7 Characteristics of false Teachers

[makesends]

I'm sorry but I personally dont think you would know which versions are corrupt or not, because your brain has been poluted for so long from the JW doctrines.

This same go-round has been gone round on other sites, too. The idea of some particular English transliteration (at best) being THE name of God, as opposed to others that mean the same thing to those who love God, smacks of superstition, at the very best. At worst, it smacks of ungodly pursuits of False Doctrinal Teachings—attempted demonic rejection of the Word of God as what it is. To me, it is amazing that the Word cannot be undone —it can be found even in the most corrupted liberal paraphrases— but @donadams wants them all thrown out and for some reason, his "translation" alone being acceptable, for some kind of superstitious notion.

The same kind of reasoning goes to the idea against which scripture teaches so consistently: Grace means we cannot merit salvation. But Christians keep trying to think life is all about measuring up. They think that if Grace is taught as Scripture presents it, then works are despised —thus the teachings of Grace must be minimized. Don wants us to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as if JW alone knows what is clean.

 

[Viking123]

You are repeating yourself without addressing my criticism. Here, too, you are treating these passages as if they are "referring to ‘name’ [in] the sense of a given name (e.g., Isaac). I think calling on the ‘name’ of the Lord is a reference to the meaning of that name and/or his reputation, that is, his faithfulness as messiah."

Please address the specific criticism.

LORD in OT is NOT Jesus-LORD does not belong there, God put-YHVH in Hebrew=Jehovah in our language.

 

[Viking123]

This same go-round has been gone round on other sites, too. The idea of some particular English transliteration (at best) being THE name of God, as opposed to others that mean the same thing to those who love God, smacks of superstition, at the very best. At worst, it smacks of ungodly pursuits of False Doctrinal Teachings—attempted demonic rejection of the Word of God as what it is. To me, it is amazing that the Word cannot be undone —it can be found even in the most corrupted liberal paraphrases— but @donadams wants them all thrown out and for some reason, his "translation" alone being acceptable, for some kind of superstitious notion.

The same kind of reasoning goes to the idea against which scripture teaches so consistently: Grace means we cannot merit salvation. But Christians keep trying to think life is all about measuring up. They think that if Grace is taught as Scripture presents it, then works are despised —thus the teachings of Grace must be minimized. Don wants us to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as if JW alone knows what is clean.

Catholicism named easter after the false god in the Chaldean rites of spring festival=Astarte( 2nd t silent) Ishtar( pronounced eastar) on the Assyrian monuments. = straight off the table off demons( 1Cor 10:21-22) thus God says if one partakes off that table no matter what they think they do it counts as 0 for them. They are not allowed to partake off his table then. Billions have been mislead into partaking off both.
The only ones getting grace are those who live now in this satan ruled system doing Jesus' Fathers will over self( Matt 7:21)= FEW Jesus taught.-Jesus summed up that will in one teaching=Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY utterance from God---thus the teachers on earth who have Jesus leading them, without fail teach Every utterance( OT-NT) from God to the flock, it never stops. My teachers accomplish it.
Its not to hard to look at this very moment and see if ones teachers actually listen to Jesus and obey him.

 

[makesends]

Catholicism named easter after the false god in the Chaldean rites of spring festival=Astarte( 2nd t silent) Ishtar( pronounced eastar) on the Assyrian monuments. = straight off the table off demons( 1Cor 10:21-22) thus God says if one partakes off that table no matter what they think they do it counts as 0 for them. They are not allowed to partake off his table then. Billions have been mislead into partaking off both.
The only ones getting grace are those who live now in this satan ruled system doing Jesus' Fathers will over self( Matt 7:21)= FEW Jesus taught.-Jesus summed up that will in one teaching=Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY utterance from God---thus the teachers on earth who have Jesus leading them, without fail teach Every utterance( OT-NT) from God to the flock, it never stops. My teachers accomplish it.
Its not to hard to look at this very moment and see if ones teachers actually listen to Jesus and obey him.

And thus, by your own mouth, Grace is earned. That isn't grace.

I celebrate Easter, I celebrate Christmas with a pagan tree and even enjoy jokes about Santa Clause. These things are not important. You may as well join the adventists and go to church on Saturday, and, while you're at it, be circumcised on the 8th day.

Wouldn't it be nice to know that you are one of those in Heaven?

I'm not saying the worthiness of God's name is not important. I'm saying that your notions of just how it is to be done are not a hook upon which to hang the validity of a translation, nor upon which to base the rejection of any particular translation.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Viking123,

God put-YHVH in Hebrew=Jehovah in our language.

I consider that "Yahweh" is closer to the original Hebrew. "Jehovah" although popular among the JWs is a corrupt rendition - refer the following JW literature that clearly states this.

I was interested in reading the article “Jehovah” pages 882-895 in the JW Book Aid to Bible Understanding. The following are a few excerpts that I found to be relevant to the subject of this thread and to some of the things that have been discussed.

Page 882: “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, but “Yahweh” is preferred by most scholars.

Page 884: The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ‘Adho-nay’ (Lord) or ‘Elo-him’ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E. the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ‘Adho-nay’ or ‘Elo-him’ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name.

Pages 884-885: The pronunciations “Jehovah” and “Yahweh”: By combining the vowel signs of ‘Adho-nay’ and ‘Elo-him’ with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations ‘Yeho-wah’ and ‘Yeho-wih’ were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinised form “Jehova(h)”. The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugco Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favour “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation.

Page 888: Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” … Moses’ question was a meaningful one. God’s reply in Hebrew was “’Eh-yeh’ asher eh-yeh’.” While some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM,” the Hebrew verb (ha-yah’) from which the word ‘eh-yeh’ is drawn does not mean simply to exist. Rather, it means to come into existence, to happen, occur, become, take on (an attribute), enter upon (a state), or constitute. Thus, the footnote of the Revised Standard Version gives as one reading “I Will Be What I Will Be”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Catholicism named Easter after the false god in the Chaldean rites of spring festival, Astarte (Ishtar), on the Assyrian monuments—straight off the table of demons (1 Cor 10:21-22). Thus, God says if one partakes of that table, no matter what they think they do, it counts as nothing for them. They are not allowed to partake of his table then.

(1) There is no linguistic connection between Easter and Ishtar.

(2) In most European languages, Easter is derived from the Greek "pascha," which comes from the Hebrew "pesach" (Passover).

(3) The alleged link between Easter and pagan goddess worship lacks historical foundation.

The following excerpt is taken from an article by Tom Nash, "Easter Is Not a Secretly Pagan Holiday," Catholic Answers (Catholic.com), April 11, 2024. All emphases mine.

Some people have inferred that "Easter" is the English derivation of the Greek "Astarte," but there is no linguistic or historical basis for this. In addition, the English word "Easter" is said to have derived from an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess named "Eostre." This theory was based on an incorrect conclusion by St. Bede the Venerable about the etymological origins of the English month that coincides with spring and the celebration of Easter, "Eosturmonath." But, as Anthony McRoy, a fellow of the British Society for Middle East Studies, notes, there is no historical basis for this derivation. He notes that St. Bede himself said his conclusion was based on his interpretation rather than a generally held position or proven fact.

... Indeed, in most European countries, the name for Easter derives from the Greek word "pascha," which itself is derived from the Hebrew "pesach"—i.e., the word Passover. Thus, the term paschal sacrifice refers to Jesus’ one sacrifice, and paschal candle is another name for the Easter candle.

So where did the English get their word for the celebration of Christ’s resurrection? McRoy notes there are two main theories, both of which are plausible:

One theory for the origin of the name is that the Latin phrase in albis ("in white"), which Christians used in reference to Easter week, found its way into Old High German as eostarum, or "dawn." The other is that Eosturmonath simply meant "the month of opening," which is comparable to the meaning of "April" in Latin. The names of both the Saxon and Latin months (which are calendrically similar) were related to spring, the season when the buds open.
​

 

[Carbon]

Its 100% fact of life Gods name was removed against his will corrupting those translations. Its not to hard to understand.

Oh yes, so many things against his will. And your poor god cant do anything about it. The poor thing.

 

[Carbon]

You did not answer the question.

Yes or no will do.

JW's are not very good at answering questions. It could lead to some serious bible questions, and that can be an issue for them.

 

[Carbon]

Its 100% fact of life Gods name was removed against his will corrupting those translations. Its not to hard to understand.

It is not that difficult to understand that your god cannot do anything when people do things against his will.

 

[Carbon]

And thus, by your own mouth, Grace is earned. That isn't grace.

We know that.

But ask him what grace is to a JW. If he will define it for you.

He is probably afraid to.

Actually, he is not even supposed to be talking to people like us. It's forbidden to talk with us or read any of our literature.

 

[Carbon]

Catholicism named easter after the false god in the Chaldean rites of spring festival

It's amazing you can point out so many anti-biblical Roman Catholic beliefs, but ignore your own cult's ant-biblical practices and beliefs.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

JWs are not very good at answering questions. It could lead to some serious bible questions, and that can be an issue for them.

They are actually not allowed to engage these controversial doctrinal disputes. If controversial doctrinal discussions come up, they are instructed to escalate the issue to their leadership, particularly the elders or the Governing Body.

I found this out when I used to have JWs knock at my door. The doctrine of the Trinity came up and they were stumped by what I was showing them. They said this is all very interesting and they would need to come back later after thinking about it. I saw the one guy three days later but this time he was accompanied by an older gentleman who did all the grilling. They were stumped again, and I never had another knock on my door for the remaining years I lived there. Someone who was a former JW told me why this older gentleman was there (which my opening remark conveyed), and suggested that my address was probably blacklisted after that.
​

 

[Carbon]

They are actually not allowed to engage these controversial doctrinal disputes. If controversial doctrinal discussions come up, they are instructed to escalate the issue to their leadership, particularly the elders or the Governing Body.

​

I found this out when I used to have JWs knock at my door. The doctrine of the Trinity came up and they were stumped by what I was showing them. They said this is all very interesting and they would need to come back later after thinking about it. I saw the one guy three days later but this time he was accompanied by an older gentleman who did all the grilling. They were stumped again, and I never had another knock on my door for the remaining years I lived there. Someone who was a former JW told me why this older gentleman was there (which my opening remark conveyed), and suggested that my address was probably blacklisted after that.​

​

Yes, I know that. I worked with a friend who was a JW, oddly enough we did discuss theology even though he informed me he was told that he could not with those outside his religion.
I even had a friend who was a oneness Pentecostal, oddly enough, he was told the same thing. he would always say, after discussing a doctrine, "Well, I'm going to have to ask my pastor to be sure."

 

[Josheb]

I don't the KV version.

If the KJV is not an altered translation, then how can centuries of its use be criticized?


I read the mention of the NWT. Are you JW? If not, are you aware the NWT is the JW translation? Are you also aware that the NWT has its own flaws and, therefore, is an altered translation?

1. Are you aware the New World Translation was translated by the Jehovah's Witness' Watchtower Bible Tract Society?
2. Are you aware the New World Translation contains flaws in its translation?
3. Are you aware, having these errors, the New World Translation qualifies as what you earlier called an "altered translation"?

Please answer the questions asked. Remember this thread is about the characteristics of false teachers and not a criticism, nor a defense of JWism in particular.

 

[Josheb]

All know i am a JW.

That is immaterial.

The forum's rules explicitly state...

"Please also summarize your beliefs, especially any religious, denominational, or sectarian orientation, and any theological positions in your Profile page. The objective is to provide members with potentially relevant information without having to digress in the threads with inquiries. This requirement is retroactive for all existing members. It is also recommended that members volunteer a label for underneath their avatar, especially for those holding views outside historical orthodoxy. Examples of the former might be "Reformed" or "Presbyterian." Examples of the latter are, "Jehovah's Witness," or "Latter Day Saint." The profile summaries are required."​

Everyone here knows what I am, too, and those who don't learn very quickly (and unabashedly so). That does not prevent me from abiding by the rule requiring me to self-identify my orientation. You are simply being asked to do the same.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

God corrected error filled translations that removed his name against his will. Its those using the altered translations that condemned the Nwt. They made teachings easier to understand as well. The KJV with thee, thou and the such doesn't fit today.

What is your proof?

 

[ElectedbyHim]

JW's are not very good at answering questions. It could lead to some serious bible questions, and that can be an issue for them.

Indeed.

 

[Viking123]

And thus, by your own mouth, Grace is earned. That isn't grace.

I celebrate Easter, I celebrate Christmas with a pagan tree and even enjoy jokes about Santa Clause. These things are not important. You may as well join the adventists and go to church on Saturday, and, while you're at it, be circumcised on the 8th day.

Wouldn't it be nice to know that you are one of those in Heaven?

I'm not saying the worthiness of God's name is not important. I'm saying that your notions of just how it is to be done are not a hook upon which to hang the validity of a translation, nor upon which to base the rejection of any particular translation.

You best believe Jesus-Matt 7:21

 

[Viking123]

Greetings Viking123,

I consider that "Yahweh" is closer to the original Hebrew. "Jehovah" although popular among the JWs is a corrupt rendition - refer the following JW literature that clearly states this.

I was interested in reading the article “Jehovah” pages 882-895 in the JW Book Aid to Bible Understanding. The following are a few excerpts that I found to be relevant to the subject of this thread and to some of the things that have been discussed.

Page 882: “Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, but “Yahweh” is preferred by most scholars.

Page 884: The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ‘Adho-nay’ (Lord) or ‘Elo-him’ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E. the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ‘Adho-nay’ or ‘Elo-him’ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name.

Pages 884-885: The pronunciations “Jehovah” and “Yahweh”: By combining the vowel signs of ‘Adho-nay’ and ‘Elo-him’ with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations ‘Yeho-wah’ and ‘Yeho-wih’ were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinised form “Jehova(h)”. The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugco Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favour “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation.

Page 888: Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” … Moses’ question was a meaningful one. God’s reply in Hebrew was “’Eh-yeh’ asher eh-yeh’.” While some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM,” the Hebrew verb (ha-yah’) from which the word ‘eh-yeh’ is drawn does not mean simply to exist. Rather, it means to come into existence, to happen, occur, become, take on (an attribute), enter upon (a state), or constitute. Thus, the footnote of the Revised Standard Version gives as one reading “I Will Be What I Will Be”.

Kind regards
Trevor

We know 100% Jehovah IS his name.

 

[Viking123]

(1) There is no linguistic connection between Easter and Ishtar.

(2) In most European languages, Easter is derived from the Greek "pascha," which comes from the Hebrew "pesach" (Passover).

(3) The alleged link between Easter and pagan goddess worship lacks historical foundation.

The following excerpt is taken from an article by Tom Nash, "Easter Is Not a Secretly Pagan Holiday," Catholic Answers (Catholic.com), April 11, 2024. All emphases mine.

​

Some people have inferred that "Easter" is the English derivation of the Greek "Astarte," but there is no linguistic or historical basis for this. In addition, the English word "Easter" is said to have derived from an Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess named "Eostre." This theory was based on an incorrect conclusion by St. Bede the Venerable about the etymological origins of the English month that coincides with spring and the celebration of Easter, "Eosturmonath." But, as Anthony McRoy, a fellow of the British Society for Middle East Studies, notes, there is no historical basis for this derivation. He notes that St. Bede himself said his conclusion was based on his interpretation rather than a generally held position or proven fact.​

​

... Indeed, in most European countries, the name for Easter derives from the Greek word "pascha," which itself is derived from the Hebrew "pesach"—i.e., the word Passover. Thus, the term paschal sacrifice refers to Jesus’ one sacrifice, and paschal candle is another name for the Easter candle.​

​

So where did the English get their word for the celebration of Christ’s resurrection? McRoy notes there are two main theories, both of which are plausible:​

​

One theory for the origin of the name is that the Latin phrase in albis ("in white"), which Christians used in reference to Easter week, found its way into Old High German as eostarum, or "dawn." The other is that Eosturmonath simply meant "the month of opening," which is comparable to the meaning of "April" in Latin. The names of both the Saxon and Latin months (which are calendrically similar) were related to spring, the season when the buds open.​

​

Men twist many things, they cannot change reality.