[this article is contributed by Alex Rover]
The theme of the JW.ORG June 2015 TV Broadcast is God’s name, and the program is presented by Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson. [i]
He opens the program saying that God’s name is represented in Hebrew by 4 letters, which can be transliterated into English as YHWH or JHVH, commonly pronounced as Jehovah. While accurate, it is a peculiar statement, because we admit to not knowing the correct pronunciation of God’s name. We only know those four letters. The rest is tradition. The consequence of this statement is that we can use any common pronunciation of those four letters in our language to indicate God’s name, whether it be Yahweh or Jehovah.
Acts 15:14,17
Wasting no time, Geoffrey Jackson continues to quote Acts 15 verses 14 and 17. For proper context, we will not omit any verses:
“14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, 16 ‘After this I will return and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’ says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from long ago.” – Acts 15:14-18
And immediately afterward he states:
“Jehovah has taken out of the nations a people for his name. And we are proud to be the people who bear his name today as Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
The two statements on their own are actually factual:
- It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses today bear God’s name.
- It is also true that God selected out of the nations a people for his name.
But combine the two statements and the Governing Body is here actually suggesting that God himself has called modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses as his unique people out of all the nations. This is presented to us as if it were a proven fact!
A careful examination of Acts 15:14-18 demonstrates that the people taken are actually Israel. The tent of David, the temple of Jerusalem, would be restored one day. Then, the rest of humanity may seek Jehovah through this New Israel with its New Temple and New Jerusalem.
What this means is that the true “Jehovah’s Witnesses” was Israel, as Isaiah 43 declares:
“1 Now, this is what the Lord says, the one who created you, O Jacob, and formed you, O Israel. […] 10 You are my witnesses, says the Lord [Jehovah], my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe in me, and understand that I am he. No god was formed before me, and none will outlive me.” – Isaiah 43
How was the temple of Jerusalem restored? Jesus Christ said:
“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” – John 2:19
He was talking about his own body, which was resurrected after three days. Who are Jehovah’s Witnesses today? In a previous article, we explored the following Scripture:
“And you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root […] and you stand by faith.” – Rom 11:17-24
Quoting from that article:
The olive tree represents the Israel of God under the new covenant. A new nation does not mean the old nation is entirely disqualified, just like a new earth does not mean the old earth will be destroyed, and a new creation does not mean that our current bodies evaporate somehow. Likewise a new covenant doesn’t mean the promises to Israel under the old covenant have been undone, but it means a better or renewed covenant.
Per the prophet Jeremiah, our Father promised the coming of a new covenant which he would make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah:
“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jer 31:32-33)
This shows that Israel never ceased to be. The New Israel is a renewed Israel made up of Christians. Unfruitful branches of the olive tree were pruned out, and new branches were grafted in. The root of the olive tree is Jesus Christ, thus the members of the tree are all those in Christ.
What this means, simply put, is that all true anointed Christians are members of Israel. They are consequently Jehovah’s Witnesses. But wait, aren’t Christians also called Witnesses of Jesus? (Acts 1:7; 1 Co 1:4; Re 1:9; 12:17) [ii]
Witnesses of Jehovah = Witnesses of Jesus?
In the spirit of truth seeking, I wish to share an observation I made about Isaiah 43:10. I discussed this with several of the authors and editors of Beroean Pickets and want to disclose that we are not fully united on this observation. I want to thank Meleti specifically for allowing me to publish this subheading in the spirit of freedom of expression despite his reservations. Imagine if JW.ORG would ever allow such freedom! I also encourage everyone in advance to take full advantage of the discussion forum in regards to this topic.
Please review this scripture again, this time from the New World Translation:
“’You are my witnesses,’ declares Jehovah, ‘Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me and understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, and after me there has been none.’” – Isaiah 43:10 Revised NWT
1. The Father was never formed, so how can this Scripture apply to him? Jesus Christ is the only Begotten.
2. If Jehovah here refers to the Father, then how can it state that after the Father no God was formed? Christ was formed by the Father and was ‘a God’, according to John chapter 1.
3. Why the sudden transition from Jehovah’s Witness to Jesus’ Witness in the New Testament? Did Jesus usurp Jehovah after he came to earth? Could in this verse Jehovah possibly be a manifestation of the Father through Christ? If this was so, then Scripture should declare Israel the people of Christ. This is in harmony with John 1:10, which states that Christ came to his own people.
Perhaps, and I speculate, the name Jehovah was the name THE LOGOS employed whenever he meant to reveal something about his Father to mankind. Jesus himself said:
“The Father and I are one.” – John 10:30
I do believe the Father and the Son are different persons, but based on Isaiah 43:10, I wonder whether the name Jehovah is unique to the Father. On the forum, AmosAU posted a list of Scriptures of the Old Testament where the term YHWH may refer to Christ.
I wouldn’t go as far as to claim that YHWH = Jesus. That is trinitarian error in my view. It’s almost like the word Divine. Jesus is divine (in his Father’s image), Jehovah is divine. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus = Jehovah. I would contend that YHWH is the way mankind knew the Father before Christ came to earth, but that it was actually Christ revealing the Father through the name all along.
Consider this verse:
“no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.” – Matthew 11:27
None in pre-Christian times could know the Father, except through Christ’s revelation of him. How did people know the Father prior to Christ? They knew him as Jehovah. Christ came down to earth to reveal the Father. The Israelites knew the Father as Jehovah, but all they knew about the Father was what Christ himself revealed to them.
So was YHWH a manifestation of the Father through Christ before he came to earth? If so, it makes sense that Christ in Greek Scripture never called his Father by the name Jehovah? He previously made known the True God through the name Jehovah, but now that he had come, it was time to get to know the True God as a personal Father.
4. In whom do we need to have faith according to the Bible? We cannot know Jehovah unless you have “faith in me ” (Isaiah 43:10) I have faith in Christ, so I have come to know the Father through Christ.
Despite this expressed observation and opinion, I think it is fair to continue to use the name Jehovah as a unique name for the Father, because even if the observations have merit, Christ meant for Israel to know his Father through this name prior to his coming. And once on earth, he taught us to honor what this name stood for in relation to his heavenly Father.
Jehovah’s Witnesses = JW.ORG?
So as we have demonstrated from the Scriptures, true Jehovah’s Witnesses are spiritual Israelites. With spiritual, I don’t mean symbolic. I speak of those who value the truth from Scripture, anointed Christians. Why does the Governing Body then say it applies to their modern-day religion? The overwhelming majority of JW.ORG members are not anointed. This group of non-anointed Christians which JW.ORG members call a ‘great crowd of other sheep’ are viewed as antitypical proselytes – foreigners – who in times past “submitted to the Law covenant and worshipped along with the Israelites.”[iii]
This is really an imaginary antitype, because as we have seen, Gentile proselytes to Christianity are grafted into the Olive Tree as new branches of Israel. (Compare Ephesians 2:14) This is why Revelation 7:9-15 describes how the Great Crowd serves in the Holy of Holies (naos). Such a privilege is only held out for anointed Christians, who are made Holy through Christ’s blood.
Only true anointed Christians are Jehovah’s Witnesses. This was the original viewpoint of the Society. The Jonadabs (as they used to call the Great Crowd of Other Sheep), were not spiritual Israelites, not part of the 144,000, and hence did not have the name Jehovah’s Witness. [iv] Accordingly, only a very small minority of JW.ORG members can count themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses today. While this is the Biblical point of view, the Watchtower Society no longer teaches this.
Let’s see the marvelous reasoning they employ to prove that all JW.ORG members are Jehovah’s Witnesses, by means of an analogy:
- Sophia is a representative for the girl scouts.
- I name my daughter Sophia.
- My daughter is the only one named Sophia.
- Hence my daughter is the representative for the girl scouts.
Makes sense right? Except Geoffrey Jackson misrepresents claim 3. He says that Satan made people forget Jehovah’s name, insinuating that JW.ORG are the only ones using God’s name.
A Catholic monk and not JW.ORG is thought to be responsible for first writing down the name of Jehovah in his book Pudego Fidei in 1270 CE. [v] For nearly 700 years afterward, not JW.ORG, but other authors and works preserved the name of Jehovah.
The name Jehovah appeared in John Rogers’ Matthew Bible in 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, Bishop’s Bible of 1568 and the King James Version of 1611. More recently, it has been used in the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version in 1901, and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1961. – Wikipedia
The complete New World Translation did not appear until 1961! But JW.ORG has hardly been the only one to use God’s name in Scripture. Yahweh is to Jehovah what Sofia is to Sophia, they are other ways to spell the same name in modern English. Yahweh, an equally valid preservation of God’s name, can be found in these recent works:
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), the Amplified Bible (1987), the New Living Translation (1996, revised 2007), the English Standard Version (2001), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) – Wikipedia
If we look back at the four-step logical argument above, given that there are many girls named Sophia in the world, would you be able to tell which Sophia is the representative for the girl scouts just by the name? Of course not! Once again, the argumentation appears sound at first glance, but does not withstand scrutiny when viewed in light of the facts.
It was Jehovah himself who named Israel his witness, and Jesus himself who named his disciples as his witnesses. What a contrast with JW.ORG, who appointed themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses, and then claimed they were the only Sophia on earth.
Substituting JHWH with LORD
Then the program goes on to examine some reasons why different translations choose to employ the title LORD or GOD versus using Jehovah. The first reason examined is because translators follow an orthodox Jewish tradition of substituting the word Yahweh by LORD.
Geoffrey Jackson has a valid point in my opinion. It would be much better to leave the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in place, instead of substituting it for LORD. On the other hand, it would be unfair to say that they have removed God’s name from Scripture, since you can argue that in a translation, you remove all Hebrew words and replace them with English words. Also the translators are not dishonest, since the foreword clarifies that every time they print LORD, the original said YHWH or Yahweh.
Then a most revealing statement is made by the Governing Body:
“So it wasn’t the Jewish people who removed God’s name from the Hebrew Scriptures, rather it was the Apostate Christians who took the tradition one step further and actually removed the name of God from the translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.” – (5:50 minutes into the program)
Why didn’t he say: “from the Bible”? Is Geoffrey Jackson implying that they only removed God’s name from the Hebrew Scriptures, but not from the Greek New Testament? Not at all. The truth of this matter is that God’s name does not occur in the New Testament at all. Not even once! So it could not have been removed.[vi] 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 there.
The next argument is that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making the word of God invalid by means of their traditions. But did Jesus Christ specifically have the practice in mind of not speaking God’s name when he said this, or was he teaching that they lacked true love for their neighbor, thus accusing them of “legalism”? Note that the accusation of legalism is often raised against JW.ORG itself, because they make many man-made rules which have become JW traditions, such as not wearing beards. We could devote an entire essay to how JW.ORG has promoted countless traditions of their own, while we often lament the lack of love shown by many rule-loving elders in the congregations.
Geoffrey Jackson gives many more good reasons why Jehovah’s name should not be removed from the Hebrew Scriptures, the most notable argument being that he had his name recorded thousands of times. He says: “if he didn’t want us to use his name, then why did he reveal it to mankind?”
But then we have another lapse of honesty. We are taken to John 17:26 where it is written:
“I made known your name to them, and I will continue to make it known”.
The first problem is that by his own admission, the Jews already knew God’s name. It is recorded thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures. So what did Jesus “make known”? Was it just God’s name, or was it the significance of God’s name? Recall that Jesus revealed the Father to us. He is the visible manifestation of God’s glory. For example: he made it known that God is love, by exemplifying love.
The second problem is that if Jesus truly meant that he was making the name Jehovah known, then why did he address his God as Father and not as Jehovah in the verses immediately preceding John 17:26? Observe:
“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, even if the world does not know you, I know you, and these men know that you sent me.” – John 17:24-25
Obviously Jesus was not teaching us to simply use the appellation, “Jehovah”, but rather to manifest the qualities of his Father by exemplifying God’s love for mankind.
Yahweh or Jehovah?
Joseph Byrant Rotherham used Yahweh in 1902 but a few years later, he published a work where he chose the rendition, Jehovah. Geoffrey Jackson of the Governing Body explains that he continued to prefer Yahweh as a more correct pronunciation, but because he understood that Jehovah as a translation would connect better with his audience, he used it on the principle that easy recognition of the divine name was more important than accuracy.
Jesus’ name was probably pronounced Yeshua or Yehoshua, yet Jesus is far more common in English and thus if translators are at work, they want to make sure the target audience understands exactly who is referred to. A very good argument made is that God allowed the Greek Writers to translate Jesus’ name into the Greek equivalent “Iesous”. This sounds a lot different than Yeshua. Thus we can conclude that the exact pronunciation is not of primary concern, as long as we know who we talk about when using a name.
Geoffrey Jackson points out that Jesus in English has two syllables, whereas the Hebrew equivalents Yeshua or Yehoshua have three and four respectively. He makes this point because Jehovah has three syllables, whereas Yahweh has two. Thus if we care for precision, we might use Yeshua and Yahweh, but if we care to write in modern language, we’ll stick with Jesus and Jehovah.
Before the dawn of the internet, the corpus of books would be the best way to find out which was indeed more popular. And it seems like the word Jehovah was popularized in English in the late 18th century, a hundred years before Charles Taze Russell came on the scene.
What happened since 1950 according to the graph above? Yahweh became more popular in books. So why are we not using Yahweh today? According to Geoffrey we are to use the most common name!
Here is my theory, quite humorous to entertain. Consider this:
The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was released at a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses at Yankee Stadium, New York, on August 2, 1950. – Wikipedia
So I presume that what happened there is that other Christian denominations wanted to distance themselves from Jehovah’s Witnesses and started favoring Yahweh. True that if you do a google search, you will find a lot more mention of “Jehovah” than “Yahweh”. But remove all references to and from “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and I suspect we will find a picture more like the graph above, which only deals with printed books.
In other words, if my theory has any grounds, JW.ORG has done more to depopularize the word Jehovah than any other group. They have adopted the name Jehovah in 1931 and requested a trademark for the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization, aka JW.ORG.[vii] Isn’t that something special, to legally pursue a trademark Jehovah granted specifically to Israel?
Video Review: How can we be sure the Bible is True?
The video states:
“When it mentions scientific matters, what it says should be in harmony with proved science.”
We are not scientists, and do not support any scientific theory over another. On Beroean Pickets we simply believe that God created all things through Christ as Scripture teaches us, and we also agree that scripture and nature are in harmony, because they are both inspired. What Scripture does not state leaves room for interpretation. What Scripture does state should be absolute and true. God’s word is truth. (John 17:17; Psalm 119:60)
But why is JW.ORG deliberately vague in their word choice ‘proved science’? Notice this quote from a pro-evolution website:
It is true that the theory of evolution has not been proven – if, by that term, one means established beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation. On the other hand, neither has atomic theory, the theory of relativity, quantum theory, or indeed any other theory in science. – Patheos
Another interesting aspect of the quote above is ‘when it mentions scientific matters’. We ask: “what is considered scientific matter”? The definition of science is:
“The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
Nothing highlights this more than the next claim:
“When it foretells the future, those prophecies should come true 100% of the time.”
In view of decades of failed prophetic interpretation and setting false expectations (a claim I don’t even need to substantiate because no-one can disagree with it), how have they contributed to belief in the Bible as God’s trustworthy book? They are guilty of turning millions away from God’s word due to their prophecies who did not come true. Instead JW.ORG dishonestly calls it refinement, new light, improved understanding.
While we believe on this site that God’s word is accurate in its predictions, we need to distinguish the theories or interpretation from man with what Scripture actually states. Accordingly, some proclaim that Bible Prophecy for the “Last Days” has started fulfillment. The end has been announced many times, but precisely because the Bible is accurate, these interpretations only proved to match Bible Prophecy partially. If the interpretation is correct, we agree that 100% of the words written concerning the Prophecy need to be fulfilled.
Then the video reveals its true goal. Three questions are raised:
- Who is the Author of the Bible?
- What is the Bible about?
- How can you understand the Bible?
The message is that the beautiful Asian girl cannot find the answer in her Bible by herself, but that Jehovah has provided another written document published by JW.ORG titled “Good News From God”.
Chapter 3 answers the third question “How can you understand the Bible?”
“This brochure will help you to understand the Bible by using the same method that Jesus used. He referred to one Bible text after another and explained ‘the meaning of the Scriptures’”.
In other words, JW.ORG’s brochure will help you to understand the Bible and explain the meaning of the Scriptures to you. But can we trust that this meaning truly comes from God? On this site we continuously point out unscriptural teachings in the written documents of JW.ORG by using God’s Word the Bible.
Just look at the answer to question 2: “What is the Bible about?” The brochure would have you believe the purpose is for you to become Jehovah’s friend rather than his child! What a stark contrast between the Christian hope is presented by the Watchtower and the Christian hope presented in the pages of the Bible!
All this effort to build faith in God’s word the Bible culminates with this message, that we need JW.ORG to understand it. Jehovah could preserve his word for thousands of years, but cannot make it understandable to those who read it without the Watchtower helping you.
[i] http://tv.jw.org/#video/VODStudio/pub-jwb_201506_1_VIDEO
[ii] See: http://meletivivlon.com/2014/03/19/do-jehovahs-witnesses-believe-in-jesus/ and http://meletivivlon.com/2014/09/14/wt-study-you-are-my-witnesses/
[iii] See Questions from Readers, w02 5/1, pp. 30-31
[iv] Watchtower 2/15/1966 paragraphs 15,21
[v] Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 884-5, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses
[vi] See http://meletivivlon.com/2013/10/18/orphans/
[vii] Trademark Application Document from https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/final-outcome-us-trademark-application-no-85896124-jw-org-06420-t0001a-march-12-2014.pdf
How does one explain the verse that says “[…] who calls on the NAME of [the Lord, God, Jehovah] will be saved.” ?
Let’s start by asking, How does one call on the name of Jehovah. Peter tells us: let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, whom you executed on a stake but whom God raised up from the dead, by means of him this man stands here healthy in front of you. 11 This is ‘the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other… Read more »
wow nice post
In his statements under oath, during the Australian Royal Commision’s inquiry into child sexual abuse within religious organizations, Geoffrey Jackson stated that it would be presumptuous to say that the Governing Body is God’s sole channel on Earth.
Just let that sink in for a moment….
For the Bible itself to have any validity, God must have used the Early Church Father’s ( false religion/apostates ) to choose the Bible Canon. I suppose that God also used a Catholic monk to restore the divine name! LOL!
Poor Governing Body….. you can’t have it both ways. LOL!!
One thing that is apparent from this month’s broadcast is that for Jehovah’s Witnesses, what counts is using the name. It seems that if we can help people understand that God has a name, we’ve done our job and can move on. It is a very superficial view. The focus on the name rather than what it represents comes too close to elevating it to the level of sacred talisman, a thought reinforced by the often-misapplied JW pet text of Pr. 18:10. On the other side of the coin are those who obsess about getting the correct pronunciation of the… Read more »
I should make it clear that Ime no hater of Jehovah , but I use that name in the recognition that at best it’s a representation of a name, not a real name, just as Jesus is also.
There is no J sound in Hebrew, so Jehovah is probably not correct, in Hebrew. Many names change somewhat when translated. Personally I still like to use the name Jehovah because it is the name I first learned when I first came to know the heavenly Father as a someone, rather than as a something. It has become a name I love, just as I love the Father. I can’t say I know what he thinks, but I’ve prayed about this and I feel as if he understands my personal intentions in continuing to use it. I think the God… Read more »
Truthseeker, read the book I linked above. It actually argues that the original pronunciation was lost and that there is much debate, but no conclusive answer to how it’s supposed to be pronounced (though advocates from either side would want to do so). What’s interesting is that the scholar makes a survey of how the name was supposedly pronounced over different time periods. There is no doubt that the Devine name was pronounced differently by different groups of people over history. At one point for instance Jah-Jah/Jeh-Jeh was used. While linguistically ultimately there was one true pronunciation, factually peoples have… Read more »
This is a good resource for the above discussion. I recommend reading it to get a good scholarly analysis of the topic.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k9JEAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=YHWH+pronunciation&ots=WPKnDF3omf&sig=tGr5Mx5Ym0rv4b_V54WncDJWFrY#v=onepage&q=YHWH%20pronunciation&f=false
Ezek 34:15-31 15 ‘I’ll graze My sheep and give them rest, says Jehovah the Lord. 16 I’ll search for those who are wandering and lost, and I’ll return all those that are broken; I will bind and strengthen those that are weak; I’ll guard the strong and graze them in fairness. 17 And from among you, My sheep, says Jehovah the Lord, {Look!} I’ll separate sheep from the sheep among you, and the rams from the goats. 18 ‘Weren’t the pastures you fed on enough, that you trampled on them with your feet; or enough places where you drank the… Read more »
I have a few Jewish friends who I speak to occasionally, their consensus on the divine name is that it should have 4 syllables and not just include the vowels.
The other problem for me personally is that the name Jehovah doesn’t have a Jewish origin, it’s Latin as has been pointed out in the previous comments .
Of course if you accept the premise that Jehovah has used other religions then the Latin transliteration is no big deal,but you won’t read that in a watchtower will you?
Jehovah does have a Jewish origin it is Yehowah. What origin to you think you are using when you use the name Jesus?
Hebrew – Yehoshua > Greek – Iesous > Latin – Iesus > English – Jesus
That’s the whole point,the word you describe only has 3 syllables,a true Hebrew rendering would have 4,you deceive yourself, if what you say is true it would have been published by now and would be openly acknowledged as correct,I suggest you contact the writing dept at bethel and tell them, they would be on to it like a seagull on a potato chip.
I don’t know in what way you say that I am deceiving myself but feel free to scroll through these names and tell me if you come across any that are not 4 syllables and if so then does that mean it is not a true Jewish name???
http://www.behindthename.com/names/usage/hebrew
Hi Wild Olive, I have found your experiences very interesting. Thanks for sharing. The question about there being four vowels in the divine name can be better understood in light of Joshephus’ testimony. Although in his antiquities he refused to reveal God’s name, he did state that it contained four vowels when he wrote about the Jewish war. In this work he described the relief inscription on the crown of the high priest as having four vowels (cf. The Jewish War v:235). However, just as we know today, Josephus also knew that there were no vowels in Biblical Hebrew. What… Read more »
I am wondering why my Yeho/yah reply has not gone through yet, but anyway while reading Kat’s and BN’s reply it made me think of the new brochure Tony Morris was speaking about, ‘Return to Jehovah’. In his presentation of it he cites Ezekiel 34:11, but what I thought was note worthy is when reading Ezekiel 34 1-16 we see why it is in verse 11 that Jehovah must search for his sheep, we see who caused the sheep to become lost, dispersed, scattered, sickened, ailing and broken.
Thank you Katrina.
I see it like this too. The ‘woman’ in Rev 12:6, 14, 17 is fed outside, in the wilderness. So I am absolutely convinced that Jesus now is harvesting, calling on / out faithfull ones!
The last two years has been like a roller coast in revelations. It’s like reading an entire new bible, and my journey has always been about the scriptures..
My eyes are finally wide opened!
yes thanks as well katrina i also see things like that as well , i think it could well be true of all organised religion . a consistant pattern seems to be in place right through the ages . kwv
Faithful prophets were often outcasts. God’s prophets—faithful individuals—often found themselves outcasts, reproved and disfellowshipped by the governmental and priestly organizations. Jeremiah, for example, was accused of disloyalty when he urged fellow Jews to leave the ‘organization’ of his day, telling them “that everyone remaining in Jerusalem would die…but anyone surrendering to the Babylonians would live”.(Jer. 38:2 LB) Those loyal to the organization viewed Jeremiah as an apostate rebel and turned a deaf ear to his advice. Rather than join with the Babylonians as God commanded, they felt safer staying within Jerusalem, the headquarters of Jehovah’s organization where His king and… Read more »
Thanks, Katrina. A good review of the history of Jehovah’s dealings with faithless organizations purporting to honor his name. I’ve often heard the comeback from conflicted brothers and sisters not wanting to abandon the crutch which is their belief that the JW organization is Jehovah’s one true people, that Jehovah will fix it in his own time, or we have to wait on Jehovah to fix the organization. The fact is that all Christian churches are his organization and as with Israel, he tries to fix them by sending his prophets. However, when they fail to listen to them, when… Read more »
Yehoshafat – Jehovah Is Judge Jehoshaphat -Jehovah Is Judge Yehoram – Jehovah Is Exalted Jehoram – Jehovah Is Exalted Yehoshua – Jehovah Is Salvation Jehoshua – Jehovah Is Salvation In Yeho/Jeho you find vowels e and o. Isaiah – Salvation of Jehovah Jeremiah – Jehovah Exalts Zephaniah – Jehovah Has Concealed Obadiah – Servant of Jehovah In iah you find vowel a. (In Hebrew the I’s were Y’s so shouldn’t be used as a vowel here. The main point is that Yeho/Jeho and yah/iah are the parts in these names that represent God’s name and the rest represents the said… Read more »
Quote- The truth of this matter is that God’s name does not occur in the New Testament at all. Not even once! So it could not have been removed. – end quote http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah [In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Adonai Septuagint and other Greek translations [The oldest complete Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) versions, from around the 2nd century CE, consistently use Κυριος (“Lord”),[65] or Θεος (“God”),[66][67]where the… Read more »
QSPF said: My only conclusion is that God is not as fussy as people are about this matter And also said: If we have to be like a world-renounced religious historian or theologian to figure out how to say God’s name properly, isn’t God taking away the truth from “babes” and “giving it back” to the wise and intellectual ones? I agree. Only the Father knows His Name and how it should be pronounced. All us on earth an guess as for every option proposed, there seems to be another option possible as well. If I would go sailing with… Read more »
Speaking of needing our spelling mistakes corrected, I wrote “world-renounced” instead of “world-renowned”. oops…
Ah, to have the ability to post-edit our posts …
Not all occurrences of God’s name were transcribed accurately. Gnosticism was a pagan syncretistic religion that idolized a demigod named Iao, pronounced Yao. In approximately 200BC, this appears in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible as an inaccurate version of God’s name, perhaps being confused with God’s poetic shortened name, Yah (Bethge, 1990). Clement of Alexandria seems to have received this version of God’s name from the Greek translation of the Hebrew. He wrote out God’s name as Iaou, which in English is pronounced Yao (Koltz, 1832, p. 26). In subsequent copies of Clement’s manuscripts, the name is further… Read more »
Peter, Allow me to commend you for this very comprehensive (and deep) insight to the Tetragramaton. It seems like tracking down the right way to say this is like the plot of a mystery novel. I personally would not have figured out 1/10 of the details you wrote about. And, unfortunately is much of the problem in all this. Suppose I wanted to independently verify your account. It would be very difficult for me to track down all these sources, confirm that they are all correct and that your conclusion is properly drawn, And supposing I wanted to refute any… Read more »
qspf i would direct you to a book by a Hebrew scholar by the name of Nehemia gordon the book is called …Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence: The Hebrew Power of the Priestly Blessing Unleashed. he addresses the whole name issues and quotes all hebrew sources.
Hi Peter, Thanks for your research. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the best external attestation for the pronunciation of God’s name as being YaHWeH is taken from the Samaritan IABE – a religious order that was founded upon the intentional efforts to be different to, and separate from, their Jewish brothers. Yet, it seems quite evident that within the form of Jewish theophoric names – where there is little dispute as to pronunciation – the Samaritan expression is shown to be a barbarism. Many years ago I was in correspondence with a Semitic scholar working on the formative history of… Read more »
Hi Peter It seems you copy pasted an entry from this blogpost: http://www.sabbathreformation.com/article-the-pronunciation-of-the-name-by-nehemia-gordon-99715544.html Are you it’s author? I do have a few objections against what they claim. They use typical straw man arguments. One example is this: “The second problem with the claim that YHVH has the vowels of Adonai is quite simply that it does not! The vowels of Adonai אֲדׁנָי are A-O-A (hataf patach – cholam – kamats). In contrast, the name YHVH is written יְהוָה with the vowels e—A (sheva – no vowel – kamats). Now in every other instance of Qere-Ketiv, the Ketiv, written in the… Read more »
Really? you think this guy is a consensus scholar? Carl A. Raschke is the Chair and Professor of Religious Studies Department at the University of Denver, specializing in continental philosophy, the philosophy of religion and the theory of religion.. I don’t think having a degree in philosophy and theory of religion makes him a true consensus scholar of biblical Hebrew, much less he may have any true understanding of the linguistic and textual issues. The evidence is on the Hebrew manuscripts themselves, and what makes it even more propelling is that the main two Manuscripts the aleppo codex which was… Read more »
Peter
You made the claim that scholars say that YHVH has the vowels of adonai.
Produce me a couple of consensus scholars which fit the requirements you deem worthy who claim this. The burden of proof is at your end there.
Also, your argument from authority against Carl Raschke is a logical fallacy again.
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
Can I ask where his argument fall short in your opinion?
thanks peter . i have read things like that about the name yahweh as well., it seems to me theres so many different viewpoints on these things that its very difficult to be sure . it seems to me one of the problems we may have in translation from hebrew into other languages greek , latin, english . is that these words are translated to according to the equivalent in the said culture and language . eg petit dejeuner .small dinnner = breakfast . thats the way we see and describe things in english . . Innocent enough in most… Read more »
Hi Alex, Although I wasn’t able to agree with your entire monograph, you made your case well and backed it up with references. Nicely done! We know that the Tetragram has not been found in any extant NT manuscript, and as you pointed out, it seems quite reasonable to draw conclusions from this. Nevertheless, I’d like to highlight a few interesting facts regarding the divine name and its omission from the NT. Today, it is common knowledge that most translations have introduced a surrogate where the Tetragram appears – in most cases rendering it as either GOD or LORD (hO… Read more »
Hi Vox Ratio, thank you for your input as always. Now that you mention these things, I do appreciate your comment because things are not always 100% sure, and in that case we need to temper our claims to certainty. I was recently also reminded of this when I was reviewing the Khabouris Codex and Peshitta. Here they replace YHWH by MarYa in the Peshitta Tanakh. Mar is Aramaic for Lord and Ya represents Yah or Yahweh, so MarYa means Lord Yahweh or Lord Jehovah. In other words, the Peshitta continues to use the name of Jehovah. In case of… Read more »
Hi Alex, Your section: Witnesses of Jehovah = Witnesses of Jesus?
Isa 43:10 – I thought this scripture was along the lines as at Deut 6:4.
With regard to scriptures in the OT where YHWH may refer to Christ – could this not just be in relation to the principle of agency?
Hi Skye,
possibly. Do you have any reference material where we can see the agent using the name of the one who he represents?
Hi Alex, the principle of agency is used extensively in scripture, as you know. eg Matt 8:5-13 (Luke 7:1-10), Ex 4:16; Ex 7:17-21; Gen 16:7-14. What about Jesus Christ? In the OT Christ had not appeared on the scene (earth) to take up the role of Messiah, and it appears that titles were not given to him until that time; and so in the OT these titles were held by God. However, in the NT these titles are now given to God’s beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. This would be appropriate because Jesus and God work in perfect harmony… Read more »
What’s in a name.
Speaking about names: why was Jacob renamed “Is-ra-el”?
perhaps this may be of interest to you:
https://www.edx.org/course/jesus-scripture-tradition-notredamex-th120-1x
I began to struggle with the pronunciation thing a while back. I felt uncomfortable calling God by a name that might not be the correct way of saying it . .and an English pronunciation of a name that might not be correct, at that. When I’ve talked with people from other countries: Polish, French, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, Indiana. . they all called me by my name. though maybe with an accent. They didn’t translate it into their own language the way the Society does with ‘Jehovah’ for the foreign literature. I mean, goodness.. even Coca Cola is pronounced Coca Cola… Read more »
One more consideration is that Jesus is Jehovah’s Witness, since he is the one who witnesses or testifies about the Father.
Jesus is also Israel, God’s Son, the root of the Olive Tree.
You agree with G Jackson that the tetragrammaton can be accurately translated JHWH? Surely this is not true! YHWH is i believe the only true translation. The so called divine name ‘Jehovah’ originates with a catholic benedictine monk of the 12th century named Martini.
Hi Anointed1, I wrote “trans-li-terated” not “translated”. The definition of transliteration is: write or print (a letter or word) using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language. 1. He said the name of God is represented by the tetragrammaton. This is correct. 2. He said it can be transliterated as Jehovah or Yahweh. This is correct too. What is peculiar is he called YHWH the representation of the name of God in that statement, he didn’t say Jehovah is. I thought that’s peculiar coming from the Governing Body, albeit correct! Also a reference to the catholic monk… Read more »
It is fairly well known that “Jehovah” was first used by the Spanish monk Raymundus Martini in his book Pugeo Fidei in the year 1270, although the word appears to have existed for some time earlier than that. (There is a nice Wiki article about the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah ). What I have never understood is the great anger and disdain that the ex-JW and dissenter community often display when this subject comes up. The people who seem the most irritated by this never seem to actually come out and say what’s on their mind. But, based on the general… Read more »
Looking at the verses at acts 15 v 14 to 17 i would not be suprised if far to much has been made of this phrase for his name . I think its could mean just a people belonging to him . Even at isaiah 43 v10 his servants are not directly called jehovahs wirtnesses . Even in the NWT . IT just says you are my WITNESSES . says jehovah. Or YHWH in reality . as far as i am aware gods people were called israelites or jews in the bible . Members of the new covenant were called… Read more »
I agree with you Kev.
The other day I was thinking that if I translated the Bible I would not substitute YHWH for Jehovah or Lord or Yahweh. I would just leave it as YHWH. Who can take exception to that? Then everyone can pronounce it as they please.
I consider it noteworthy the number of words that have been expended over the centuries by so many over the precise way that Hebrew letter YHWH ought to be pronounced, if at all. We are led to believe, by some, that unless we utter this word exactly the same as native speakers of ancient Hebrew did, we will not have God’s approval. No matter that there ARE no native speakers of ancient Hebrew alive (modern Hebrew doesn’t count), nor did the writers of the scrolls correctly vowel-point these letters to help us, nor did they provide any other explanation how… Read more »
Thank you for your comment qspf. I don’t agree with what you wrote toward the end: “It means that mere imperfect, sinful man could come to be on good terms, even friendly terms, with Him. That is a concept and a prospect that the OT does not really hold out for us.” Israel knew Jehovah as a Father, AS A GROUP (Israel was called Jehovah’s son), not as individuals. I agree with that. But they could definitely come to good terms with God. The Law was perfect, and Israel knew that even though they couldn’t keep the law perfectly, they… Read more »
I don’t think we really disagree. Consider that where I live, I have a mayor, a governor and a president above me. If I obey the laws I am subject to, I would be on good terms with these leaders, but I’d never be on a first name basis, nor would they be as close to me as a real father would be. Same here. The Jews could try to be faithful and obedient, as far as possible, and if they did, they would be on good terms with Jehovah as the God and King above them. But would they… Read more »
Might I suggest that the use of acronyms be identified. I believe there are many readers of this forum that are not JWs and therefore might not understand what you are referring to.. Or perhaps provide an acronym listing that someone can refer to so they better understand what is being said. Just a thought.
YHWH is not an acronym but the 4 consonants in hebrew for God’s name. They did not write vowels down.
JW stands for Jehovah’s Witness
JW.ORG stands for Jehovah’s Witness Organization embodied by the website with that domain name
those three should be by large the only ones I used in the article. Sometimes you might see GB for Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
NT stands for New Testament
OT stands for Old Testament
NWT stands for New World Translation
other Bible Translation Acronyms can be found online and are common,
like NKJV New King James Version, etc.
Hi alskadedotter2,
Welcome to the forum!
Meleti
How Is God’s Name Pronounced? The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants—not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God’s name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants……….. Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their… Read more »
Thank you miken, I agree with your conclusion.
I just thought that JWs try not to use Jesus Christ much in their meetings in order to appear different from mainstream Christian denominations and not be associated with Christendom. But what kind of argument is this if it sacrifices the very core of Jesus teachings?
Jesus is gradually being squeezed out of JW theology in some ways subtly in others not so subtly. I don’t think it is insignificant that Jesus is missing from the Watchtower April 15, 2013 p29 organization picture. In the recent booklet Return To Jehovah on page 13, 1 Peter 2:25 is cited in support of returning to Jehovah. To Quote:- “Your situation will be similar to that of some first-century Christians, to whom the apostle Peter wrote: “You were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.”—1 Peter 2:25. Returning to… Read more »
The changes references are telling evidence of the trend away from Jesus. Thank you for sharing those with us, Miken.
You’re absolutely right. I actually got called into the back room by the elders with murmurs of apostasy on my part simply because I pointed out that picture in the April 15, 2013 Watchtower about Jesus not being in the picture. True story. And attributing 1 Peter 2:25 to jehovah instead of Christ has been the case for years now. I pointed this out to my mother back when it popped up in the Jeremiah book.
Amazing … the verse at 1 Peter 2:25 has 3 cross-references to NT verses showing Christ to be the shepherd, but the 2013 rNWT has 2 cross-references to OT verses showing Jehovah to be the shepherd. It does seem like they are systematically trying to erase Christ every chance they get.
You might find it informative to see how this trend has changed over time. Go to the WT Library CD, and look up all references for Jehovah and God. Since the Watchtower magazine is published every year and has everything to say about everything, it’s a good place to look, so limit your search there. Now, do the same searches for Jesus and Christ. If you add up the God/Jehovah references and the Jesus/Christ references, you will see that over time that there have been fewer and fewer references to Jesus. Like all statistics, things vary, but if you were… Read more »
John 14:6 “Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Rom 5:10,11 “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” Eph 2:12,13 “remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the… Read more »