"Babylon the Great"

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lover of History

Northants, England

Joined
15 Feb 05
Moves
320244
29 Dec 21

@galveston75

So we agree that it can be tampered with. It has been doctored to remove Jehovahs own name from his own book (I can’t think of anything worse), so I don’t think that taking a book or two out is impossible?

Lover of History

Northants, England

Joined
15 Feb 05
Moves
320244
29 Dec 21

@Rajk999

I would only agree to ice if it was VERY hot.

R
Standard memberRemoved

Joined
25 Nov 21
Moves
1990
29 Dec 21

How many versions of the Holy Bible existed before say the 1970s? I honestly don’t know but am guessing most versions are relatively modern.

Lover of History

Northants, England

Joined
15 Feb 05
Moves
320244
29 Dec 21

@PB1022

I suspect that you are right.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
29 Dec 21

@medullah said
@galveston75

So we agree that it can be tampered with. It has been doctored to remove Jehovahs own name from his own book (I can’t think of anything worse), so I don’t think that taking a book or two out is impossible?
Exactly....

The Encyclopedia of the Bible says: “Jehovah, or rather Jahweh, is the actual, strictly personal ‘proper name’ of God of Israel.” The Protestant New Bible Dictionary states: “Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only ‘name’ of God. In Genesis wherever the word shem ‘name’ is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh. When Abraham or Isaac built an altar ‘he called on the name of Yahweh.’”

The French Dictionnaire de la Bible (Dictionary of the Bible), edited by the Catholic priest F. Vigouroux, says: “Jehovah, the personal name of God in the Old Testament. No divine name is so frequently used in the Hebrew Bible. It is repeated about "6000" times, either alone or with another divine name.”

Jehovah, Jahweh, Yahweh​—these are various ways in which the divine name is rendered from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into English. This name was used in normal conversation in ancient times, to distinguish the true God from false gods. Except at Psalm 83:18 and a few other verses, the King James translation of the Bible generally uses the word “LORD” instead of God’s name. However, a number of Bible translations correctly retain God’s true name wherever it appeared in the language in which the Bible originally was written, spelling it either “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.”

( Did you happen to notice that number of 6000? That's just in the Hebrew scriptures where his name has been removed in most bibles. No wonder the trinity doctrine is so easily pushed into peoples minds for so many to believe.)

Lover of History

Northants, England

Joined
15 Feb 05
Moves
320244
29 Dec 21

@galveston75

I like you choice of thread by the way, it’s a great subject.

Lover of History

Northants, England

Joined
15 Feb 05
Moves
320244
29 Dec 21

@galveston75

On the subject of the Tetragrammaton, did you know that the Greeks were inclined to refer to it as “pi pi” as in the mathematical term?

Lover of History

Northants, England

Joined
15 Feb 05
Moves
320244
29 Dec 21

@galveston75 said
Oh for sure it can be. I wouldn't want to be the ones that have done that. But if one "test scripture with scripture" and does a little research and deeply prays to Jehovah, he will make sure you get the correct understandings from him in the bible.
The constant bashing the Witnesses get is that we've changed the bible to suit our needs or beliefs
This isn’t a trick question, and I certainly don’t know the answer, but as the JWs went back to Jehovah as opposed to “God” or “Lord” in their translations, is there a reason why they didn’t go the whole hog and refer to Jesus as “Yeshua” which I think is a nicer sounding rendition ?

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
29 Dec 21

@medullah said
This isn’t a trick question, and I certainly don’t know the answer, but as the JWs went back to Jehovah as opposed to “God” or “Lord” in their translations, is there a reason why they didn’t go the whole hog and refer to Jesus as “Yeshua” which I think is a nicer sounding rendition ?
Will get back to you later. Wife's getting off work. Gotta pay attention to her now. Lol

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
30 Dec 21

@medullah said
@galveston75

I like you choice of thread by the way, it’s a great subject.
Thanks. This subject usually gets a good response.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
30 Dec 21

@medullah said
@galveston75

On the subject of the Tetragrammaton, did you know that the Greeks were inclined to refer to it as “pi pi” as in the mathematical term?
No I didn't know that.....Thanks.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
30 Dec 21

@medullah said
This isn’t a trick question, and I certainly don’t know the answer, but as the JWs went back to Jehovah as opposed to “God” or “Lord” in their translations, is there a reason why they didn’t go the whole hog and refer to Jesus as “Yeshua” which I think is a nicer sounding rendition ?
Yes I like the way Yeshua sounds too. But the name Jesus is one that has been established as God's sons name on the planet.
But the name Jehovah again has been removed completely in a few Bible's. But the trick is to look at the word "LORD". All capital would be referring to Jehovah.
So if other bibles have at least kept that correct then at least you know it is Jehovah it's speaking of. Jesus would be "Lord".
Knowing this really changes a lot on the old trinity teaching.....

F

Joined
28 Oct 05
Moves
34587
30 Dec 21

@galveston75 said
Yes I like the way Yeshua sounds too. But the name Jesus is one that has been established as God's sons name on the planet.
Why would the English version of the name be "established" by God "on the planet"? There are many languages around the aforementioned planet. Here in Indonesia, "Jesus" is known as Yesus [or Isa by Muslims]. In Hebrew, it is Yeshua, for example. God in Indonesian is both "Tuhan" and "Allah" for both Christians and Muslims.

R
Standard memberRemoved

Joined
03 Jan 13
Moves
13080
30 Dec 21
3 edits

I want to speak more about Babylon the subject of the OP yet with the positive angle which is needed.

Revelation 19 contains the only Hallelujahs in the New Testament. This expression of high praise is reserved for God's people rejoicing in heaven that Babylon is being judged.

"After these things I heard as it were a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, Hallelujah! The salvation and the glory and the power or of our God." (19:1)

These will be Christians who have been raptured from earth to heaven for a period of time. They rejoice that one of the main impediments to their grow is finally being done away with.

"For true and righteous are His judgments; for He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and He avenged the blood of His slaves at her hand." (v.2)

Hallelujah is reserved in the New Testament until this event. Some of them were damaged and captured by Babylon. Now they have been raptured from the earth to heaven and raise Hallelujahs that their and God's enemy is undergoing vengeance and judgment.

"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! And her smoke goes up forever and ever. And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped God, who sits upon the throne, saying, Amen, Hallelujah." (v.4)

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
36777
30 Dec 21

@galveston75 said
Oh for sure it can be. I wouldn't want to be the ones that have done that. But if one "test scripture with scripture" and does a little research and deeply prays to Jehovah, he will make sure you get the correct understandings from him in the bible.
The constant bashing the Witnesses get is that we've changed the bible to suit our needs or beliefs. But to the contrary w ...[text shortened]... o get out of her" Christendom, which is filled with teachings still practiced with pagan influences.
You have GOT to be kidding with this post.

But I know you're not, so...