The atheist argument - explanation and advice.

I don't think calling God 'Jehovah' will get anybody sent to hell, so it's not a big issue.
Personally I prefer to call him 'God', because putting a name on him like 'Jehovah' seems a bit disrespectful..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/moses-bush.gif

The word "Jehovah" is based on the Jewish verb "to be" (ye-ho-wa), meaning "he who is", or "I am that I am", the reply that was given to Moses when he asked God's name at the burning bush.
It was God's way of saying "I'm too AWESOME to have a label slapped on me!"

"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:13:14)

skip to 2 mins 28 secs

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Hilarious. Its disrespectful to call him by the name he gave to Moses, but removing every instance of your gods name from scripture is heresy?

Now if I were the devil would I want your gods name to be known or forgotten... hmmm

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

The tetragrammaton appears about 7000+ times in the scriptures. It's only literal translation is Yahweh or Jehovah. Jesus told us to revere it. But you think it is disrespectful.
What of hallelujah?
Or Jesus, meaning Jehovah's Salvation?
I'm sorry now to have said things about you that you considered disrespectful. I should have given more attention to your level.

1 Reply

@neologist,

As God is the Tetragrammaton, surely the correct form of address should be Mr. T.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_04kZGR_ltmE/Su5P2RkiKAI/AAAAAAAAFAY/RZUi3MV1T9w/s800/Mr-T-Rolex-President.jpg

Maybe that's why the A Team got out of so many scrapes.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Pretty dizzy, izzy.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/neon_tetra-16.jpg

Here's the tetra

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Personally I prefer to call him 'God', because putting a name on him like 'Jehovah' seems a bit disrespectful.

And putting limited concepts like "God" on it, and calling it "he" aren't disrespectful?

0 Replies

@neologist,

There is no reason to assume anything. The point is that the JW's redact those Koine Greek words instead of translating them directly based on theological assumptions.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

No reason other than sound reason. The basis of Christianity depends on fulfilling the purpose of the Creator. The certainty of his purpose is contained in the name Jesus taught his followers to revere. There would be no reason to concude the lesson would be forgotten by the first century disciples.

1 Reply

@neologist,

This apologia is a red-herring that does not address the fact that the JW's redact the Bible for theological purposes, and only serves to reinforce the charge.

This reliance on assumptions undermines your claim that "the Bible" is unambiguous, let alone the assertion that the JW's are prefectly willing to use the King James Version.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

If you wish for me to use the KJV answering you, just say so.

It will not change God's name or the admonition for Christians to revere it,

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

If you wish for me to use the KJV answering you, just say so.

It will not change God's name or the admonition for Christians to revere it,

And this will not change the fact that the JW's redact "the Bible."

2 Replies

@neologist,

I feel the same, I'm not changing Mr T's name for anyone.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Yes. Just full of spuriuos redactions. None without reason. I do believe my examination of the sources is equal to any on this board.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I've done it for Romeo enough times, I guess I help out here too, the assertion that the hovis biscuits redact their own bible is one I used to hold. I have since been corrected,

Quote:

A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation". BeDuhn said the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God", adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament

So for accuracy it is pretty good, they are however guilty of putting the name of god in a few too many times, but I'm not sure that changes the meaning of Any individual scripture. Don't be fooled by propaganda, go neutral for the better info.

2 Replies

@Calamity Dal,

Calamity Dal wrote:

. . hovis biscuits . .. .

That's a new one. Reminds me of dominoes and biscuits.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Yes. Just full of spuriuos redactions. None without reason. I do believe my examination of the sources is equal to any on this board.

All of this, as well, doesn't negate the fact that the JW's redact "the Bible,” your beliefs about the equality of your examination of the sources to any on this board notwithstanding. You believe that these theologically motivated redactions are justified. In this we disagree.

1 Reply

@Calamity Dal,

Calamity Dal wrote:

So for accuracy it is pretty good, they are however guilty of putting the name of god in a few too many times, but I'm not sure that changes the meaning of Any individual scripture. Don't be fooled by propaganda, go neutral for the better info.

For general accuracy most are pretty good, but that's not the point. The point is that the JW's redact as much as any other theologically motivated translators, the King James Version was theologically motivated. It wasn't honest for neologist to claim that he'd be perfectly willing to use the King James Version as though he’d do it without qualifications in regard to the redactions that I’ve pointed out. There is nothing propagandistic about the issues I've brought up.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Still. If you wish to use the KJV for a discussion, I will be happy to oblige. The Watchtower Society used it until the 50s and got along fine.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Nothing new about it, they've been around for yonks.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2072786003_8540e90af6.jpg

1 Reply

I don't think anybody cares what Bible version JW's use, it's their INTERPRETATION of it that puzzles people.
For example they're against transfusions, they don't celebrate christmas/easter/birthdays, they think church spires are pagan, they won't fight in wars, they say Jesus was crucified on a stake, that there's no hell, and they think the rest of us poor dumb schmucks know nothing-
"If you try to study the Bible without our help, you go into darkness" (JW Watchtower 15 Sep 1910,page 298 )
For example a JW here in A2K has called me-
"ignorant...possibly malicious ...Fable Spinner...your drivel ...your desire to deceive"

Incidentally there are indications that JW-ism is a flip-flop belief; for example their publications (below) used to show Jesus on a cross, but later they changed their mind and decided he was crucified on a stake-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/JW-books_zps6886248d.jpg~original

3 Replies

The atheist argument - explanation and advice.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know