Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mangling his text??? my dear, we have produced the most accurate and sublime
translation on the planet, why would God be displeased with that, what are you going to
tell him when he asks why your translators have removed the divine name from their
translations where it occurs over 7,000 times, in whole or in part? its gonna be roasty
toasty for you.

wow, I don't even know why he'd ask me why we don't plaster our holy book with His name, when the Jews are actually forbidden to write or vocalize it.

I'd ask you to actually show me where the original text says 'Jehovah' an additional 237 times more than what is shown in the KJV, since the tetragrammaton does not appear at all in the Greek manuscripts. (and wow, 7,000 times you say? oh, wait, you mean in the OT. still, see below)

I'd also remind you that 'Jehovah' isn't exactly as accurate a translation of the tetragrammaton as you claim the NWT to be. (i.e. the tetragrammaton is not the same as the word 'Jehovah' )

Originally posted by Suzianne
wow, I don't even know why he'd ask me why we don't plaster our holy book with His name, when the Jews are actually forbidden to write or vocalize it.

I'd ask you to actually show me where the original text says 'Jehovah' (see below) an additional 600+ times more than what is shown in the KJV. (and wow, 7,000 times you say? then I suppose according to aim the NWT to be. (i.e. the tetragrammaton is not the same as the word 'Jehovah' )

forbidden, where were they forbidden to write or utter it????

(John 17:25, 26) . . .Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you;
but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth.
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.”

how could Christ make the name known if he was not permitted to utter that name?
yo messin with the wrong guy suzianne. If you want to discuss scripture fine, but
make sure your assertions are based on scripture or you will be roasty toasty every
time.

we have a reference for all but one of the times we have restored the divine name.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
forbidden, where were they forbidden to write or utter it????

(John 17:25, 26) . . .Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you;
but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth.
[b]And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order
that the love with which you loved ...[text shortened]... ry
time.

we have a reference for all but one of the times we have restored the divine name.[/b]

You have not restored the Divine name of God. You present only a distorted version of the name that was plagiarized from the King James translators of the Holy Bible.

Jesus came in the name of the heavenly Father and even had His name. Yahshua - YAH saves. The true pronunciation of God's name is seen in the "praise to the Lord" - Hallelu YAH. YAHWEH is sometime presented as a long form of God's name, however only YAH meaning "I AM" in English is the true name of God. This was the name Christ declared to the Pharisee when He said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
(John 8:58 NASB)

Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
(John 8:59 NASB)

Originally posted by Suzianne
Nice.

Atheists now use the JW arguments. Not sure if that says more about the atheists or more about JWs.

You want relevance?

In twhitehead's post, he also tried to use the JW arguments. The problem is that he also used the word 'crucify' or its forms at least as often as he used the Greek words.

He used the word Crucify, I use it, you use it, ...[text shortened]... e best arguments. You'd do better to find another resource for your "facts".

i haven't used a single jw argument. my arguments comes from rationality and logic. they have nothing to do with discussions you are having with others. and since we are talking about the bible, i do use the bible as a source. your deflective arguments are nonsensical.

further, the modern term for 'crux' has expanded somewhat over the centuries. i think someone did point out the 'crux simplex' earlier. this is not a jw argument, it's been around for centuries. one of us does need to find new sources. it is not i.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i haven't used a single jw argument. my arguments comes from rationality and logic. they have nothing to do with discussions you are having with others. and since we are talking about the bible, i do use the bible as a source. your deflective arguments are nonsensical.

further, the modern term for 'crux' has expanded somewhat over the centuries. i ...[text shortened]... t, it's been around for centuries. one of us does need to find new sources. it is not i.

Plagiarism just like the JWs. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have not restored the Divine name of God. You present only a distorted version of the name that was plagiarized from the King James translators of the Holy Bible.

Jesus came in the name of the heavenly Father and even had His name. Yahshua - YAH saves. The true pronunciation of God's name is seen in the "praise to the Lord" - Hallelu YAH. YAHWEH i ...[text shortened]... nes to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
(John 8:59 NASB)

yawn, the name has been around for centuries, is found on coins, churches and other religious edifices, you don't know anything.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

you will be banned for spamming!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you will be banned for spamming!

Tried to message you 😕

Originally posted by divegeester
Tried to message you 😕

ok, you have been nice to me of late, ill let down the drawbridge 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have not restored the Divine name of God. You present only a distorted version of the name that was plagiarized from the King James translators of the Holy Bible.

Jesus came in the name of the heavenly Father and even had His name. Yahshua - YAH saves. The true pronunciation of God's name is seen in the "praise to the Lord" - Hallelu YAH. YAHWEH i ...[text shortened]... nes to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
(John 8:59 NASB)

"The true pronunciation of God's name is seen in the "praise to the Lord" - Hallelu YAH."

Is that how you pronounce "God"? If not, then why do you call Him God and the Lord? Why don't you say "The true pronunciation of Yah's name is seen in the "praise to Yah" - Hallelu YAH."??

Originally posted by JS357
"The true pronunciation of God's name is seen in the "praise to the Lord" - Hallelu YAH."

Is that how you pronounce "God"? If not, then why do you call Him God and the Lord? Why don't you say "The true pronunciation of Yah's name is seen in the "praise to Yah" - Hallelu YAH."??

I do not take the Lord's name in vain.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."
(Exodus 20:7)

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not take the Lord's name in vain.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain."
(Exodus 20:7)

So I take it the rule is, don't say "Yah" except to God, and only say it to God in prayer. Is that right? Fine by me. Who am I to object?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
forbidden, where were they forbidden to write or utter it????

(John 17:25, 26) . . .Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you;
but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth.
[b]And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order
that the love with which you loved ...[text shortened]... ry
time.

we have a reference for all but one of the times we have restored the divine name.[/b]

You might be interested in this page.

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

Originally posted by Suzianne
You might be interested in this page.

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

what about it, there is nothing there i have not read a thousand times before.