classification. The Bible doesn’t speak of a great crowd of other sheep. Therefore, we have changed the good […]
Comment by Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Preach the Vindication of Jehovah’s Sovereignty? | Beroean Pickets on 2015-04-26 07:41:54
[…] See the illustration in chapter 8, paragraph 7 of The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life. [B] See “Orphans” and “Approaching the 2015 Memorial – Part 1” [C] See w10 2/1 p. 30 par. 1; w95 9/1 p. 16 […]
Comment by A Feast to Jehovah | Beroean Pickets on 2015-05-12 12:00:08
[…] addition to distorting the Christian hope such that millions are convinced that they have neither God as their Heavenly Father nor Christ as […]
Comment by oloong on 2015-05-14 18:49:03
I think this touches on the topic I had recently posted to the forum associated with Beroean Pickets @ http://discussthetruth.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=932
My thinking is a bit harsh, to include the use of God's name being a blasphemy even in the Hebrew Scriptures. I feel it may have been a kneejerk reaction to the anger you mention. A "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" (a term a friend, a former Witness who still believes in Christ would use when I told him I had become an atheist) my reaction to the whole mess the WTBS has made of the true Christian teaching.
When I read the NT, I feel it is speaking to me directly, so I've stopped reading it, believing the WT teaching that this is something held out only to those of the anointed. (I am NOT of 'the anointed.' Proof? When I attend the Memorial, the emblems pass by and never once have I been inclined to participate, even when I was convinced, years ago after reading the Freedom of the Sons of God book published by the WTB&TS, that I was).
But this article has rekindled my interest in Jesus as God's Son and the hope he brought to men. Could there be something to all the years I feel I've wasted following the Watchtower teachings?
Very cautiously,
IcarusMournedReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-05-14 20:12:17
I too went through a period where I felt I'd wasted my time in the Organization. Yet, I realize that were it not for the time I'd spent teaching and studying God's word, I would not have the understanding I have today. We are like scientists or doctors laboring for years under the false teachings of our professional community. Much falsehood, but still, built on the foundation of truth. For the scientist, that truth is the natural world around him. For the Christian, it is the Bible. Once I'd discovered that some of the teachings I'd believed were false, I could use the core of truth, God's word, to examine the rest. I allowed me to chip away at all the false teachings. With each revelation, a new vista opened up before me. I have not yet reached the end, but month by month more falsehood falls before the Crystal Blue Persuasion of God's word.
Reply by Karen on 2016-01-22 18:01:36
Thank you mvadmin ... I hope one day I can begin to feel I have not wasted many years of not only my life but the lives of my children .... It is very early days for me and am still overwhelmed by the deceit .... My grieving process is still in shock mode .... Thank you Meleti for the time and effort you take in research and response... I have been invited to share a meal and the memorial with new friends .... I'm thinking this is where I'll be.. Thank you again ....
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2015-05-14 21:05:18
Dear IcarusMourned and Meleti,
This touches me deeply as I've always maintained that JW's did a wonderful job of creating a structure for my children to be trained. Everything I learned was through JW's and I recall the 'Life Everlasting' book with it's timeline chart. I actually mapped the chronology of 7,000 years ending in 1975 (and the suggestive assurance of Armagedden occurring that year)
I learned from my mistakes and understand why some don't. The divisional salvation of anointed and OS is also a false conjecture (typical/antitypical promoter Rutherford teaching Jehu and Jonadab classes, Jehu being the anointed). To me, the New Covenant applies to ALL in Christ. The KINGDOM Covenant was primarily instituted by Jesus but was amalgamated to include the entire NC by Rutherford to separate clergy from laity, the very thing he once condemned in "organized religion." If he has been resurrected to rule with Christ, I wonder whether he might be still calling himself "an ass."
sw
Comment by June 2015 TV Broadcast on tv.jw.org | Beroean Pickets on 2015-06-03 13:29:02
[…] His statement is correct! Unfortunately, this does corroborate our claim in our article “Orphans” that JW.ORG messed with God’s Word and inserted JHWH where it was not […]
Comment by David marks on 2015-12-25 19:18:32
There is a fascinating paper I am reading called 'The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah.' By Gérard Gertoux of Lyon University. I am up to page 56 of 70. It is available for free download from www.academia.edu. It deals with the history of how Jehovah's name ceased to be pronounced and then not used, and how it should be pronounced. It is copiously referenced. I haven't found anything to support adding back Jehovah's name to the Greek scriptures, only the hebrew scriptures. From the quotes it appears gentile Christians of the early 2nd century did not know how to pronounce jehovahs name, which logically is strange if it was written in the Greek scriptures. I would recommend it, as it also has many pictures of manuscripts etc he references.
Comment by Spike on 2016-01-01 00:30:38
Why worry about a made up name? No one in the ancient world ever uttered the word "Jehovah." It cannot exist. It's not a religious issue, but a grammatical one. There is no "J" in Hebrew.
No ancient Christian ever said "Jehovah."
The dishonest leaders of the Watchtower, the same legalistic men who disfellowship those who disagree with their dogma, use a "false stylus." They knowingly misquote scholars, or take quotes out of context to justify their imagined "restoration" of God's "name". Rutherford chose "Jehovah" as his brand name, and the Governing Body protect their brand at all costs.Reply by Bonnie on 2017-10-19 21:14:44
I saw an interview on you tube of an elder on a Christian channel ( amazed me) he did well. Then he admitted, when asked why we use the name Jehovah, that we know His name is Yahweh ( but said it with the breath I just don’t know how to spell it) I was floored! He knew it and knew how to say it! I was so angry. He said they choose Jehovah because it is the most widely know or used name of God. Since when have jw ever done what was widely accepted. They know what they do. And they have changed the constant feature.. the word of God. When you catch sight of the disgusting thing causing desolation ... and like this article put it so well, motives may be good but it doesn’t change the results for disobiedience.
Reply by Bonnie on 2017-10-19 21:17:42
Sorry need to add the interview was in 1989! They have known since the rest of the world found out in the 1930’s the actual pronouncing of His name.
Comment by Karen on 2016-01-22 02:01:47
A very well researched article ....Have you ever considered writing a book? Your article brings to mind another dilemma ..... Who partakes at the Memorial? I do not feel as if I can ever enter a Kingdom Hall again.... So intense is my sense of betrayal and loathing of the RC... My research takes me back to WT information regarding the memorial... I have no idea what to do anymore...
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-22 05:28:21
Most of the small group I associate with have chosen to partake in a small private gathering. Some Skype in. This year, because we've sold up all our goods and are traveling (playing the nomad), I will be partaking with my wife and Skyping in to share virtually with the rest.
I know some still go to the Kingdom hall to partake. I believe it is a matter of conscience as to where one partakes. The only thing that is not optional and not a matter of conscience is the act of partaking itself, since that comes by express command of our Lord.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2016-02-05 10:25:27
Excellent Article. First time I have read it, and very thought provoking. Have been following your site for over a year now, but this is the first time I have commented. And it is not much.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-02-05 11:24:47
Thank you for your comment, Leonardo. Welcome and I hope we'll hear more from you.
Comment by “We Want to Go with You” | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-05-27 12:12:21
[…] Assertion 3: “They are proud to associate with the “spirit anointed” Israel of God.” Only works if there is a distinct class of Christian that are the “Israel of God” while the rest of Christians are to be considered “men of the nations”. (See Orphans) […]
Comment by Be Determined to “Let Your Brotherly Love Continue”! | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-06-27 17:31:31
[…] because they believe in false doctrines like an invisible presence that began in 1914, and in a secondary class of Christian who is not a child of God, and because they give allegiance to a group of men over […]
Comment by 2016, Dec 19-25 – Our Christian Life and Ministry | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-12-19 17:13:22
[…] If the teachings on blood, disfellowshipping, 1914, 1919, the overlapping generations, and the other sheep are false, how can Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid being tarred by the very brush with which they are […]
Comment by The Peace of God…Surpasses All Understanding | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-10-01 18:08:14
[…] Was it all a waste? Was it the will of the Lord that I should spend my youth and vitality supporting an organization run by men teaching a false good news? […]
Comment by Pamela Leonard on 2018-01-23 19:56:12
I am blessed to have found this site. I am one of Jehovah's witnesses, I was baptized 5 years ago. I have had many thoughts and inquiries in my mind concerning many of the topics you talk about. I have an Assembly of God background from childhood. Do you consider yourself one of Jehovah's witnesses? I can see the Bible truths you have found and clung onto, and I appreciate that...I love how you expressed that Jesus taught us that God is our Father...not just a friend...just reading it along with the mentioned scriptures made me so happy!!! Thank you, and I hope to hear a response from you too.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2018-01-23 22:01:17
Hi Pamela, and welcome to our little on-line community. I was raised a Witness, served as an elder for forty years, started to wake up in 2010 and stopped attending meetings just over two years ago. I'll be sharing more about myself soon as I am going to start using the medium of videos to get the message out there.
Comment by Spirit Communication – Discuss the Truth on 2018-07-01 12:22:27
[…] really brings us to the heart of this article. In Meleti’s recent article “Orphans” he has highlighted that the period of Rutherford’s presidency, especially during the […]
Comment by miguel on 2019-02-19 19:45:56
hi , great work , does anyone know the wachtowers where it was explained that only the 144000 are the sons of God? .
thanks